The Portland daily press., 1894-01-01
schumann. Wagner and List.

1t will be remembered that in the year
1879 an article appeared in the "Bay-
reuther Blatter' entitled Concerning
Schumann's Music" signed Joseph
Rubinstein, but (this is an open secret)
unquestionably inspired, and probably
more than inspired, by no less man
than Richard Wagner The style, the
tone, as we'll as the inconsiderate acerbi-
ty with which the writer hurled forh
his taunts, the public recognized as
truly Wagnerian, and promptly designat-
ed the Bayreuth master as the one who
must bear the responsibility of it's au.
thorship, in spite of the fact that he
had attempted to disguise himself by
simpler con structions than those which
we recognize in his public writings.
I. In this incredible production
Schumann's art is by all possible and
impossible means reduced ad absurdum.
Not shred of honor is left to it. The
very greatest qualities of the MASTER
his glowing fancy and This lofty lyrical
fights-ar are dragged down into the dirt,
and described as the most monstous con-
ventionality. His orchestral music, his
piano compositions, his songs-ail are
treated with the same contempt. One
does not know which ought to be the
greater object of establishment, the man
who did put his name to this pamphlet,
or the man who did not. The former is
sad to have been one of .Wagner's piano
lackeys, who was contempt BILE enough
to allow himself to be used as screen.
There is nothing more to be said of him
except that he will not even attain the
fame of Herostratos.
But upon Wagners relation to Schu-
mann this article throws SO interesting
a light that it cannot well be overlooked.
AS a matter of course Wagner as a man
issshere left out of consideration. And
from out of the depth of my admiration
for Wagner the artist, can only affirm
6hat.he was as one sided as he was great.
As regards Schumann the very opposite
is true. He was anything but one-sided
He is, in most respects, a remarkable
counterpart to.Liszt. The rare faculty
OF both these masters of recognizing
anything great and new that was stirr-
ing about them forms contrast, as
beneficent as it is evident, to the unin-
teiligent Llliberal view of the greatest
contemporary talents which is so promi-
nent trait of Wagner, and lin his atti-
tude toward Schumann) also of Mendels-
sohn.
List, wbose:judgmentson the subject
Of everything relating to the piano
Wagner ON. the other occasions respected,
expressed. as is well known, a very diff
erent opinionsof Schumann's piano COM
positions, of which he always spoke with
the warmest admiration, and in the ap-
probation of which he was an -enthusi-
astic and powerful pioneer. Liszt advo-
Gated Schumann's claims at a.tine when
no one else ventured to do it, Wagner,
on the contrary tried to make an end
of him long after his death, when his
reputation was as firmly established as
that of Wanger himself. This matter con-
cerned Wagner. only. as an individual. I
should not-underta to discuss it in am
article on Schuimann. But it concerns.
in my optimism, in an equal degree Wag-
ner the artist. 1t is not possible that
Wagner theindiyidual would not recog-
nize Schumann's greatness; but is.it al
solutely certain that Wagner.the artist
could not recognize it. However, his
effort to dethrone Schumann was happi-
~ total fuiIhre, for the simple reason
that it was not feasible. Schumann
stands where he stood, impregna ble-as
does Wagner From an article on Schu-
mann, by Edward Grieg, in the January
Century.