Genoveva
Robert Schumann’s
Blueprint for a New
Germany
Utrecht University
Research Master Musicology
Eric Boor
August, 2016
Student number F130462
Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Emile Wennekes
Second Reader
Dr. Kasper van Kooten
1
“Die Gesetze der Moral sind auch die der Kunst.”1
1
Cited in the “Musikalischen Haus- und Lebensrege” in Robert Schumann, Gesammelte Schriften über Musik
und Musiker, Band 4 (Leipzig: Georg Wigand’s Verlag, 1854), 303.
2
Contents
Chapter 1
Introduction
4
Chapter 2
The Social and Political Debate in the German States
10
Chapter 3
Schumann’s Libretto
Synopsis
14
Siegfried
16
Genoveva
23
The People: An Ignorant Mass or a Group of Individuals?
25
Two Outsiders
28
Golo: A Dramatic Role?
29
Three Endings
31
Chapter 4
General Notions on German Opera in the First Half
of the Nineteenth Century
37
Chapter 5
A Musical Analysis
Analytical Strategies
43
The Evil
44
Violence and Threat
59
The Good
61
The Social Order
70
Chapter 6
Conclusion
75
Bibliography
83
3
Chapter 1
Introduction
One of the most cited quotes about Robert Schumann’s opera Genoveva is from Schumann’s
student, Louis Ehlert: “Herrliche Einzelheiten (…) ein überschwellendes Orchester, eigentlich
eine unter der Hand fortgesetzte Ouvertüre, die grösste Noblesse des Willens und Auswahl
der Mittel, alles was man will, nur keine Oper.” Ehlert’s comment quite accurately
summarizes most reviews on Schumann’s opera. The beauty of some of the music is not
denied, but the opera lacks drama, both in the music and in the libretto, according to most
critics.
Relevant as it is to examine the aesthetic weaknesses or strong points of an opera, my
study proposes another approach. In an era in which the German states were in turmoil, an era
in which the direction society should go was widely discussed by a growing part of the
population, opera did play a part in this discussion. I will argue, that also Schumann’s opera
was aimed to participate in this debate. As Gerard Mortier, the innovative Belgian intendant,
phrased in a text about the relevance of opera: “Theatre is a moral institute that both warns
and formulates new visions.”2 In Genoveva, as I will show, Schumann’s vision on the future
society of a new Germany is formulated.
A survey of the reviews, both from the nineteenth-century and from the twentieth and
twenty-first centuries, will show that the critics of Schumann’s opera to a large extent came to
a unanimous judgment. The music critic Ernst Kossack sharply criticized Genoveva in an
article published in 1851 – one year after the first performance – the “platte
Weltschmerzelei,” and “Hebbel’scher Charakterquälerei,” and described the personage
Margaretha as an “Conglomerat von theatralischen Nichtigkeiten.”3 Another music critic,
Ludwig Bischoff, in the same year, opinioned with a stinging criticism that the shortcomings
of the libretto were so obvious, that they even did not need to be criticized anymore.4
Reviewed from a greater distance in time, Eduard Hanslick in 1871 wrote that Schumann’s
music was simply not potent enough to touch the heart: “Man hört diesen Mangel meistens
durch den Ausspruch erklären, die Musik zur Genovefa [sic] sei zu lyrisch. Mehr lyrisch als
2
Gerard Mortier, Dramaturgie van een passie (Antwerpen: De Bezige Bij, 2014), 7.
Cited in Hansjörg Ewert, Die Oper Genoveva von Robert Schumann (Tutzing: Verlag Hans Schneider, 2003), 96.
4
Ibid., 97.
3
4
dramatisch ist sie jedenfalls, aber für meine Empfindung nicht einmal lyrisch genug, d.h.
nicht hinreichend volles und starkes Aussprechen des subjectiven Gefühls.”5 Although the
opera occasionally was performed in Germany in the 19th century – with a short-lived revival
in the 1870s and 1880s – the opera overall did not come up to the high expectations.
Schumann’s first opera had aroused high hopes, since Schumann was a well-established
composer by then, but never has kept the stage.6
Even though some positive reviews were published in the nineteenth century, the general
tone remained critical, stressing the weaknesses of Genoveva, and this tone has persisted to
the present day. Although much attention nowadays has been paid to find an explanation for
this unfavourable reception, critics of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries basically have
chosen the same view to examine Genoveva as their nineteenth- century colleagues. The main
focus is on the aesthetic value of this work.
Peter Jost, in an article comparing Wagner’s Lohengrin with Genoveva, also misses
drama. Schumann’s personages, Jost states, lack contour to become successfully alive on the
stage. Jost, among other things, finds it a shortcoming that the reason for the hate of
Margaretha (the witch, and representative of the evil powers) for Siegfried remains vague, and
that the background of the relationship between count Siegfried and his wife Genoveva is not
revealed.7 Eric Frederick Jensen blames this lack of liveliness on the fact that Schumann
drew upon both Tieck’s and Hebbel’s versions of the Genoveva story. Jensen writes,
As a result, many of the characters in Schumann’s text lack the vibrancy and spirit found in
Hebbel. Siegfried awakens little understanding or sympathy; his actions seem hasty and confused.
Golo no longer is the central figure intended by Hebbel. Rather, as in Tieck, it is Genoveva, and
Schumann seemed determined to represent her nobility and virtue at the expense of whatever human
frailty she may have possessed. She appears strong and determined, but stiff and one-dimensional.8
Also John Warrack notices above all a lack of drama,
“ Schumann cannot manage to develop a full portrait of Golo.” And: “Schumann (…) makes little
of (…) Golo’s gnawing despair.” Moreover: “ Genoveva is scarcely any more vivid a character than
Euryanthe, comparable situations – such as the evil pair swearing a sinister supernatural pact, or the
5
Ibid., 23.
See for this short-lived revival also Ewert, Die Oper Genoveva, 102.
7
Peter Jost, “Schumanns und Wagners Opernkonzeptionen: Genoveva versus Lohengrin, in Musik-Konzepte
Sonderband: Der späte Schumann, ed. Ulrich Tadday (München, Richard Boorberg Verlag, 2006), 136-138.
8
Eric Frederick Jensen, Schumann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 246.
6
5
abandoned heroine wandering in the desert – can only draw attention to Schumann’s lack of dramatic
invention.9
Also, when it comes to music, first and foremost a lack of theatre is noticed. Warrack
draws a comparison with another composer who was a master in instrumental works, but
failed, according to Warrack, in operatic music: Franz Schubert,
Schumann is perhaps trying too hard to build upon a distinguished, if flawed, model [Weber’s
Euryanthe] to fashion a large-scale, four-act grand opera whose sprawl he cannot control. His finales
lack momentum, and, as with Schubert, too often the developments of a musical idea are given
primacy over dramatic considerations. 10
Furthermore, Schumann’s use of motives is rejected by Warrack as being unclear and
incoherent,
First proposed in the third bar of the overture, the only important motive possesses a distinctive
physiognomy, and seems to be associated chiefly with Golo, but returns in such a bewildering variety
of situations as to rob it of any central meaning.11
Martin Geck considers the music of Genoveva not in the first place as an expression of
the text, but rather as an autonomous agency, “ (…) anders als für den geborenen
Bühnencomponisten Wagner ist für Schumann Musik nicht das Weib, welches dem
musikalischen Drama ins Leben hilft; sie ist und bleibt eine Macht sui generis – autonom und
niemand dienstbar.”12
All these reviews, though, pass over the fact that opera is not only an aesthetic art form,
but also a social phenomenon. Barbara Eichner has convincingly shown how German operas
in the nineteenth century played a part in the forming of a national, German identity. Whether
to construct one unified Germany, or to preserve the actual situation of several independent
9
John Warrack, German Opera: From the Beginnings to Wagner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001), 370.
10
Ibid., 371.
11
Ibid., 371.
12
Martin Geck, Robert Schumann: Mensch und Musiker der Romantik (München: Siedler Verlag, 2010), 230.
6
states, was one of the main issues in politics after the Napoleonic occupation.13 The Wars of
Liberation had freed the German states from the French occupation, and the main aim of the
Congress of Vienna (1815) had been to restore the power of the old monarchies. The public
demand for reforms in the German states was voiced in a nationalist movement that desired a
different political order, and hoped to realize this in a new state, a united Germany. Eichner
describes how German operas in their choice of topics reinforced the idea of national identity,
(…) composers relied on historical topics to make a (more or less obvious) statement about what
being German meant, and that they openly advertised these histories in titles, texts of programmes, and
that they invited their audiences to identify with the national images and narratives their music brought
to life.14
Or, in other words: “The birth of a nation from the spirit of the past.”15 History had
become highly popular in the nineteenth century, being much more than just an academic
subject. Eichner writes how, “(…) history was not simply an ersatz religion for the
secularized intellectual but fully participated in the search for a higher truth.”16 The choice for
a historical subject, with which Schumann was one among many as Eichner shows, thus, also
offered more opportunities than national identity alone. Historical subjects could help to
create a sense of community, but also evoke religious or political ideas and emotions. Eichner
points out that historical myths are “emphatically not a thing of the past, but that they connect
the origins and early history of a nation with its hopes for the future, thus justifying political
actions and attitudes in the present.”17
Although Schumann too evokes this spirit from the past by choosing a well-known
German legend as subject, Genoveva seems to be one step ahead in this project towards a new
German state. More than only strengthening a common feeling of Germannness, Schumann
directly intervenes in the discussion how this German state should be organized. The way the
leader Siegfried rules his people is strongly criticized, and his behaviour eventually creates a
destructive situation – a situation that has to be changed, but, apparently, the leader alone is
not able to turn it around. Other forces, thus, have to intervene to make it turn out right.
However, although the opera clearly states that a political change has to be realized, a fear of
13
Barbara Eichner, History in Mighty Sounds: Musical Constructions of German National Identity (Suffolk:
Boydell Press, 2012).
14
Ibid., 5.
15
Ibid., 6.
16
Ibid., 17.
17
Ibid., 16.
7
the way this change will be accomplished is also expressed. Schumann articulates fear for
uncontrolled, destructive forces in society; forces that are a menace to peace and to any
constructive solution. Genoveva is a work about failing leadership, and immorality, but also
about unifying forces that are able to improve the current leadership. The historical topic
served not only as a common past, but functioned as a mirror of the (then) present day. In so
doing, Schumann not just realized a work that might have been aimed to play a part in the
forming of a national identity, but conceived a strongly political piece with a very topical
subject in view of the year of conception, 1848.
To approach this opera in its social significance will change the musical view on
Genoveva as well, and this will be the second research topic of this study. The premise of all
reviews has been, that Genoveva must be regarded as a personal drama – and consequently
the drama is missed. A focus on the moral and social issues that are discussed in this opera
will structure the music differently. Instead of analyzing the musical language of the
personages, an analysis based on the opera’s social and moral themes will prove to be more
seminal. By structuring Genoveva thus, other entities will be shaped. Instead of entities
consisting of personages – an approach chosen by the above mentioned critics that often
resulted in incomprehension of Schumann’s musical language – social and moral units will be
formed. Then, for the first time, Schumann’s operatic language can be analyzed in a way that
does justice to the text. A thorough analysis of each unit will reveal Schumann’s operatic
language in more detail.
To regard Schumann as a social critic, so strongly concerned about social and political
developments might be somewhat surprising. After all, Schumann has never been very
explicit about his political views. In many ways Richard Wagner has stood in the way to give
a true picture about Schumann’s political involvement, and about Genoveva. Not only did
Wagner’s operatic oeuvre totally overshadow the one and only opera by Schumann, but
Wagner’s political outspokenness also stood in sharp contrast with Schumann’s quiteness
about political matters. What did not help, of course, was the fact that Wagner stood on the
barricades in Dresden in 1849, supporting the revolutionary forces. Schumann, by contrast,
fled the city with Clara and their eldest daughter Marie, after that revolutionary forces had
been looking for him, trying to recruit every man for the battle in the streets against the
monarchist troops.18 Not much, though, does this anecdote tell about Schumann’s political
interests and standpoints. Too often the anecdote is used to prove his disinterest in political
18
Jensen, Schumann, 232
8
matters, or his indifference to change the current political relations. Jonathan Sperber’s
division in advocates and opponents of a new order, or as he has called it “the party of
movement versus the party of order” will make clear that the political landscape was much
more diverse than that.19
In chapter 2 a brief survey of German history of the first half of the nineteenth century till
the revolutions of 1848/1849 will be given. Sperber’s concept of “party of movement versus
party of order”, as described above, will help to sketch the political debate in the German
states, but will also show that the German debate was not an isolated one, but can be regarded
from a European perspective of discontent with contemporary leadership. The different views
on the question of leadership, and the possible answers that were given, will demonstrate that
the themes broached in Genoveva were closely related to the then political and social debate.
In chapter 3 Schumann’s libretto will be discussed. A comparison between the libretto, and
the two plays it was based on, Ludwig Tieck’s Leben und Tod Der heiligen Genoveva (1800),
and Friedrich Hebbel’s Genoveva (1843), will give an insight into the message he wanted to
communicate. It will demonstrate the deliberate choices Schumann has made, and what these
choices signified for the drama that was told. In chapter 4 the opera is put in the context of the
search for a new German opera. Three contemporary treatises, two of them studied by
Schumann, will address which were considered the general conditions for a new German
opera style. Chapter 5 is devoted to the musical analysis and will be the largest chapter, as it is
my strong conviction that opera first and foremost is “composed”, and not “written”. Starting
from the text, a new methodology will be developed, based on the concept of Charakter as
conceived by Ignaz Franz von Mosel. A methodology developed for this specific opera will
do justice to the experimental times of German opera in the first half of the nineteenth
century. But above all, it will reveal an operatic language that did not follow the well-trodden
paths, and for this reason is often misunderstood.
19
Jonathan Sperber, The European Revolutions, 1848-1851 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984),
101.
9
Chapter 2
The Social and Political Debate in the German States
In this chapter a rough sketch of the social and political developments in the German states in
Schumann’s lifetime will be given. If Genoveva is a mirror of, or a comment on these
developments – as I think it does – an outline of the events and questions in Schumann’s time
will help to understand how this opera can be regarded as a reflection on these developments.
Schumann’s famous exclamation in a letter to Carl Kossmaly, “Wissen Sie mein Morgen –
und abendliches Künstlergebet? Deutsche Oper heisst es,” is no statement on aesthetic
grounds only.20 Although German composers indeed were searching for a specific German
opera style, and in so doing reacted against the French and Italian dominating styles, the
relation with especially France was a major political matter as well.
The attitude towards France was ambiguous. The country where the French Revolution
took place was for many, at least in the beginning, a beacon of hope for a more democratic
future. These democratic ideas, of course, were not shared by everyone, but the French
Revolution did shape a political landscape still relevant in the mid-nineteenth century. As
Sperber writes,
The single most important, if not the only factor shaping political doctrine in mid-nineteenthcentury Europe was the heritage of the French Revolution of 1789. The revolution had created the now
familiar idea of a political spectrum, which is the placing of political positions on a left to right scale.
Moreover, the special political doctrines of the 1840s were based on questions posed by the
revolution: sometimes the answers proposed were themselves based on the ones first offered in the
decade after 1789; sometimes, they arose from a desire to go beyond the solutions tried then.21
The left to right scale that Sperber mentions was shaped above all by the leadership
question. One of the main issues in the public debate was whether the absolute monarchies
should maintain their power, or should give way to more democratic constructions. The lack
of democracy was felt by large parts of the population. At the Congress of Vienna (1815),
after the defeat of Napoleon, France had been put in its place, and new national borders were
20
21
Cited in Geck, Robert Schumann, 226.
Sperber, The European Revolutions, 64.
10
drawn. Most defining of this period with regard to the polity was the fact that the old
monarchies came back to power. Hence, this period, called the “Restoration”, seemed to
fulfill its name as a period that looked back. This did not mean though, as Brendan Simms has
shown, that there was a complete going back to former times. Many of the reforms of the
Napoleonic time in the southern and western states could not be reversed, even if the
monarchs wanted to.22 What defines the political situation best is that the monarchs indeed
regained their power, but that absolute monarchism from that time on would be a disputed
kind of state organization.
Sperber uses a helpful concept to depict this public debate in the first half of the
nineteenth century: “the party of order versus the party of movement.”23 However, these
opposite ideas were not strictly confined by the seemingly clear positions of these two
“parties”. In fact, in the “party of order” changes were realized, and in the “party of
movement” fear for change existed as well, and aspects of the old order were by some
regarded as indispensable. These ambiguous points of view also emerge from Schumann’s
opera.
The party of order, the conservative movement, consisted of the monarchs, the nobility
and their servants, and the clergy and their lay fellow believers. These were the groups that
had suffered from the French Revolution. Although not in every aspect unanimous – struggles
for power between the clergy and nobility occurred regularly – opposition against
revolutionary forces was what united them.
For the conservatives the French Revolution brought forward the evidence that more
freedom would end in chaos and terror.24 What was needed to prevent this was order and
stability, and only a strong authority could warrant this. The monarch, of course, was the
legitimate authority by birth and succession, and his power was confirmed by the Church
through a concordat of “throne and altar”. The equality of men, one of the cornerstones of the
French Revolution, was rejected. Society, instead, had to be unequally and hierarchically
constructed. Paternalism was considered an important feature: a monarch should care for his
people as a father for his children. That implied a moral authority as well: a monarch by
nature acted not out of self-interest, he was interested in the well-being of his people.
22
Brendan Simms, “ Political and diplomatic movements, 1800-1830: Napoleon, national uprising, restoration,”
in Germany, 1800-1870, ed. Jonathan Sperber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 38-42.
23
Sperber, The European Revolutions, 101.
24
See for a survey of the conservative movement, Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866
(München: Verlag C.M. Beck, 1983), 313-319. Also Sperber, The European Revolutions, 71-77.
11
A dominant role for the monarch, in fact, was also foreseen by the liberals. By
contemporaries liberals more often were called constitutional monarchist, and this term makes
clear that their relation to monarchism was a different one. Thomas Nipperdey has pointedly
expressed the liberal point of view, “Regierung ist nur mit Zustimmung der Regierten
legitim.”25 The liberals, obviously, were part of the party of movement. A monarch who ruled
alone without the consent of the civilians was not acceptable for them.
However, two things must be taken in account. First, liberals still considered a monarch
the person best suited to reign. What they did not accept anymore was a polity in which their
voice was not heard. Their own civil rights, they thought, were better protected by a monarch,
than by radical republicans, as they had witnessed in France under the Jacobine regime. That
is why they opted for a constitutional monarchy, a polity in which the monarch was controlled
by representatives of the people. Second, liberals were not democrats. Liberalism was a
movement of well-educated, male property owners. The mass of illiterate people was not
considered to play a part in political life.
Liberals and conservatives held fundamentally different views on nationalism.
Conservative governments, naturally, defended the legitimacy of their states, and tried to
ensure themselves of the loyalty of the population with, among other things, education
programs.26 For liberals, on the contrary, nationalism was the way to change their situation.
Nipperdey underlines the similarities between these movements, “Nationalismus und
Liberalismus gehen in Deutschland nicht nur Hand in Hand, sondern sie sind eigentlich
identisch. (…) Liberalismus wie Nationalismus geht es um Autonomie und Selbsbestimmung,
sie wenden sich gegen den dynastisch-partikularen Obrigkeitsstaat, sie sind progressive,
“linke” Richtungen, sie sind die Bewegungspartei.”27 At the same time, though, liberals were
also anxious for social and political upheaval. As property owners unrest and turmoil were not
in their interest, so they believed, and they rather opted in favour of cooperation with the
authorities and gradual change.
For liberals and conservatives alike the mass of illiterate people was considered as the
rabble, or the mob to be feared. Also in this matter the experiences of the French Revolution
were very influential. Started as a revolution with the promise to liberate people from the
dictatorial monarchies (a promise of course not supported by the conservatives), the Germans
remembered very well how this “liberation” ended in the Terror of 1793. People were
25
Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866, 287.
Simms, “Political and diplomatic movements, 1800-1830,” 41.
27
Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866, 308.
26
12
shocked by the endless brutal killings. Performed by a violent and arbitrary rule, but
supported and partly initiated by the people in the streets. Violence continued to be present in
Germany. First in the war against Napoleon, but also after 1815 violence took place, and
partly inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution. Sperber writes how in the 1830s and
1840s radicals also in Germany still were inspired by the French Revolution, and were willing
to use violence to assume power. Sperber writes that “Mid-nineteenth-century leftists were a
warlike group, their plans for revolution including advocacy of a great European war to
destroy their counter-revolutionary opponents.28
Two aspects emerge from this short survey of the social and political situation in the first
half of the nineteenth century. First, the question of leadership was a central issue in the
debate. The upper bourgeoisie did not want the king to resign, but they did demand a share in
the polity. From a monarch moral leadership was expected for the benefit of the people, and
the best guarantee was considered to be a constitutional monarchy. Second, violence by
revolutionary forces, and the “ignorant mass” was feared by many. The Terror of the Jacobine
regime, Napoleon’s occupation, the revolutions of 1830, and an increase in uprisings in the
Vormärz (the years just before the revolutionary explosions of March 1848), explain this fear
for the masses. Both aspects will form the fundament of Schumann’s narrative as the
following chapters will demonstrate.
28
Sperber, The European Revolutions, 78. See also Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte 1800-1866, 388-392.
13
Chapter 3
Schumann’s Libretto
This is how the story goes,
ACT ONE: A large crowd is gathered to say farewell to an army led by Siegfried,
heading for a crusade against the Moors. Hidulfus, the bishop, praises the men who are
ready to fight for Christianity. Golo, Siegfried’s best and most loyal friend, is not allowed
to join the army: he is ordered to remain at home to take care of Siegfried’s wife
Genoveva. Golo is utterly disappointed for not getting the opportunity to prove his
courage on the battlefield. Siegfried leaves the castle without paying too much attention
to Golo’s frustration, or for Genoveva’s sadness about his departure. Genoveva faints
when Siegfried departs. Golo, for the first time really paying attention to Genoveva, feels
attracted to her and cannot help kissing her. This is seen by Margaretha, a witch once
hounded by Siegfried from his court. Golo is plagued by his feelings for Genoveva and
his loyalty to Siegfried. Finally, he asks for Margaretha’s help to win Genoveva’s heart.
ACT TWO: Hearing the noise of the drunken servants Genoveva feels uncomfortable.
Only Drago behaves in a decent way, but he is laughed at by the “mob”. Genoveva seeks
comfort with Golo. He has just heard the good news about the victory over the Moors.
Hoping for a rapid return now of Siegfried, Genoveva and Golo sing together on her
request. During this intimate moment Golo’s confesses his love for her. Genoveva rejects
him, and when Golo insists she calls him an “infamous bastard.” This turns his love into
hatred. Among the servants there are rumours that Genoveva has an affair. Golo, taking
his chance for avenge, talks Drago into spying on Genoveva in her bedroom. When
Drago is hidden there, Golo and the servants enter and “discover” Drago in Genoveva’s
room. Drago is immediately killed, Genoveva imprisoned in the tower.
ACT THREE: Almost recovered from his war wounds Siegfried is happy to go back home
again. Margaretha, who has nursed him, tries to persuade him to look in her magic
mirror to see how Genoveva has behaved during his absence, but Siegfried does not want
to. When Golo enters and tells him of the adultery of his wife, Siegfried without
questioning believes him and instantly commands to kill his wife. He is then willing to
look in Margaretha’s mirror. The three scenes that are shown in the magic mirror
14
“prove” that Genoveva was not faithful. Siegfried does not doubt the correctness of the
images and hurries home. Shortly after, Margaretha is hunted by Drago’s spirit who
demands that Margaretha tells the truth to Siegfried: if not, she will be burnt alive.
ACT FOUR: In a forest Margaretha is dragged along by two servants, Balthasar and
Caspar. They behave rude and disgraceful towards her and sing an obscene song.
Genoveva remains loyal to her husband and trusts in God. The Virgin Mary appears unto
her, not noticed by Balthasar and Caspar. Golo enters with Siegfried’s sword and ring
and tells her that she must die. One last time he tries to persuade her to come with him.
When she refuses he orders the two servants to kill her. Trumpets are heard and Caspar
flees. Balthasar tries to strike Genoveva down, but is stopped by Angelo. Siegfried,
knowing now the full facts, discovers Genoveva. Genoveva forgives Siegfried, and the
couple is reunited. The scene is transformed into the first scene of the opera. Hidulfus
welcomes Siegfried and Genoveva. Together they will start a new period: “Hail to
Siegfried, the bravest of heroes, Hail to Genoveva, noble wife!”
Schumann based his libretto on two plays, the first by Tieck and the other by Hebbel,
both using the Genoveva legend as the starting point of their narrative. Hebbel transformed
the legend into a psychological drama. The ménage à trois between Siegfried, Golo and
Genoveva – typically consisting of passionate love, hate, jealousy, and wrath – seemed more
than appropriate for an operatic narrative. Nevertheless, this was not the real drama that
Schumann wanted to communicate, as will be shown. Schumann used Tieck’s play to create a
libretto that would transcend the solely personal of Hebbel’s play, into a drama that would
deal with social and political issues as well. Such a libretto could play a part in the public
debate about how a new Germany had to be shaped. The widely supported idea in Germany
was, that German opera had to be a “serious” genre, and should not be merely entertaining. It
should spur people to reflect on the circumstances they lived in. In this chapter an analysis of
Schumann’s libretto, and a comparative literature study between the three texts will be given.
It will demonstrate which elements of the plays were adopted, rejected or transformed by
Schumann, and thus will reveal what Schumann really wanted to convey with his libretto.
Tieck’s play, at first sight, seems an amalgam of narratives in which more than thirty
characters perform. The first half of the play is a mixture of scenes with the common people
who live around Siegfried’s court, scenes from the battlefield and scenes with the protagonists
Siegfried, Golo and Genoveva. Not until the second half of the play a personal tragedy
between three people is exhibited. What Tieck’s play does offer, though, are scenes that take
15
place in the public sphere, and therefore go beyond the purely personal, and that, most likely,
was also Schumann’s intention with his libretto.
Siegfried
Tieck opens his play with Saint Bonifatius, who addresses himself directly to the
audience. Bonifatius announces that the audience will watch the story of Genoveva in which
brave knights fight for religion’s sake. It is immediately clear that a morality play will be
performed. Schumann opens in a similar fashion with a gathering of the people, and a bishop,
Hidulfus, who blesses and praises the knights that depart for the crusade. Thus, the public
interest of the undertaking is stressed: the war against the Moors is morally righteous, and all
should follow leaders who are willing to fight for the Christian faith.
In Tieck’s version not Siegfried but Karl Martell is the overall hero, the commander-inchief who leads the Christian armies in two victorious battles. But Tieck does not just show
his warlike side, but his inner struggles too. In a long monologue Martell expresses how hard
it is to resist the temptation of power,
Wer hat noch nie die grosse Lust empfunden,
Nach einer Krone seinen Arm zu strecken?
Die stolze Brust muss kühne Wünsch’ erwecken,
Dem Kühnen ist das Glücke stets verbunden.
Auf ferner Höh ist Furcht und Angst verschwunden,
Der Glanz des Throns muss jede Schuld verdecken,
Der Pöbel kriecht den Staub vom Fuss zu lecken,
Und Jahre lebst du dann in allen Stunden.29
The real motivation for the crusade is questioned here. Is the crusade made for religion’s
sake, or to satisfy the ambitions of the leader? And if the latter is true, is the leader then still to
be followed? Tieck’s personage Karl Martell has found a way out of this dilemma,
Der Ew’ge kann die Triebe nicht verdammen,
29
Ludwig Tieck, Leben und Tod der heiligen Genoveva: Ein Trauerspiel, in “Romantische Dichtunge,” (Jena:
Fromman, 1800). Reprinted with biography by Michael Holzinger (Berlin: Holzinger, 2014), 33. Page references
are to the 2014 edition.
16
Die unsern Geist mit neuem Mut beflügeln,
Uns auf des Gipfels höchsten Gipfel stellen.
Gelegenheit facht höher an die Flammen!
Wer wird noch da die wilden Wünsche zügeln?
Nicht Himmel fürchtend, biet ich Trutz der Höllen.
Und wieder führt die Phantasie Gebilde,
Mir vor den Blick, die ich oft zu verdrängen
Zu schwach mich fühle, denn es zwingt der wilde
Ehrsüchtge Satan ihnen nachzuhängen.
O komm auf mich du Geist des Friedens milde,
Sing in mein Ohr mit deinen sanften Klängen
Und herzlich sei im Herzen der verflucht,
Der mich zu derlei Übeltat versucht.30
Personal ambition of the leader might be necessary, and maybe even indispensable, since
it makes him fight. Ambition and lust for power might in itself be wrong, but nevertheless can
be justified because the fight is righteous. This scene is significant, because Martell’s inner
struggle addresses one of the central political issues in the first half of the nineteenth century:
the question of leadership, as explained in the previous chapter. Martell demonstrates that he
is self-critical, which offers an opportunity for change. How does Schumann portray his
leader, Siegfried? Does he show the same responsibility for his people, and reflection on his
leadership as Karl Martell?
After Hidulfus has blessed Siegfried, and the assembled crowd has secured the crusaders
of their support, Schumann focuses on Golo. Golo is utterly sad and frustrated that Siegfried
did not allow him to go on the crusade. Not getting the opportunity to be part of the glory of
the battlefield, but instead, having to watch after a woman – even if that is the wife of his
leader – Golo considers humiliating. Siegfried, as a knight, should understand Golo’s
feelings.
This scene appears in all three texts, but all three texts show a different attitude of
Siegfried concerning Golo’s feelings. In Tieck’s play, because of Siegfried’s understanding,
Golo eventually is reconciled to the fact that he cannot go. Siegfried expresses his
appreciation and respect,
30
Tieck, 33-34.
17
Siegfried
Du bleibst zu Hause und bist des Hauses Stütze,
Hofmeister über mein Gesinde, Vogt
Des Schlosses, meines teuern Weibes Hüter.
Gern hätt ich dich in mein Gefolg genommen,
Gern, lieber Knab, dich bei mir streiten sehn;
Doch weil ich keinen kenne, dessen Treue,
Des Herz mir so von Herzen ist ergeben;
So hab ich dich gewählt, zurückzubleiben;
Dem Vaterland kannst du hier wenig nutzen,
Doch mir als Freund magst du hier alles sein:
Mein Schützer, mein Berater und meine Auge.
After these kind words Golo cannot than make his peace with the situation,
Golo
Die Seele wäre in der tiefsten Hölle,
Im letzten Abgrund ewiglich verdammt,
Die taub und fühllos für die grosse Liebe,
Die Ihr seit lang zu mir getragen, bliebe.
Ja gerne füg ich mich und bleib zurück,
Ich schirme Euch das allergrösste Glück,
An Worten arm, an Taten sollt Ihr kennen
Den treuen Knecht, und mich den treusten nennen.31
Siegfried has shown empathy for the frustration of the young Golo, and won his heart
with kind words. In a similar empathic way Hebbel’s Siegfried reacts. Siegfried, as a close
observer, notices how Golo, suddenly, has changed,
Siegfried, für sich
Der ist ein Mann geworden über Nacht
Und blieb ein Kind dabei. Wie lieb ich das!
Zu jung zum Bruder, und zu alt zum Sohn,
Gilt er als Sohn und Bruder mir zugleich,
31
Tieck, 13-14.
18
Drum halt ich ihn, wie keinen andern, hoch.
Doch, eben darum lass ich ihn zurück.
Zu Golo
Golo, dem Besten nur vertraut der Mann
Sein Bestes an, und der seid Ihr. Ihr bleibt
Und nehmt mein Weib in Obacht und in Schutz.32
Siegfried is a man with attention for his subjects, and he acts with care and love.
Not much special attention there is for Golo in Schumann’s version. The compassion he
shows seems perfunctorily, only a small echo from the fatherly words in Tieck and Hebbel. In
fact, not Siegfried but Genoveva and Drago are those who notice how shaken Golo looks.
Siegfried, initially, does not even seem to understand Golo’s state of mind,
Genoveva
Wie bleich er sieht!
Drago
Wie verstört!
Siegfried
Möchtest gern wohl mit in den Krieg?33
Siegfried does call Golo his closest friend, and explains the importance of his task, but if
Genoveva tries to hearten Golo once more, Siegfried brusquely breaks off the conversation,
“Spar die Worte,” and hurries up his servants to get ready to go. Hurrying up to gain glory:
his own glory.
Also Siegfried’s love for Genoveva comes across as insincere. Schumann, of course,
could have taken Hebbel’s example. In Hebbel’s version Siegfried elaborately and
passionately declares his love for Genoveva, and puts her on a pedestal. She, in her turn,
responds in similar fashion, and expresses her fear to lose him in the war. How suitable that
would have been for a duet that expresses their passionate love! Schumann, though, chose not
to do so. In Hebbel’s play the love scene in the beginning functions as a contrast with the later
crisis in their marriage, but Schumann never let their love fully blossom. This might be
considered as a weakness of the libretto – after all, an opportunity to create contrast and
32
Friedrich Hebbel, Genoveva: Eine Tragödie in fünf Akten (Hamburg: Hoffman und Campe, 1843). Reprinted
with biography by Michael Holzinger(Berlin: Holzinger, 2015), 7. Page references are to the 2015 edition.
33
Act I, No. 4.
19
drama is missed – but in fact it perfectly illustrates Siegfried’s indifference towards the
people who should be dear to him. Schumann’s departure scene is an example of mutual
miscommunication,
Genoveva
Ob auch getrennt, uns eint ein heilig Band,
In fernste Ferne reicht der Liebe Blick!
Siegfried
Du bist ein deutsches Weib, so klage nicht!
Sollt’s ich ertragen unsers Glaubens Schmach?
Genoveva
Wärst du kein Held, du wärest Siegfried nicht,
Und keine Klagen sendet’ ich dir nach.
Siegfried
Sollt’s ich ertragen unsers Glaubens Schmach?
(…)
Genoveva
Der dich mir gab, er sehe mich bereit,
Auf sein Gebot mein Liebstes hinzugeben
Siegfried
O herrlich Streiten, für die Christenheit
Des Krieges Banner glorreich zu erheben.34
Never Siegfried really responds to her declarations of love. He is interested in one thing,
and that is to leave for the war.
For what reason, though, is he in such a hurry? Is he the leader who cannot wait to
protect his people, and who is prepared to fall in battle for the sake of Christianity? In act III
Siegfried is tested in hard times. In this act Siegfried’s reasons for going on the crusade will
become clear, and his capacities as a leader are shown. First, in the second scene (no. 14)
Siegfried does utter his love for Genoveva. Although his wound is not healed yet, he cannot
wait to go home to see her again. Siegfried, imagining himself how they will meet when he
arrives at his castle again, sings,
Sie hat mich erblickt, sie fliegt mir entgegen,
34
Act I, No. 3.
20
Und Aug an Aug und Brust an Brust!
O Liebestreu, wie reich an Segen!
O Wiederseh’n, so reich an Lust!35
Is he still to be believed, though? This is not the Siegfried from act I, and no reason is
given for his sudden change into a passionate husband. It is more likely that Schumann
needed this airing of love, to create contrast with the events to come later in the scene. After
all, very soon Siegfried’s happy and carefree mood will change in utmost misery and despair,
when Golo brings him the news of Genoveva’s supposed adultery. Besides, this declaration of
love is uttered in one and the same breath with his rejoicing over the victory on the battlefield.
Schumann’s intervention is effective for the drama on the small scale but, considering
Siegfried’s former rather cold-hearted attitude, is implausible. Schumann, most probable,
created this scene to demonstrate how Siegfried operates when the circumstances change in a
dramatic way. After his demeanour towards his inner circle in the first act, Schumann could
now portray Siegfried’s leadership qualities. Siegfried is tested, and he obviously does not
pass the test.
When Golo hands over Siegfried the falsified letter of the chaplain containing
Genoveva’s unfaithfulness, he first states that he can endure anything if at least Genoveva is
not dead. How rapidly his apparent stability can change, though. Moments after he has
grasped what he had just read, Siegfried is totally out of control. He acts hysterically,
demanding Golo to mow him down, but first, he orders, Genoveva has to be killed, “Doch
wart’, erst sie! Erst sie!.” Furthermore, he immediately denies all responsibilities as a leader,
and wants to flee from his court, leaving all to Golo,
Und dann nimm, was ich hab’
Nimm’s als dein Eigentum!
Nach hause will ich nicht;
Die Knechte, sie zeigten wohl auf mich mit Fingern.
Nach Hause will ich nicht;
Mein Schloss, und was sonst mein gehört,
Nimm du’s, du warst mir immer treu.
35
Act III, No. 13.
21
Golo calls him to order, “O fasst Euch, edler Herr,” but Siegfried is not able to compose
himself,
Niemand auf der Welt soll mehr mich seh’n,
Niemand wissen, wo ich geblieben!
Doch auch sie soll sterben!36
These are not words by a leader who feels responsibility for his people. Here is a
statesman portrayed who is hysterical, and unable to handle a stressful situation. Instead of
taking his responsibilities, he flees from his court, because he is ashamed for his servants.
Moreover, he acts on an impulse and commands accordingly. Schumann does not give him
the stature of a leader, a man who is above the others, and in control of the situation. On the
contrary, he shows his wrath, his longing to humiliate his wife. Genoveva has to be killed, and
Siegfried does not even perform that himself, but has it done by Golo. Golo is ordered to kill
Genoveva with Siegfried’s sword and by showing her Siegfried’s ring, as the ultimate sign of
hatred. Of course, a deceived husband can react in a wrathful, or confused manner. Indeed,
the news is shocking and comes as a blow. Moreover, it is a typically dramatic and operatic
theme that is displayed here by Schumann. The question, though, that is put forward here is,
who is capable to solve this situation? Is that still Siegfried, or is someone else needed?
In the continuation of Act III Siegfried’s Christian virtues will be questioned. Margaretha
tempts him to look in the magic mirror. Although at first Siegfried doubts the ethics of this
witchcraft, “Geht das mit rechten Dingen zu?”, he is easily convinced, and puts aside any
doubts. When Golo has brought him the message about Genoveva, Siegfried remembers the
mirror and rushes to Margaretha. Now Margaretha more clearly warns him that her magic is
against the Christian faith, and tells Siegfried there is one condition,
Doch die Bedingung:
Denkt jetzt nicht an Ihn,
Der einst die Welt erschuf
Und sie erhalt!
To look in this mirror, obviously, is an anti-Christian act. However, Siegfried seems not
to understand, or rather does not want to understand,
36
Both quotes from Act III, No. 14.
22
Sehr sonderbare Worte sprecht Ihr da!
Den Spiegel! Den Spiegel!37
Again, Siegfried acts impulsively. It is hard to believe that Siegfried went on a crusade
for the sake of Christianity. Even before he had heard the news about Genoveva, when he was
still nursed by Margaretha, he was willing to meddle in witchcraft. What Schumann seemed
to make clear is that for Siegfried the crusade was a way just to gain personal prestige. Not
the good cause, and the benefit for society was what made him fight, but merely personal
glory. The personage Karl Martell sought a way out of this dilemma, found a justification, but
above all was longing for peace of mind. Schumann’s Siegfried shows no signs of such a
personal struggle, he is a man too self-centred to question his own leadership. His struggle
will not consist of a social or moral dilemma. His struggle begins when he puts his trust in
Golo and Margaretha, and is, in line with his personality, entirely egocentric.
With his decisions and behaviour Siegfried has plunged his court into chaos. The leader
is out of control, and wicked powers in which Siegfried falsely has shown trust, have taken
over. His only positive act seems to be his victory over the Moors, but Schumann pays very
little attention to this fact. The victory is just mentioned. “Ein Sieg, ein Sieg! Oh Freude!”,
Genoveva sings, but the joy is hardly uttered.
Someone is needed to change the situation for the better. In act III is demonstrated that
this person cannot be Siegfried. Siegfried has failed as a leader, both as a strong man who can
handle difficult situations, and as a moral authority. Someone has to come who can turn the
situation, and that is what act IV will reveal.
Genoveva
Just as in act III Siegfried was tested (and failed), in act IV Genoveva is tested. Dragged
in the forest to be executed by Balthasar and Caspar, she knows that little she can expect from
these two men. She had witnessed how they had brutally killed Drago, and they treat her in a
similar way now.
Unlike Tieck and Hebbel, Schumann portrays Genoveva not as a saintly person. In
Hebbel’s rendition Siegfried and Golo both speak about the saintly features of her character.
In the second scene of act I Siegfried expresses his amazement for her almost perfect
37
Act III, No. 15.
23
characteristics: “oft hab ich gewünscht, auf einem Augenblick der Ungeduld, des Zorns, der
Leidenschaft dich zu ertappen, aber stets umsonst.”38 And: “Dein Angesicht, es ist der
Widerstrahl von allem, was auf Erden göttlich ist.”39 Also Golo, although already in a
confused state of mind by his love for Genoveva and her refusal, notices her saintly features,
“Dem heiligen Fluss ist ihre Seele gleich.”40
The words of these two men might still be interpreted as the utterances of men in love
idealizing a woman, but Drago’s ghost clearly expresses the saintly features of Genoveva.
Drago’s ghost is sent by God to talk to the witch Margaretha, and orders her to exculpate
Genoveva. Speaking about Genoveva he says,
Auf Genoveva schaut sein Auge jetzt
Herab und sieht die andern alle nicht;
In sieben langen, langen Jahren wird
Sie dulden, was ein Mensch nur dulden kann.
Ich sehs mit Schaudern, und ich sah doch auch
Von fern die Krone schon, die ihrer harrt.
Dann endlich ist die Zeit der Prüfung aus,
Still geht sie ein zur ew’gen Herrlichkeit,
Und ein Gefühl erneuter Zuversicht
Durchdringt belebend jede Menschenbrust.
Du aber reinigst ihr bedecktes Bild,
Damit die Welt die neue Heilige
Erkennt und preist, zu der sie beten soll.41
In Tieck the saintliness of Genoveva is already expressed in the title of the play: Leben
und Tod der heiligen Genoveva. In the opening speech by Bonifatius, in which he directly
addresses himself to the audience, Genoveva is presented as an exemplary saint. Bonifatius
warns for the increased disinterest for religion, and people should take Genoveva’s life as an
example. Thus, in Tieck’s and Hebbel’s rendering the story of a saint is told, whose life is
worthy to emulate. Schumann’s Genoveva is not a saint. She is a woman who is utmost loyal
to her husband, devout, and one who bears her suffering admirably. A woman with perfect
qualities, but never any allusions to her saintliness are made.
38
Hebbel, 9.
Ibid., 11.
40
Ibid., 30.
41
Ibid., 113.
39
24
A significant omission proves once more that Schumann wanted to underline
Genoveva’s human nature. One of the most noticeable storylines of the legend is the story of
the Hirschkuh, the hind. According to the legend, the hind is sent to her by God. When
Genoveva was left alone in the forest with her son Schmerzenreich and was almost starved,
she could not breastfeed her son anymore. The milk of the hind saved Schmerzenreich’s life.
God’s intervention on her behalf proves her holiness, and transforms her from a devout, but
earthly woman into a saint. Both Tieck and Hebbel have adopted this storyline, but Schumann
has left this part of the story out of his libretto.
Obviously, Schumann did not want to depict a miraculous life. Instead, Schumann
portrays Genoveva as the only stable factor in society. She is tested more than Golo or
Siegfried, but does not lose her faith. Her endurance and inner strength prove that she can be
an important factor to change the circumstances at court. Her human features put her in the
centre of the society.
The people: An Ignorant Mass or a Group of Individuals?
A prominent part in the three texts is reserved for the people. Here again, the difference
between the texts by Hebbel and Tieck on the one hand, and Schumann on the other is telling.
Both Tieck and Hebbel offer a wide diversity in characters and moods. Tieck most elaborately
depicts the people, and tells of love and compassion, but also of brutality and betrayal. A fine
example of the nuanced way with which he portrays the common people is the personage of
Grimoald.
Grimoald is a craftsmen around Siegfried’s court and the intended executioner of
Genoveva. At first, showing indifference and denying all own responsibility in murdering
Genoveva, the background of his attitude becomes clear in a moving small poem in which he
expresses his sorrow after the death of his son. When planting a little tree Grimoald says,
Das Bäumchen hier bedeutet meinen Sohn,
Den Traugott; ja wohl Traugott, so genannt
Weil ich auf Gott vertraut, als er geboren,
Weil ich vertraut, dass er ihn lassen würde,
Dass er die Stütze meines Alters wäre.
Nun ist er hin, der Krieg hat ihn gefressen,
Und nicht einmal sein Grab kann ich besuchen.
25
Wie widerwärtig ist mir nun mein Handwerk,
Wie will mir jetzt so gar nichts Freude machen,
So wachse und gedeihe, grüner Baum,
Du bist mir jetzt statt meines toten Sohns,
Und manchmal will ich sonntags zu dir kommen,
Und mich ins Gras zu deinen Füssen setzen,
Und mit dir sprechen, als wenn er es wäre.42
After the tragic loss of his son Grimoald could not feel compassion anymore. But at the
end, when Genoveva and her new-born child are dragged to the forest to be executed,
Grimoald is overwhelmed by emotions. The memory of his own son prevents him from
killing the child and his mother. He shows mercy and allows Genoveva to escape. A small
psychological portrait is created by Tieck, giving this villainous character a human
background.
However, the people is not idealized by Tieck. Benno, the companion of Grimoald,
certainly is a villainous character who supports Golo. Ruining the atmosphere at the party
where the victory over the Moors is celebrated, he shows disdain for the ideals of the heroic
battle, and quarrels in an annoying way with the guests. He is the man who, on behalf of
Golo, commits treason to Siegfried by bringing him the message of Genoveva’s supposed
adultery. Benno, contrary to Grimoald, is willing to kill Genoveva and her child till the very
end.
Although Tieck portrays the small community around Siegfried’s court overall in a
favourable way, he above all shows the people in their diversity and individuality.
In Hebbel’s play the amount of characters belonging to the common people is less than in
Tieck, but also Hebbel gives a nuanced picture of the people. In the fourteenth scene of act III
several characters come together to eat and drink: Golo, Margaretha, Hans , Conrad, Caspar,
Balthasar, and Klaus. Also this seemingly idyllic village scene shows the characters as
individuals. The mentally retarded Klaus is mocked by some, and defended by others, gossips
are spread, contradicted and disapproved. Just as in Tieck’s play, a diverse picture of the
people is displayed. The personages are portrayed with their weaknesses, doubts, convictions
or lack of convictions. In Hebbel’s version the executioners, although brutal, show their
human side as well. When Klaus intends to kill Balthasar (one of the executioners), Genoveva
42
Tieck, 106-107.
26
intervenes and saves Balthasar’s life. Balthasar then shows his gratitude, and lets Genoveva
go.
Both Tieck and Hebbel portray the common people in their diversity. In fact, they are not
considered as a group, but as individuals. Individuals who are, indeed, part of a separate class
of society. Nevertheless, they are depicted as human beings who live their own life, and make
their own decisions. Nothing of the kind in Schumann’s libretto!
Schumann, in the first place, reduced the amount of characters considerably. That, of
course, could have been done for practical operatic reasons. The common people is restricted
basically to a group of servants, with Balthasar and Caspar as their representatives and the
only ones who get their own voice. Such a radical restriction has consequences for the
narrative, of course. Idyllic country scenes in which the people gather to drink, love, quarrel
and discuss are not possible anymore. Tieck and Hebbel mostly chose those scenes to portray
them in their individuality, as described above.
Schumann shows two sides of the people, in both circumstances, though, solely as a
group. In the first, and the last scenes the people are cheering their leaders, who stand for
unity in a shared Christian faith. But, while in the versions by Tieck and Hebbel the people
reacted all differently at the turmoil at court, Schumann portrays them as one violent and
threatening mass as soon as their leaders had gone astray. From that point onwards, no
development in their character, nor any doubts about their own behaviour can be noticed. All
that is shown is their rudeness.
The first time this rudeness emerges is in the beginning of act II. Genoveva is sad
because Siegfried has left for the war. At the same time, the servants, Balthasar and Caspar
among them, enjoy his absence, and seize the opportunity to make a party. The noise and
drunkenness of the men frightens Genoveva. When the news is heard about the victory of the
Christian armies, no one of the servants seems to be particularly interested. For them it is just
another reason to party. This scene is the first premonition of things to come, the first sign of
the destructive force of the people. By their sheer number, their loudness and immorality they
are a force that threatens the constructive, peaceful parts of the society. In this situation
Genoveva seeks comfort and protection with Golo, who takes the opportunity to come closer
to her.
Their violence comes to a first outburst when Genoveva is falsely accused of adultery.
When, according to Golo’s preconceived plan, Drago is found in Genoveva’s bedroom,
Balthasar, ignoring Drago’s pleas for mercy, immediately stabs him to death. Schumann
displays here a senseless act of violence. The excuse for this violence is the supposed adultery
27
of Genoveva, a moral condemnation hardly to be expected from this group of servants, given
their own behaviour. What Schumann shows in this scene is, how exceedingly destructive
such a group can be.
The extreme brutality and heartlessness of Balthasar and Caspar is perhaps most
convincingly revealed in the so-called Gaunerlied. When Genoveva is dragged into the forest
to get killed, they do not show mercy. What is more, they mock and humiliate her with this
song,
Sie hatten beid’ sich herzlich lieb,
Spitzbübin war sie, er ein Dieb;
Wenn Schelmenstreich er macht’,
Sie warf sich hin und lacht’,
Und lacht’!
Um sechse früh ward er gehenkt,
Um sieben drauf ins Grab gesenkt,
Sie aber schon um acht
‘nen Anderen küsst, und lacht,
Und lacht!43
If these are the people, they have to be feared.
Two Outsiders
Although the servants are presented as one group, two servants have a separate position.
Angelo’s role is peculiar, of course, since he is dumb, thus physically not appropriate for
opera: he can sing, nor speak. What he can do is observe the situation, and, most importantly,
he can act. And that is what Angelo does. He is the one who prevents that Genoveva is
murdered by Balthasar, taking away Balthasar’s sword the moment the villain wants to strike
Genoveva down, and he chases the murderers away. Angelo is one of the few who is named.
Siegfried, who at his farewell before the crusade shows overall indifference for the feelings of
those that he leaves behind, does pay special attention to Angelo,
43
Act IV, No. 16.
28
Und vor allen nimm dich an dieses Armen,
Ist die Red’ ihm auch versagt,
Ein treu’ Gemüt spricht aus seinem Auge,
Kränkt ihn nimmer!44
Schumann’s intentions with Angelo’s role remain unclear. Probably, the figure of Klaus
in Tieck’s version was the model. Klaus also is an outsider, and he as well prevented a killing
( of Genoveva’s child), but Klaus is mentally retarded which makes a comparison with
Angelo more problematic. A possible explanation to put him on the scene is, that the dumb
Angelo is such a strong contrast with the loud part of the people. Ultimately, not the brutal
part of the people win. The voice of the people might be loud at times, more justice and truth
is in the silent forces.
What then about Drago? Drago is the black scapegoat, the one who annoys everyone,
because he is so obedient and totally in service. He places himself outside the group, by
constantly correcting them: by his behaviour and the way he expresses himself verbally. He
shows the group a mirror that they do not want to see, and have not asked for. Of course, he
is, at the very first opportunity, the first victim, when all contained frustrations within the
group come out. These two outsiders get some psychological profile, which confirms their
separate position, and contrasts with the unnamed mass.
Golo: A Dramatic Role?
The personage of Golo without doubt is the most complicated character to place within
the narrative. How does Schumann use this character? Which role does he get in the message
Schumann wanted to communicate?
Golo is an important figure in both Tieck’s and Hebbel’s version. Tieck is the only one
who gives a reason for Golo’s behaviour: the fact that he is a bastard, and thus a product of
immoral behaviour. Golo is a suffering person in Tieck rendering, torn between hate, wrath,
and remorse. He ends his life after he is tried and found guilty. Although Genoveva and
Siegfried forgive him, he is executed by Siegfried’s brother Matthias who has taken over the
rule of the court. Golo has led a miserable life, and even a decent grave is denied to him by
his executioners. Tieck, though, also shows Golo’s other side. He shows his generosity in
relation to the serf Heinrich, who could buy off his serfdom thanks to a gift by Golo.
44
Act I, No. 4
29
Heinrich, finally, gives him a proper tomb. Despite all his cruelties, Golo is also portrayed as
someone who is appreciated by the common people, and as a man to be pitied.
In Hebbel’s rendition Golo’s lunacy is even more outspoken. Hebbel portrays Golo as a
self-destructive, insane, and instable personality. Golo’s self-destructiveness is exposed in a
couple of scenes, even before his tragic relation with Genoveva begins. Golo seems under the
spell of evil powers, not by his own decision, but by something beyond himself,
Wenn einer fühlt, dass ihn die nächste Stund
Zum ungeheuren Frevler stempeln wird;
Wenn ein Verbrechen, das die Hölle selbst
Aufs neue entzünden könnt, wär sie verlöscht,
Aus seiner Brust hervor bricht, hat er dann
Das Recht, sich selbst zu töten?45
Hebbel portrays a man who, seemingly, is not responsible for his own actions. A man
who is dominated by powers he cannot control. Golo’s life ends in total misery. Looking back
upon the damage done, and not able to face the harsh truth, he stabs his own eyes, so that he
cannot see the world anymore. Then, he orders Caspar to tie him naked to a tree, so that the
wild animals will eat him. Caspar, out of pity, kills Golo right away. The suicidal, selfdestructive and insane characteristics with which Hebbel depicts Golo find their climax in this
last scene. In Tieck’s rendition Golo is executed and not even granted a decent grave. In
Hebbel’s version Golo’s life ends in utmost misery and despair as was sensed in advance.
How does Golo’s life ends in Schumann’s libretto?
In fact, it does not end. Golo just sneaks away, as if he has been a personage of no
importance. And yet, it did not look like that in the first two acts. In the beginning of the
opera Schumann seemed to have adopted Hebbel’s concept of a ménage à trois, and Golo was
one of the most dramatic characters. Apparently, he left this idea as the opera developed. How
is this to be understood?
In dramatic respect it does not seem to be a good idea to shift, in the last two acts, the
focus from the potentially most dramatic personage to Siegfried and Genoveva. Both Tieck
and Hebbel portray him as a man full of contrasts, and therefore pre-eminently appropriate as
an opera character. Even more remarkable, the Golo of the first two acts is used by Schumann
in this way. Schumann demonstrates Golo’s despair when he is not allowed to go on the
45
Hebbel, 57.
30
crusade, his struggle between his love for Genoveva and his loyalty to his master, and his hate
and wrath when he is rejected by Genoveva. Moreover, Schumann shows how Golo initially
rejects the evil powers, personalized by Margaretha, but later consciously chooses to be part
of them. But Schumann, ultimately, does not show the consequences of Golo’s choices, as did
Tieck and Hebbel. This could be regarded as an inconsistency and weakness of the libretto.
After all, part of the potential drama is not used, and one of the most promising storylines
does not come to a conclusion or a climax.
However, Schumann’s decision not to follow Golo’s character anymore, points out what
was more important for him. Apparently, he wanted to tell the story of Siegfried and
Genoveva. The story of a leader in confusion, and his wife. A leader who came under the
spell of wicked powers, not able to find a solution. How a turn, nevertheless, took place is
what the last two acts convey. Therefore, Golo’s role changes. He is not, as in the first two
acts, a personage with his own dramatic story line, but above all part of evil now.
Dramatically, this gives the librettist the chance to demonstrate how the main characters react
to evil. Both Siegfried and Genoveva are tested by Golo, and Schumann wants to demonstrate
how they pass these tests. Ultimately, a solution had to come to change the miserable state of
affairs at court. The question that is put forward is: who is strong enough to change this
situation? In their relation to Golo is illustrated how the positions of Siegfried and Genoveva
are. Reduced to an evil force solely, Golo does not need his own dramatic line anymore. Golo
merely functions as a mirror for Siegfried’s and Genoveva’s personality.
Three Endings
In the literature Schumann’s choice to base his libretto not solely on Hebbel’s play is
often criticized.46 Schumann’s decision to use Tieck’s play as well, is regarded as one of the
reasons for what is regarded the failure of the libretto. Hebbel’s play is a psychological
tragedy, and as such seems suitable to adapt for an opera libretto. The two plays are
considered to be too different to be transformed into one coherent libretto. A comparison
between the three endings, will reveal for what reason Schumann needed Tieck.
In Tieck’s text, the religious elements become ever more prominent towards the end of
the story. In a long monologue Bonifatius tells about the miracles that saved Genoveva’s life
during her time in the forest. The crucifix sent to her from heaven, and the paradise-like
46
See Jensen, Schumann, 244. And Jost, “Schumanns und Wagners Opernkonzeptionen,” 141.
31
contact of Schmerzenreich with wild animals and the hind, all serve to prove that God is on
her side. In the end Genoveva is prepared to die. During her time in the forest her relationship
with God had become more intense and personal. When Death comes to take her, she is
willing to go, but is saved at the last moment by two angels. Then, Siegfried finds her in the
cave, and they are reunited again, and Siegfried for the first time meets his son. Ultimately,
Genoveva will die, in the presence of bishop Hidulfus, Siegfried and Schmerzenreich. She
tells of a vision she has of heaven, where life will continue in a divine way.
Genoveva’s path is a path to be followed, and that is what Siegfried and Schmerzenreich
will do now. They devote their life to prayer, and renounce all earthly possessions. Siegfried’s
brother Matthias will now rule the country. Their path is devout, and is an exemplary one for
the society. On the other hand, it also turns away from earthly life. Tieck’s conclusion surely
offers the ethic a society needs, but does not ask for active participation. It is monkish in its
underlying idea: to live an exemplary life, one has to retreat from social life.
Hebbel ends his play with a Nachspiel, an epilogue. In this epilogue the story of
Genoveva’s time in the forest and the reunion with Siegfried is told. Siegfried, who went out
hunting and still is in the belief that Genoveva has been killed by Golo, suffers from the loss
of his wife and is torn by doubt about the decisions he has made. Caspar, his servant and
companion, only increases his agony of doubt: “So wisst: der Teufel trieb sein Spiel mit Euch,
Ihr hieltet Weiss für Schwarz und Schwarz für Weiss!”47 When Genoveva and Siegfried
finally find each other, Siegfried wards off and cannot cope with the new reality. Genoveva
urges him ultimately to do so and to forgive.
Again, as in Tieck, it is Genoveva who sets the example for Siegfried, and he cannot but
follow. It is done, though, in the private sphere. Siegfried and Genoveva are united, and a
bright future can begin. The personal drama created by Hebbel has come to a happy end.
Tieck’s play is a morality play in which Genoveva’s life serves as an example for the
community. In Hebbel, a personal drama is solved by a forgiving Genoveva.
Schumann’s opera ends differently. When Siegfried is looking for Genoveva in the forest,
he already knows the truth: Drago’s ghost had forced Margaretha to tell Siegfried the real
facts. Siegfried feels guilty and begs Genoveva to forgive him, and Genoveva is more than
willing to do so. The text could have ended thus, the story seems to be told. After all
suffering the couple is united and a new bright future, in heaven or on earth, lies ahead of
47
Hebbel, 156.
32
them. Schumann, though, adds three more scenes. Scenes that will raise the events from the
private sphere into the public sphere.
In the first scene of their reunion (scene 19), Genoveva and Siegfried first speak out
feelings of guilt, regret, forgiveness and, finally, mutual love. But then, Siegfried invites
everyone to join them and celebrate. Significantly, their reunion will take place in the
presence of the Church, and a Mass will be celebrated. The renewed love of Genoveva and
Siegfried now have become a public event.
In scene 20 two choirs sing, one off-stage, inside the church, the other on-stage. They
sing songs of praise. The first choir,
Bestreut den Weg mit grünen Mai’n.
Lasst den Ruf erschallen ins Land hinein:
Die viel geduldet, die edle Herrin,
Sie kehrt zurück!
Bestreut den Weg mit grünen Mai’n, etc.
And the second choir, in alternation with the first choir,
Nun hebet Herz und Hände,
Voll Freude himmelan.
Zu Ihm, dess’ Macht ohn’ Ende,
Sind all’ wir untertan.
Both Genoveva and God are praised here. Strikingly, Siegfried is not mentioned. Then, a
stage transformation takes place in scene 20: the scene changes into the very first scene. Ever
more knights, peasants and servants come to the stage, and people are praying in front of the
church. At face value, nothing has changed since the beginning of the opera, the old order
seemed restored. The final scene (scene 21), though, demonstrates that this is not the case.
The order indeed is restored, and the confusion, misery, hate and violence have gone. But, in
contrast to the first scene, now both Siegfried and Genoveva are praised by the gathered
crowd, and blessed by bishop Hidulfus,
Erschalle, festliche Sang,
Ertönet, jubelnde Lieder!
Siegfried Heil, dem tapf’ren Helden Heil,
33
Heil, Genoveva, der hohen Frau!
Das uns so lang entrissen war,
Das edle Paar, es kehrt uns zurück!
Not the old order is restored, but a new order is created. An order in which both Siegfried
and Genoveva share a collective leadership.
Schumann did not create a tragic love story. Siegfried is not a man who has his
weaknesses and who undergoes a marriage crisis. Siegfried is portrayed primarily as a ruler.
He is a weak and incompetent leader, who is unconcerned with his people. A leader who
pretended to fight for the benefit of his people and the Christian world, but who in fact was
interested solely in his own glory. What’s more, although pretending to fight for the sake of
Christianity, he had never addressed himself to God to solve his problems. Siegfried had not
brought peace and unity to his country but, instead, caused chaos and misery. He had been
under the spell of the evil powers, and did not demonstrate any capacity to judge their real
intentions. His life is threatened to end in moral degeneration.
Also Genoveva is not in the first place a loyal wife, who is falsely accused of adultery.
She is the one stable factor in a country in which chaos rules. She suffers most, not Siegfried
or Golo, but she endures her trials. She remains loyal to her husband, and puts her faith in
God. When she was dragged into the forest to be executed, God gave her his blessing by
offering her the crucifix. In the Christian community of Siegfried’s court, she is the only one
who acts as a Christian. Not Siegfried the leader, the crusader puts his trust in God, but
Genoveva. Christianity as the shared philosophy that would guarantee the unity of the court
was not in safe hands with Siegfried. Genoveva is the one to be followed now but not, as in
Tieck and Hebbel, in the private sphere. Schumann, emphatically, puts the last scenes in the
public sphere.
The fact that Genoveva now is part of the leadership of the court is essential for
Schumann’s message. Siegfried could not change the miserable situation at court, to a large
extent caused by himself. Genoveva by her high moral standards could, and she demonstrated
the way. Together they can give this country a new future. A future based on the high moral
principles as demonstrated by Genoveva.
The, the libretto seems to suggest, needs good leadership. In the first and the last scenes
this good leadership is present, and the people demonstrates to be a strong supportive force,
ready to fight for the good cause. If the leadership fails, though, Schumann shows the cruel
and destructive force of the people instead. Then, an ignorant mass is displayed that has to be
34
feared. It is a violent and threatening mass that at times seems unstoppable. Schumann
presents a people stripped of all individual features. Tieck’s personage Karl Martell expressed
the relationship between a leader and the people as follows,
Wir alle kommen gleichgeformt zur Welt,
Doch unterscheidet das den edlen Mann
Vom Pöbel, dass er seiner Meister wird,
Dass er den Ruhm die höchste Würde achtet
Und ihm die niedern Lüste unterwirft,
Ja, dass er auch den Ruhm vergessen kann,
Wenn Pflicht die strengen Worte zu ihm spricht.48
Apparently, rather than a personal drama did Schumann want to create an opera that
discussed moral and social values. The character with the highest dramatic potential, Golo,
was reduced to “the evil” from scene 9 onwards, and in that capacity functioned dramatically
chiefly as someone who tried Siegfried and Genoveva, but hardly had his own story line
anymore.
Apparently, for this message Schumann needed Tieck’s version. Tieck showed the ethics
that should shape a society, and that is in line with Schumann’s libretto. Bonifatius’s prologue
is an appeal to the people to adhere to the high, Christian principles. Principles that are in an
exemplary way demonstrated by Genoveva. If society wants to live up to these high moral
standards, Genoveva is the one to be followed. Tieck just set an example with Genoveva’s
irreproachable conduct, Schumann sketched the conditions and organization in which
leadership could contribute to the society. Central themes in Schumann’s libretto though – the
position of the people and the question of leadership – were already present in Tieck’s play.
The lack of drama in Schumann’s libretto seems to have been a deliberate choice. By depersonalizing the characters Schumann, apparently, thought that he could focus more on
moral and social values. Leaving (part of) the drama aside, the attention would not be on
personal relationships and subsequent intrigues, but addresses more directly contemporary
social issues. The choices Schumann has made, also regarded in relation to the texts by
Hebbel and Tieck which served as a model, time and again demonstrate, that although drama
and individual portrayal were at hand, Schumann opted for less drama in favour of shedding
light on a social or moral issue. His interventions in the character of Golo, showing rather
48
Tieck, 43-44.
35
Genoveva’s stable character than her great suffering, and the depiction of the people as one
group instead of a motley collection of individuals are perfect examples of Schumann’s
approach. The fighting in the streets by a sometimes aggressive and impulsive mass, and the
appeal for participation in the government in German states that still were ruled by absolute
monarchs, now could be discussed with an operatic language. This, of course, does not imply
that personal drama was absent in Schumann’s libretto. Scene 2 is a fine example of Golo’s
inner struggle with mixed feelings of loyalty, bitterness, and sadness towards Siegfried, since
Siegfried forbade him to go on the crusade. However, Schumann’s libretto first and foremost
depicts how a society had gone astray, and he sketches the conditions for a peaceful and
united society. This put the content of his opera, whether it was successful or not, in the
middle of the public debate.
36
Chapter 4
General Notions on German Opera in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century
Not only with his libretto did Schumann participate in a public – political and social – debate,
but Schumann’s opera also was in the middle of another discourse of his time: the future of
German opera. These two discourses were closely connected, as Stephen C. Meyer states:
“The search for a German opera could not be separated from the search of a new German
national identity, an identity that was articulated against both the ancien régime and the
cultural influences from beyond Germany’s somewhat nebulous borders.”49
Most German critics who published about opera strongly argued in favour of opera as a
“serious” genre. Opera that merely wanted to entertain – and for most critics that was
synonymous with French and Italian opera – was fiercely disapproved. Opera seria of the
eighteenth century, in the opinion of most critics, could not function anymore as such, since a
new operatic style was considered necessary. Opera as a serious art form could discuss
relevant themes, and could intervene in the social debate of the time. As one of the conditions
to elevate German opera, the concept of unity – both within the music, and between text and
music – was widely discussed. Unity, of course, was not only a compositional concept, but a
central issue in the debate about one German nation, and is a typical example how the
discourses were interrelated. As Meyer puts it, “The hopes of the search for a German opera
were of course not merely towards a single work of art, but for a new operatic genre that
would both reflect and help to form the character of the nation.”50
A “search for a German opera”, of course, implied that German opera was not an
established, and well-defined genre. It was above all defined by what it was not, or should not
be – that is, French or Italian opera. Schumann’s own writings are a perfect example of this.
He was very outspoken about what he did not want, expressed most clearly in his famous
Hugenotten review.51 Meyerbeer’s opera was fiercely criticized for its superficiality and lack
of good taste. Meyerbeer, Schumann opinions, merely wants to please the audience with all
means. Schumann acknowledges in his review that the scenes in Die Hugenotten are varied
and dramatically effective, but this he does not consider of overriding importance.
49
Stephen C. Meyer, Carl Maria von Weber and the Search for a German Opera (Bloomington. Indiana
University Press, 2003), 17.
50
Ibid., 80.
51
Robert Schumann, Gesammelte Schriften über Musik und Musiker Band 1, ed. Martin Kreisig (Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Härtel, 1914), 318-324.
37
Meyerbeer’s opera is turned down because of “die Gemeinheit, Verzerrtheit, Unnatur,
Unsittlichkeit, Un-Musik des Ganzen.”52 However, in contrast with Wagner, Schumann has
never been explicit about his own operatic ideas, or expressed an comprehensive view on
opera.
Notwithstanding this lack of direct information, some of Schumann’s ideas about operatic
music might be deduced from treatises he had read and favoured. Especially, Thibaut’s Ueber
Reinheit der Tonkunst (1825) was highly recommended by Schumann, both in the
Lektürebüchlein and in the Musikalische Haus- und Lebensregeln.53 Thibaut strongly
opposes “Effect”, and he devotes a whole chapter to this phenomenon. Effect, Thibaut writes,
(…) ist grossenteils nichts, als ein Erzeugniss des Ungeschicks, oder der Feigheit, welche Allen
dienen und gefallen will. Die Natur geht nicht in Sprüngen, und das Gefühl, wenn es gesund ist,
schweift nicht wirrig umher, und überfliegt nicht sich selbst.54
Effect, Thibaut wants to convey, is unnatural, and could never shape serious music.
Thibaut continues by giving a mocking picture of the mainstream composers of his time,
whose compositions are just a bewildering succession of parts, each part with its own effect.
No unity whatsoever exists between these parts, though, Thibaut maintains. The only aim of
these composers seems to be to entertain the audience, and compose something for everyone.
In so doing, music is in danger to lose its essence, namely “den reinen Sinn für Musik als
Musik, und den veredelten Sinn, welcher durch die Musik gelautert und gehoben, aber nicht
in Gemeinheit und Unnatur hineingeführt und befestigt sehn will.”55
Music, Thibaut says, has the power to elevate people, but the mediocre music of his time
cannot be significant. Only a genius like Händel – and Thibaut writes elaborately about his
oeuvre – is capable of reaching such a high level. In addition, the public has to be educated to
learn to appreciate “serious” music.
Unlike many of his fellow critics – and Schumann is one of them – Thibaut does not play
the nationalistic card, and his disapproval of effect is not a repudiation of Italian or French
52
Ibid., 321.
See Gerd Nauhaus, “Schumanns Lektürebüchlein,” In Robert Schumann und die Dichter: Ein Musiker als Leser,
ed. Joseph A. Kruse ( Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1991), 75. And Robert Schumann, Gesammelte Schriften über
Musik und Musiker, Band 4, ed. (Leipzig: Georg Wigands Verlag, 1854), 299.
53
54
55
Anton Friedrich Justus Thibaut, Ueber Reinheit der Tonkunst (Heidelberg: Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr, 1825), 46.
Ibid., 52.
38
music. In his discussion of dramatic music he underlines the relation between text and music,
but warns for extravagant expressions, “Die Musik soll alle Zustände der Empfindung, des
Gefühls, und der Leidenschaften darstellen, aber poetisch, also nicht, wie sie sich in der
Entartung, sondern in der Kraft und Reinheit verhalten.”56
Thibaut’s general tone is one of moderation, but his treatise, above all, is a plea for music
that is serious. Music that shows coherence, and does not consist of empty effects, can have a
moral effect on people. It is in this that the ethic of Schumann’s opera can be recognized
Schumann read Kiesewetter’s music history in 1847.57 Kiesewetter’s book is not an
essayistic work, as Thibaut’s treatise was, but a chronological survey of the different eras in
music history. Each era is named after its most prominent composer(s). Although some
carefulness is called for to draw conclusions from descriptions of an era, the number of pages
Kiesewetter devoted to Gluck is telling (it doubles the number of pages for the chapter about
Haydn and Mozart). Gluck’s operas, and even more his ideas about opera, were still relevant
in the 1830s. A large part of Gluck’s dedication for Alceste, in which Gluck had expressed
his reformist ideas about opera, is quoted by Kiesewetter. Gluck’s ideas were favoured by
many critics in the first half of the nineteenth century, and his operas were regarded by many
as a model for the future German opera. The balance between text and music, the rejection of
effect and bravura arias, the preference for a syllabic treatment of the text, and as a result the
audibility of the sung parts: all these features of Gluck’s operas were endorsed by many as
characteristics of typical German opera. Most importantly, all elements contributed to convey
the contents of a text with musical means. Under these conditions German opera could have a
say.
An even earlier treatise is Versuch einer Aesthetik des dramatischen Tonsatzes (1813) by
Ignaz Franz von Mosel. Mosel was not only a critic, but also a composer, and his treatise was
designed as a composition manual for operas. For Mosel, Gluck serves as a model:
(…) in kurzem erkannte ich in Gluck das höchste Muster dieser bezaubernden Kunst. In seinen
Werken fand ich alle Forderungen des Verstandes, des Gefühls und des Geschmacks in vollesten
Masse erfüllt (…),”58
56
Ibid., 52.
Raphael Georg Kiesewetter, Geschichte der europäisch-abendländischen oder unsrer heutigen Musik: Von
den ersten Jahrhundert des Christenthumes bis auf unsre Zeit (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1834). See
Nauhaus, “Schumanns Lektürebüchlein,” 83.
58
Ignaz Franz von Mosel, Versuch einer Aesthetik des dramatischen Tonsatzes (Vienna: Anton Strauss Verlag,
1813), 3.
57
39
Starting point for an opera, Mosel writes, is a dramatic-lyrical poem that incites to
compose. Mosel endorses, as might be expected, Gluck’s ideas to a large extent. Interestingly,
Mosel adds another important concept: Character. As Meyer has explained, the concept of
Character was important in the nineteenth century, and much used in musical lexica and
“conservation books”.59 Carl Dahlhaus points out that its meaning has never been univocal.60
Character at first largely was regarded in a negative way. Character could depict realistic
scenery in a typical manner, but therefore was also closely linked to imitation, and being not
original was considered a mortal sin in those times. In other writings, sometimes by the same
authors, it could get a much more positive connotation expressing “das Geistige”, the spiritual
or elevated in a universalist manner.61 Mosel used it in yet a different way, as a unifying
element that functions on a musico-dramatic and structural level.
Character in Mosel’s view delineates on three different levels.62 First, the opera as a
whole should have one general character. Mosel mentions heroic, tragic, or comic, as general
characteristics. This general character should influence all scenes, so that “der Ausdruck der
Freude oder des Vergnügens in einer tragischen Oper niemals in das Rauschende,
Losgebundene, wie im komischen Singspiele, in diesem aber die Äuβerung des Schmerzes
oder der Trauer eben so wenig in das hohe Pathos der tragischen Oper gerathe.”63 Second, an
individual musical number should have its own character, and thus clearly differ from another
musical number. Third, each personage has its own musical language too, and is distinct from
another.
Character as conceived by Mosel, thus, both has a separating and a unifying function.
Within an opera contrasting musical material related to specific personages or musical
numbers supports the musico-dramatic narrative. The separating function can only be
achieved, of course, if units are created that can be distinguished from other units. Thus, also
for Mosel unity is a key concept for opera. Contrast, of course, is needed in a dramatic
narrative, but it should never dominate, or be used in an excessive way. Exorbitant contrast
would violate the unity of the entire opera, Mosel wrote, a view also underlined by
Kiesewetter and Thibaut.
59
Meyer, Von Weber and the Search for a German Opera, 76.
Carl Dahlhaus, “Die Kategorie des Charakteristischen in der Ästhetik des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Die Couleur
locale in der Oper des 19. Jahrhunderts, ed. Heinz Becker (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1976), 9-21.
61
Dahlhaus describes this change in view within the writings of both Friedrich Schlegel, and Franz Brendel. See
Dahlhaus, “Die Kategorie des Charakterischen,” 16-17.
62
See Mosel, Aesthetik, 42-45. And furthermore Meyer’s discussion of Mosel’s concept of Charakter, Meyer,
Von Weber and the Search for a German opera, 77-78.
63
Mosel, Aesthetik, 43.
60
40
Of course, German composers and critics of opera did not speak with one voice.
Notwithstanding all negative writings about French and Italian opera, Thibaut, for instance,
stressed that Italian composers had created masterpieces, and consequently denied that good
music could only be composed by Germans. According to Mosel, only feelings and passions
could be expressed in opera, not political opinions, a view in sharp contrast with Wagner’s
and – as is the hypothesis of this study – Schumann’s idea. The underlying idea behind all
those theories, though, was to create opera that would be significant and valuable. Such a
“new” German opera would elevate every individual visitor. In so doing, it would contribute
to create persons of high moral standing, and, eventually, add to a new and better society.
This moral aspect of German opera has been pointed out by Meyer,
The German operas of composers such as Weber, Spohr, Marschner, Lindpaintner, and Kreuzer
did not form a genre in the same way as the opere serie of the early and mid-eighteenth century,
because these German works did not share anything which might correspond to well-established
musico-dramatic conventions, such as the da capo exit aria and the lieto fine. What they did share was
a particular ideology, built up out of certain plot tropes that occurred with great regularity. This
ideology was typified by an extraordinarily strong contrast between good and evil (…). It is in the
character of this dichotomy, not in any particular musico-dramatic form or gesture, that the German
Romantic opera found its distinctive voice.64
Meyer’s claim that contrast between good and evil could define German opera needs
some comment, though. Manuela Jahrmärker argues, that French grand opera in many
aspects was a model for the rebuilding of German opera. Moreover, Jahrmärker shows how
the topic of contrast between good and evil, as is displayed in Genoveva, was common in
other successful operas of his time, among them French operas,
Mit seiner klaren Gegenüberstellung von Gut und Böse, die in Genoveva einerseits und Golo
sowie Margaretha anderseits konkrete Gestalt annehmen, ordnet sich das Libretto in den
Zusammenhang zeitgenössisch erfolgreicher Werke ein: Vom religiösen Kontrast lebt das Drama in
Webers Freischütz, in Heinrich August Marschners Der Vampir (1828) oder auch in Giacomo
Meyerbeers Robert le Diable (1831).65
64
Stephen C. Meyer, Carl Maria von Weber and the Search for a German Opera, (Bloomington. Indiana
University Press, 2003), 80.
65
Manuela Jahrmärker, “Versuch einer deutschen Reform-Oper: Zu Schumanns Genoveva,” in Robert
Schumann, ed. Jessica Distler and Michael Heinemann (Berlin: Weidler Buchverlag, 2006), 145.
41
Other examples are, of course, Die Hugenotten, and the by Schumann much more
appreciated Die Stumme von Portici by Daniel François Esprit Auber which he attended in
1838.66 Still, although obviously not a new subject, a moral topic could elevate German opera
from the mere entertaining Singspiel to a serious genre. Meyer’s notion about German
Romantic opera, thus, does not refer to a topic exclusively for German Romantic opera (and,
indeed, this topic existed since the very beginning of opera history), but it does demonstrate
how German composers by choosing this topic searched for ways to make German opera
significant. Genoveva, therefore, was very much part of this brittle German operatic tradition,
and Schumann’s choice for Tieck’s morality play becomes even more understandable now.
All key subjects that were discussed by German critics and composers and that unites
their thoughts – disapproval of an opera as merely entertaining, elevation of the audience,
unity, and an emphasis on morality – play a part in Genoveva. Schumann, with his very
personal musical (operatic) style, might have stood apart, or, to paraphrase Mosel, had its own
Character. But chapter 3 has already shown how his libretto fitted into the social debates of
his time. Chapter 5 will make clear that Schumann’s style – despite individual traits – was
indeed deeply rooted in the operatic ideas of his time. Needless to say now, that Genoveva, to
cite Meyer once more, was composed to “ both reflect and help to form the character of the
nation.”
66
Schumann writes in his diary, “Abends im Theater: die Stumme v. Portici, die ich ganze 5 Acte mit Interesse
angehört.” Robert Schumann, Tagebücher, Band II, ed. Gerd Nauhaus (Basel: Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, 1987),
69.
42
Chapter 5
A Musical Analysis
Analytical Strategies
Several scholars, in an attempt to understand Schumann’s dramatic musical language in
Genoveva, have searched for leitmotives or reminiscence motives, and often found
Schumann’s use of them inadequate and incoherent. Elizabeth Paley writes that “Schumann
used reminiscence motives less to identify individual characters than to link different dramatic
ideas, creating intricate if sometimes obscure connections between portions of the text.”67
Hermann Abert also argues that Schumann’s use of motives is unclear, and does not
clearly depict the personages,
Charakteristisch für Schumann’s Auffassung von seinem Stoff ist nur das, dass er der
Gegenspielerin seiner Heldin [Margaretha, EB] keinen eigenen Motivkreis einräumt, sondern ihr
Hauptmotiv aus dem Genovevas ableitet.68
Abert interprets Schumann’s music by scrutinizing the leitmotives – as Abert calls them –
and finds inconsistencies, and lack of clarity in Schumann’s use of them. To describe
Schumann’s dramatic musical language adequately, though, other concepts are needed.
A leitmotive, according to the Grove Music Online, is “a theme or a coherent musical
idea, clearly defined so as to retain its identity if modified on subsequent appearances, whose
purpose is to represent or symbolize a person, object, place, idea, state of mind, or any other
ingredient in a dramatic work.69 A reminiscence motive is defined as “a theme, or other
coherent musical idea, which returns more or less unaltered, as identification for the audience
67
Elizabeht Paley, “Dramatic stage and choral works,” in The Cambridge Companion to Schumann, ed. Beate
Perry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 209.
68
Hermann Abert, “Robert Schumann’s Genoveva,“ in Musik-Konzepte Sonderband: Robert Schumann II, ed.
Heinz-Klaus Metzger and Rainer Riehn (München: Richard Boorberg Verlag, 1982), 182-183.
69
Arnold Whittall. "Leitmotif." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press, accessed June
18, 2016, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/16360.
43
or to signify recollection of the past by a dramatic character.70 Both concepts use one motive
for a specific person, state of mind, idea etc.
To understand Schumann’s dramatic music Mosel’s concept of Character is much more
seminal, and especially his Character der handelnden Personen. Unlike Mosel’s other
categories – of the opera as a whole, and of separate musical numbers – Mosel does not
specifically mention motives as a means to depict a personage, but writes in more general
terms. A king, Mosel says, should be portrayed majestically, a man in a powerful way, and a
woman tenderly. How this should be done, Mosel does not say. This offers an important
opportunity. A dramatic personage now can be portrayed with several, different musical
means, techniques, or motives, instead of with one motive solely, if only the feature of the
personage involved is evoked.
Originated from, and inspired by Mosel’s Character der handelnden Personen, I will
introduce another character: the Character of Moral and Social Value. As became clear from
the libretto, Genoveva is much less a drama between personages, than a morality play in
which the ethic values of a (German) state and the way these best can guaranteed is
represented. I have divided this character in four categories: the evil, the good, threat and
violence, and the social order. Each category represents an agency that can be directive for the
society. Schumann has used a great variety of musical languages, techniques and motives to
depict each category. Just like Mosel’s character of dramatic personae, it is not limited to
specific sections, but acts throughout the opera. An analysis of each category, thus, will reveal
Schumann’s musico-dramatic narrative. Besides, it will demonstrate Schumann’s operatic
language, and will show the musical means he uses to express a category.
The Evil
Margaretha is the personification of evil. She appears for the first time in the finale of the first
act (Example 1). Margaretha’s first melodic line was, as mentioned above, considered by
Paley dramatically incoherent. Reason for Paley’s criticism is that Margaretha’s melody
derives from the chorale with which the first act begins. A chorale theme as representation of
a witch, indeed, seems inappropriate. But Paley passes over the fact that this theme, when it is
sung by Margaretha, is not presented in its original form. Instead of the homophonic, typically
70
See, "Reminiscence motif." The New Grove Dictionary of Opera. Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online.
Oxford University Press, accessed June 18, 2016,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/O009217.
44
static setting of the chorale theme in the opening scene, the tempo change (Sehr lebhaft),
articulation, phrase structure and instrumentation transform this theme into a representation of
another world. No religious connotation is evoked anymore, but instead the world of evil
emerges.
The way the phrase is structured is a clear sign that the world of evil is depicted here.
After the instrumental introduction of one measure only, Margaretha’s line starts as un upbeat
in measure 2 on the second beat (as opposed to the original choral theme that begins with a
regular upbeat before the first measure). The melody ends on the second beat of measure 4,
and here gets the formal function of an antecedent in a bipartite phrase. Even before the
antecedent has ended, the consequent begins, again with un upbeat on the second beat
(measure 4), which adds to the irregularity of the phrase structure. The consequent, just as the
antecedent, does not get the time to end properly, since a tail of the theme immediately
continues in the same beat (measure 6). The irregularity of the phrase structure, obviously, is
a representation of Margaretha as an evil power. Hers is a realm that will destroy the order.
An analysis of the complete structure of this section of scene 7 (till measure 50) shows,
that the antecedent and consequent combined form a new antecedent in a periodic structure,
since Schumann repeats the opening measures (from measure 7 onwards). The consequent of
this period develops in a different way as the antecedent – as might be expected – but still
uses much of the same musical material. It ends on the first beat of measure 24. This whole
structure is repeated, somewhat compressed and altered, from measure 24 onwards. The
periodic structure does not only have a formal function, but, by its very repetition of the same
elements, gives ample room to portray Margaretha. The musical material of this motive will
play an important part to evoke evil throughout the opera.
Schumann did not use one motive to represent Margaretha, as Paley and Abert were
expecting and did not find. At first sight, it might be argued that Margaretha is represented by
a coherent musical idea, in the same way as Arnold Whittall described a leitmotive in the
New Grove, but Schumann uses this motive quite differently. Not as one coherent musical
idea, but as a composite of elements, in which each element autonomously can evoke evil. It
is one of the musical techniques, but certainly not the only one, that Schumann uses in his
operatic language. Three elements can be detected here.
First, scene 7 (the finale of act I) begins with a sforzando in A minor by wind
instruments, combined with the first and second violins and violas playing pizzicato. The
wind instruments (clarinet, bassoon, and horn) continue with staccato chords in eights. This
instrumental layer of wind instruments continues almost without a break until measure 50, the
45
moment Golo enters the scene. A continuous movement in eights and a staccato articulation is
one of the elements of the composite that can evoke Margaretha and evil throughout the
opera.
Second, the contour and articulation of the consequent is yet another element of the
motive that is capable to call up the image of evil. This consequent is not sung by Margaretha
but played by the orchestra, and it is a restless and jumpy descending line that will appear in
different forms. Sometimes in a form that is clearly related to its first presentation, sometimes
in a different shape, but always with similar features which make it all the same a
representation of evil.
Finally, the tail of the theme, that in its descending line echoes the consequent, adds
another important element that defines evil: instrumentation. Schumann orchestrates this tail
with high-pitched wind instruments (flute and piccolo). Their shrill sounds (at other moments
sometimes produced by different wind instruments) represent evil as well.
Having said this, it does not mean that Schumann uses merely the elements of this
motive to represent evil. As mentioned above, different techniques and means are used to
depict one category. Taking Mosel as guide, evil should sound witch-like, diabolic and
disordered. To restrict evil to one leitmotive is nowhere prescribed, and certainly was not
Schumann’s idea.
46
Example 1 Act I, Finale measures 1-20
47
48
Moments of “characteristic music” of evil could already be detected in scenes 4 and 6,
and most of these premonitions are related to elements of Margaretha’s motive. In scene 4,
however, first one of the reasons for Golo’s disloyalty – the lack of interest of Siegfried for
the frustrations of Golo – is shown. In this scene, in which Siegfried says farewell, Siegfried
orders Golo to take care of his wife. Golo answers unwillingly, “Einen Würd’gern wohl als
mich möcht’ ich, dass Ihr fandet.” Golo still is obedient here, although reluctantly. However,
how distinct Siegfried and Golo’s worlds already are at this stage, becomes clear through their
opposing tonalities: while Siegfried sings in E major, Golo sings in distant Eb major.
Not only their different tonalities, but also their opposing musical language demonstrate
how far apart their worlds are. In the previous conversation, when Siegfried introduced Golo
to the servants and presented him as their lord during his absence, Siegfried’s music in E
major is triumphal (measures 63-71), and makes it appear as if staying at home is as heroic as
going to the battlefield. Siegfried’s tone, of course, is inappropriate and demonstrates his lack
of empathy. The music demonstrates that Golo has been driven away from Siegfried’s world.
Thoughts of frustration, revenge, and disloyalty emerge, and the world of evil draws near.
The music shows Golo’s moral dualism. Golo’s ostensible timid request for a
replacement of his task as guardian of Genoveva (measures 75-79, Einen Würd’gen wohl als
mich etc.), is accompanied by music that is a premonition of Margaretha’s music. It is –
typical for Schumann’s operatic music as described above – not a copy of the music of scene
7, but it uses some elements, enough to transform the music into “characteristic music”. Here,
the restless staccato eights, and the jittery descending melodic line are used to depict evil.
Two elements, the melodic contour and the articulation, are enough to make it recognizable as
Margaretha’s music. Siegfried’s attitude has put Golo for the moral dilemma of choosing
between good and evil, and evil is clearly audible present.
That Siegfried is threatened by evil forces as well, Schumann indicates by giving him the
same accompaniment (measure 84-88). Evil does not seem to touch Genoveva. Her
accompaniment corresponds with the melodic line of her phrase, instead of having the same
accompaniment as Golo and Siegfried (measures 79-81). In these few measures at the end of
scene 4, the orchestra demonstrates that the evil powers get a hold on Golo and Siegfried.
Genoveva, instead, remains stable and keeps her own language. The positions of the three
main characters are clearly presented now.
In scene 6, in which Golo eventually kisses the fainted Genoveva, ever more
premonitions of characteristic music of evil can be heard. The cadential progressions from
49
scene 3 with sustained chords played by wind instruments, then representing the (supposed)
love of Siegfried and Genoveva, are heard again, but ominously they do not resolve this time
(measures 1-4, 18-20, and 22-24). The orchestral colour of high-pitched wind instruments
(flute, clarinet, and hobo) cast ahead Margaretha’s orchestral colour. The same
instrumentation can be heard prominently throughout this scene, sometimes in sustained
chords (measures 51,54, 56), sometimes with a fast, staccato movement (measures 8, and 49).
When Golo finally seems to yield to evil and kisses Genoveva, the audience for the first time
gets a glimpse of Margaretha. At that moment another descending line is played: a broken
diminished A sharp chord in thirds, with a characteristic instrumentation: flute and piccolo.
The diminished chord starts forte, and sounds like a flash of evil: nervously and shrill. It is
another fine example of a new motive that originates from Margaretha’s motive, but evokes
evil just as much.
Example 2 Act I, Finale measures 92-100
50
Still, when Golo appears on the stage in scene 7, he has not yielded to evil completely.
Instead, he shows much remorse for having kissed Genoveva. In a lament with a descending
bass line he struggles with his deed, “Was hast du gethan in frevelndem Wahn, du hast
geküsst deines Herren Weib, du hielt’st umschlungen den edlen Leib, du hast gebrochen dein
Ritterwort.” The moment he wants to leave, Margaretha calls him, and excerpts of music of
evil sound: the broken A sharp diminished chord (again played by flute and piccolo, measure
82), and a succession of the antecedent and consequent motives of Margaretha’s opening
phrase. Golo, at first, rejects her, but Margaretha insists, and answers, in an attempt to come
closer to him, with Golo’s melodic line (measures 84-89). All is done, though, over her
agitated music, indicating that Margaretha is in control.
Till this point, all characteristic music could be related to Margaretha’s motive of scene 7.
The interjections of “evil” music in scenes 4 and 6 are premonitions of Margaretha’s motive.
From a dramatically point of view these premonitions show how Golo gradually is drawn into
evil, possibly not even fully aware of this process. The elaborate presentation of evil then in
scene 7 will for the first time make clear where this process leads to: to disorder and
misfortune.
In measures 93- 97 complete new characteristic music is presented (Example 2). This
new characteristic music is a serpentine, chromatic motive that curls around the tones A and
D, while Golo sings, “Ich aber hasse dich, seit bösem Wandel du dich ergeben, schwarze
Künste treibst, die ich verabscheu…” When Margaretha points out she has seen him kissing
Genoveva, Golo is first enraged, “Du hast gesehen? Stirb!,” underlined with chromatic music,
and a sequence of pointed, ascending broken chords. Then, Golo starts to pity himself again,
“die ganze Welt ist mir verhasst,…” while the serpentine motive sounds (from measure 134
onwards), again in an ascending sequence.
From measure 147 onwards Margaretha tries a different approach. She takes off her
witch-like guise and, hiding her real intentions, changes her form into a more acceptable,
human appearance. To adopt another musical language than one’s own, is a musico-narrative
technique Schumann often uses. Here, Margaretha adopts a plain musical language: with
metrical squareness a charming theme is presented in D major. From that point on, Golo let
himself be taken in by Margaretha, and her triumph starts. Margaretha creates the illusion that
Genoveva might miss Golo, and he is more than willing to believe her. As a sign of Golo’s
evolution towards the evil side, in his turn he now adopts Margaretha’s music (for the first
time in measures 155-156). Bit by bit it becomes clear that Margaretha will be successful, and
51
that Golo is under her spell. Although at times Golo still denies Margaretha’s words, “Du
lügst, du kennst sie nicht, die Reine,” his music tells differently, and forms a perfect unity
with hers. Eventually, Golo requests Margaretha to help him to conquer Genoveva’s love, and
the scene ends in a delirious outburst of hope and triumph.
Another element of Schumann’s musico-dramatic language becomes clear if the tonal
plan is considered. Schumann knew Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart’s Ideen zu einer
Ästhetik der Tonkunst.71 In the last chapter of his book, Charakteristikstück der Tone,
Schubart describes the characteristics of each tonality.72 Although Schumann could not agree
with all of Schubart’s characteristics, at certain sections of the opera it is hard to deny that
Schumann’s tonal plan is modeled by Schubart’s ideas.73
A good example how Schumann uses Schubart’s concept dramatically is the section
mentioned above (measure 147 onwards). From the moment Margaretha tries to seduce Golo
with fair promises of Genoveva’s love for him, the tonal plan is as follows: D major – B
major – B flat major – B major. D major is the tonality of triumph, according to Schubart.
This passage, although not triumphal in its expression, certainly is the moment when the
triumph begins. Margaretha, finally, has found the language to get Golo on her side by giving
him hope. Triumph is not achieved yet, but it is within reach for Margaretha, and – she makes
Golo believe – also for him.
From measure 190 onwards B major enters, described by Schubart as, “wilde
Leidenschaften ankündend, aus den grellsten Farben zusammen gesetzt. Zorn, Wuth,
Eifersucht, Raserey, Verzweiflung, und jeder Jast des Herzens liegt in seinem Gebiethe.”74
At first, B major still sounds almost timidly and reserved, but when Margaretha assents on
Golo’s request to help him, the delirious outburst of joy and hope, as mentioned above, begins
in a much faster tempo (Sehr lebhaft, measure 227). This is only interrupted by a small
passage in B flat major when Golo sings, “Mein muss sie werden” (measures 237-239).
“Heitere Liebe, gutes Gewissen, Hoffnung, Hinsehnen nach einen bessern Welt,” is what B
71
Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart, Ideen zu einer Ästhetik der Tonkunst, ed. Ludwig Schubart (Wien: J.V.
Degen, 1806). Reprinted with preface by Fritz and Margrit Kaiser (Hildesheim: Georg Olms
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1969). For the note of Schumann, see Schumann, Tagebücher Band II, 84.
72
“Charakteristikstück” probably is a misprint.
73
For Schumann’s rejection of some of Schubart’s characteristics see Fritz Kaiser, Introduction to Ideen zu einer
Ästhetik der Tonkunst, by Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart, VIII. Reprinted with preface by Fritz and Margrit
Kaiser (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1969).
74
Schubart, Ideen zu einer Ästhetik, 378-379. All italics in the descriptions of the tonalities will be reproduced
as in the edition.
52
flat major expresses, and Schumann must have been especially attracted by the words hope,
love, and longing.
Both Margaretha and Golo are in a state of euphoria: Margaretha because her plan seems
to succeed, Golo because the love of Genoveva seems near. However, Schumann’s choice for
B major contradicts this apparent rejoicing. The lieto fine of this act is Margaretha’s, it is a
lieto fine of evil. Margaretha has won: Golo is under her spell, and has chosen for her, the evil
power. The tonality of B major conveys that it is not a stable, happy victory, but will lead to
“Zorn, Wuth, Eifersucht, Raserey, Verzweiflung.”
When in the next scene (no. 8) Genoveva feels intimidated by the loud servants and
seeks comfort with Golo, Golo seizes the opportunity to be with her. Here, Golo adopts music
that, obviously, is not his own in an attempt to come close to Genoveva. Her musical
language is his now, and creates the illusion that Golo really is getting near to her. Golo’s
illusion of a possible mutual love is highlighted by the duet “Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär” in E
minor ( in Schubart: “naive, weibliche unschuldige Liebeserklärung”). Golo’s naïveté soon
ends in disillusion after her rejection, “zurück, ehrloser Bastard” (measures 138-142). Now
Golo not only put his trust in evil powers to help him, but becomes evil himself. He curses
Genoveva, and is filled with feelings of hate and wrath. A new motive is created to express
this feeling, a fierce thrill by the celli (Example 3, measures 142-145).
Evil is depicted by Schumann in many ways. He uses motives, instrumentation,
articulation, sentence structure, and tonalities to convey the narrative. Evil can be presented in
its true self, or can adopt other musical languages to create illusions. The orchestra sometimes
supports what is said, sometimes contradicts the words. Schumann’s musico-dramatic
language is not in the first place a language of repetition. Repetition does take place, but far
more typical for his musical language is variety. To depict this one category of evil, not one
repeated motif or expression is used, but a variety of means and techniques.
53
Example 3 Act II, No. 9 measures 139-146
When Golo has pronounced his curse, a succession of diminished chords display the
distorted world he has entered now. Just before the scene ends, the high-pitched flutes sound
again, depicting Golo’s future world.
Siegfried
While in the first act Golo was drawn into the realm of evil, and in the second act the
dark powers of evil govern his life (and Siegfried’s court, more about that later), the third act
shows how Siegfried follows Golo’s path towards darkness. This process is conveyed by
Schumann with a similar musico-dramatic language.
The beginning of the act, though, at first sight shows but unconcern. Siegfried,
unknowing of the events at his court, is recovering from his war wounds in Strasbourg, and is
nursed by Margaretha. The act begins with a happy and vivacious Siegfried who is longing to
go home. “Frisch und kräftig” Schumann wrote above the score, and the music really is
energetic and lively. Schumann’s choice of keys, though, tells a different story.
54
Scene 13, the first scene of act III, is in A flat major, and its key signature, with four flats,
remains the entire scene. Within this scene modulations occur regularly, but all tonalities have
three or more flats: A flat major, E flat major/minor, F minor, and D flat major. All, in
Schubart’s idea, express a sense of dismalness. A flat major is, “der Gräberton, Tod, Grab,
Verwesung, Gericht, Ewigkeit liegen in seinem Umfang.” F minor expresses, “tiefe
Schwermuth, Leichenklage, Jammergeächz, und grabverlangende Sehnsucht.” D flat major is,
“ein schielender Ton, ausartend in Leid und Wonne (…).” The tonality of E flat seems to be
in major (“der Ton der Liebe”) However, the regularly appearing tone G flat (in a raised
IVo/V-V progression, measures 14,15 – 16,17 – 18,19) introduces minor, and E flat minor
expresses, “Empfindungen der Bangigkeit des aller tiefsten Seelendrangs; der hinbrütenden
Verzweiflung; der schwärzesten Schwermuth, der düstersten Seelenverfassung.” Thus,
Siegfried’s energetic and hopeful mood is contradicted by the tonalities Schumann has
chosen. Theirs is the story of the real world, the world Siegfried soon will enter. Although
there is one moment when the flats disappear and sharps instead are written – the moment
when Margaretha for the first time mentions the magic mirror (measures 61-64) – B major
does not bring relief. The tonality of “Zorn, Wuth, Eifersucht, Raserey, Verzweiflung” is
another announcement of the world into which Siegfried will be drawn.
Example 4 Act III, No. 14 measures 39-42
Siegfried’s cheerful mood reaches a highlight in scene 14. With a motive that in the same
breath sings the praise of his castle, the victory over the Moors and Genoveva – and rather is
victorious than loving – it is hard to believe that it is in the first place Genoveva he is longing
55
for (Example 4, measures 39-42). But it depicts Siegfried’s view on his life at that very
moment, which although self-centred perhaps, is gay and optimistic. This all too happy
motive (that begins in C major, the tonality of, “Naivetät, Kindersprache”) with its plain
cadential progressions, is put in a clear bipartite structure (A: measures 39-78; A1: 79-118).
The first time such a cadential progression does not resolve is in measure 118, when horse
steps announce the arrival of Golo. From this moment onwards, Siegfried’s world changes,
and his music tells so.
Example 5 Act III, No. 14 measures 183-188
56
Example 6 Act III, No. 14 measures 205-208
With Golo’s arrival the clear structure disappears, as do the plain harmonic progressions.
Instead, a seemingly unstructured section begins that is highly chromaticized. New motives
are introduced: a restless motive with a continuous movement and a staccato articulation (see
Example 5). It is another reminiscence of Margaretha’s staccatos of scene 7, and pops up
constantly. Another motive exposes harsh harmonies over a pedal point (see Example 6, also
measures 246-249, 262-265, 290-291,301-307). Siegfried has entered a world in which chaos
rules, where no harmony exists. He has turned to thoughts of hatred, revenge, and self-pity. It
is a world that Golo – who sometimes seems to realize which kind of world he has entered,
and shows remorse now – had already entered. Tellingly, Siegfried and Golo share the same
musical language now in this dialogue: the plan of Margaretha and Golo to draw Siegfried to
their evil side is about to succeed.
Till this point though, Siegfried had not deliberately chosen for evil, as Golo had done in
act II. Siegfried was overwhelmed and confused by the news of Genoveva’s adultery, and at
first seemed not even capable to take decisions. This changes at the end of scene 14, when
Siegfried consciously makes the choice to go to Margaretha to know the “truth”. When he
remembers the magic mirror, the music evaluates into a more moderate tempo (“Etwas
gemässiger”), seems to lose some of its tension, and instead a softer, tempting tone appears.
Very softly, though, the harsh harmonies can be heard (measures, 290-291, and 301-307).
The beginning of the finale of act III illustrates two things. First, the worlds of
Margaretha, Golo and Siegfried have become one, which Schumann demonstrates musically.
57
The scene begins in Margaretha’s room, and is introduced by the same staccato motive of
scene 14 ( see Example 5, now played by high-pitched flutes and hobos). It is a confirmation
that the staccato motive of scene 14, really was another form of Margaretha’s motive. Yet
another serpentine motive is introduced (measures 3-4). That much is certain now, the
musical language of Siegfried and Golo, is Margaretha’s language. It is clear, that both Golo
and Siegfried are under her control now.
Second, the opening scene also makes clear what kind of woman Margaretha is. Till now
her profile might have been a little pale, but in this scene, just before Siegfried puts his trust in
her, it becomes apparent that his confidence is in a witch who has killed her own daughter. It
is as if Schumann once more wanted to underline how wrong Siegfried was. Again, the
tonality Schumann chose for Margaretha’s story is telling: F sharp minor is “Ein finsterer
Ton: er zerrt an der Leidenschaft, wie der bissige Hund am Gewande. Groll und
Miβvergnügen ist seine Sprache.”
Perhaps, the temptations of evil are displayed most convincingly in the mirror scene. Not
for the first time Schumann shows how Margaretha can change her true self, and pretends to
be a caring, helpful woman. When Siegfried knocks on her door, Margaretha responds in E
flat major (“der Ton der Liebe, der Andacht”) – which makes a strong contrast with her real
self in F sharp minor – and the music meanders charmingly. Warnings of Margaretha’s real
character can be heard occasionally, but the music heads straight for the first appearance in
the magic mirror. The choir sings of temptation and secret love, and the choice for the keys C
major, E major, and A minor cannot but be significant here as well. The music sounds siren
like, aimed to seduce, while all keys refer to a kind of virginal innocence. From “Unschuld,
Einfalt, Naivität, Kindersprache” (C major), to “noch nicht ganzer, voller Genuβ” (E major),
to “fromme Weiblichkeit, und Weichheit des Charakters”(A minor). Is Genoveva seduced by
Drago, as Margaretha and Golo want Siegfried to believe, or is Siegfried tempted here to
believe what is served up for him? In any case, the music is enticing, and Siegfried believes in
what he has seen. No religious music is heard, or was asked for – something, indeed,
inappropriate for a crusader.
Schumann demonstrates by his musico-dramatic language, that both Golo and Siegfried
are drawn in the realm of evil. They have to respond to music that is powerful, at times
tempting, and that pops up constantly. They both cannot resist this power. Clearly designed in
the music are the moments when, after initial resistance, they give in and become part of evil.
Gradually, characteristic music of evil becomes their music. Significantly, Siegfried, the hero,
does not have his own music, nor does Golo.
58
The abundance of motives and their different shapes not only demonstrate the enormous
variety with which the category of evil is exposed, but it also shows the omnipresence and the
inescapability of evil. It is by this agency that the leader Siegfried is tested and fails. The
leader has proved not to be a leader. Siegfried does not lead, he follows. Eventually,
Genoveva will show him the right path.
Violence and Threat
The people are not merely presented as an exponent of evil by Schumann. After all, the opera
begins and ends with a chorale sung by the people as an expression of their support for the
crusade. At that point of the narrative they rather are part of the social order, than a threat to
society. Notwithstanding, when their leaders Siegfried and Golo have chosen the wrong path,
the people do pose a threat. Schumann presents them as a mass that does not seek solutions by
dialogue, but knows but one language, the language of violence. Musically this is
demonstrated by rather primitive, compulsive music, which overpowers rather than
communicates. It is music that intervenes brusquely, and cuts off and shouts down other
music.
Overpowering music can be heard for the first time in scene 5 when the warriors depart
for the battlefield. Musico-dramatically this scene can be regarded as a transition. A transition
from the people as part of the social order as in scene 1, to the people as a mob ready to use
violence, as can be seen in scenes 8 and 12. The choir of male voices only, the martial
rhythm, the chiefly homophonic setting played by the full orchestra, represent a force with the
potential to destroy. In scene 5 this force is used for the “good cause”, and E major holds a
promise of victory, but in its massiveness and compulsiveness it is frightening and threatening
as well.
In scene 8, after Genoveva has expressed her feelings of loneliness and desolation since
Siegfried’s departure, the horns announce the choir of servants, which is heard from behind
the scene. They are not mournful because their lord has left, but rather take advantage of the
opportunity, ”Füllt die Becher bis zum Rande, stosset an und trinket aus! Zieht der Herr in
fremde Lande, ist der Knappe Herr im Haus.” This rude song shares many musical features
with the song of the warriors: it is also sung by men, with a compelling, dotted rhythm in a
homophonic setting. But the intentions of these men, of course, are totally different. That is
also demonstrated by Margaretha’s motive, which is put right after the first presentation of
the servants’s motive (measures 45-52): obviously, these men are under the spell of evil.
59
For dramatic reasons a massive sound could not be created in scene 8: the spatial
distance between Genoveva and the servants prevented this. In scene 12 the servants enter
her room, and the more they approach her space – both actually and metaphorically – and
eventually take over, the louder they get. Scene 12, the finale of the second act, begins very
softly, pp, with ominous octaves by the wind instruments, and a thirty-second triplet motive.
While the servants sneak to Genoveva’s bedroom, a dotted rhythm is introduced, and yet
another motive, a very fast descending roulade with sixteenth notes, that creates a
nervousness suitable for the situation. Gradually, when the servants enter the bedroom and
have overcome their initial shyness – after all, it is the bedroom of their mistress they enter –
the dynamics increase. A first climax is reached when Drago is found and subsequently
stabbed to death by Balthasar.
Now the servants do not restrain themselves anymore, and want to imprison Genoveva. A
section with two types of music follows. Genoveva pleads her case, and asks heaven to
protect her with characteristic poetic music (more about Genoveva’s music in the next
paragraph). She is overwhelmed, though, by a massive sound by the full orchestra with a
prominent brass section, predominantly homophonic, that gets increasingly louder and faster.
This is the devastating force of the ignorant masses that has to be feared. This time violence
has won.
Schumann portrays the people, if they are not guided properly, as a primitive mass. In
scenes 8 and 12 their music lacks subtlety and sophistication. Instead, we hear compulsive,
repetitious music, and a sound that rather overpowers than convinces. This is not music that
seeks a dialogue, but that wants to be heard alone. Again, as in the characteristic music of
evil, Schumann does not use one motive to represent this category. Certain features stand out,
and represent violence and threat: homophony, massiveness, compulsiveness, repetition and
the music most often is rather primitive. These features, often combined, all clearly delineate
this music from the other categories.
In many ways the Gaunerlied is a culmination of the threatening and violent side of the
people. This song is a section of scene 14 in which Genoveva is dragged into the forest to be
executed. The text is utterly degrading, describing a woman who does not care when her
lover is hanged, but heartlessly almost immediately looks for another man. It demonstrates the
total lack of empathy of Caspar and Balthasar. The music is sung almost unisono with a
simple harmony, and Schumann seems to have used this already existing song to express the
primitivism of these two representatives of the people. After this song, Balthasar and Caspar
just shout orders now and then, and their music almost stops. The fact that Schumann did not
60
compose music for them anymore, could be considered as a statement too: the people in this
state of mind have no music, no poetry. What a lack of poetic music really means, will
become apparent in the next category, of the good.
The Good
Probably, the category most recognizable of the four categories of the Character of Moral
and Social Value, is the category of the good. Not only because it is sung by one person,
Genoveva, but chiefly because her music forms such a stylistic unity. If there is one concept
that could capture Genoveva’s tone, it is “the poetic”.
The poetic in German Romantic philosophy is an important, though far from univocal,
concept.75 It was developed in the early Romantic era by writers, and philosophers such as
Friedrich Schlegel and Novalis, and played also an important part in Tieck’s work. It is a
concept in which beauty, the lyrical and truth are considered as one. Through the poetic the
“truth” can be perceived, or rather experienced. As a more intuitive way of expression, it also
was a reaction to the Enlightment with its emphasis on rationality. In this respect, it is related
to other typical Romantic concepts as fantasy and beauty, and the Romantic fascination for
the mysterious and the miraculous. All concepts dealing with the believe that the “essence”,
or the “veritable” should be sought in a domain beyond the rational.
The poetic is not restricted to poetry. On the contrary, life itself should be filled with
poetic significance. Friedrich Schlegel wrote in his “Athenäum”-fragment nr. 116,
Die romantische Poesie ist eine progressive Universalpoesie. Ihre Bestimmung ist nicht bloβ, alle
getrennten Gattungen der Poesie wieder zu vereinigen und die Poesie mit der Philosophie und
Rhetorik in Berührung zu setzen. Sie will und soll auch Poesie und Prosa, Genialität und Kritik,
Kunstpoesie und Naturpoesie bald mischen, bald verschmelzen, die Poesie lebendig und gesellig und
das Leben und die Gesellschaft poetisch machen (my italics).76
It was a concept that could – and should, given Schlegel’s definition – cover all facets of
life. Novalis considered the act of poetry as an even higher form of thinking than philosophy:
75
For a discussion of these concepts and the evolution of thought in the Romantic era see, Rüdiger Safranski,
Romantik: Eine deutsche Affäre (München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 2007).
76
Ibid., 59.
61
“Ergründen ist philosophieren, Erdenken ist Dichten. “77 Or, in Safranski’s words: “In der
Poesie wird Denken zur Andacht.”78 Moreover, Novalis underlines in Die Christenheit oder
Europa that the “poetic consciousness” is of more value than philosophy. The poetic
consciousness helps to create the heiligen Sinn, a driving force that makes one strive for a
higher cause, both for the personal benefit and, as a logical consequence, for the entire
society. In so doing, the poetic was an expression of, and a guideline for the morality of a
society. In times of turmoil and emptiness, the poetic was a healing force for society.
Constantin Floros has investigated how Schumann has understood “the poetic.”79
Schumann’s view on the poetic was, as the philosophers of the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth century, not univocal. Poetic music could best be typified by what it was not – that
is, mechanical, academic, for the sake of effect only, or merely virtuosic. As a matter of
course, poetic music was the opposite of all this. In Schumann’s writings poetic music is
described in a varied way. It should be full of fantasy and evoke the fantasy of the listeners.
Furthermore, it must aim at a renewing of form and expression. In addition, Schumann often
points at the interrelationship between poetry and poetic music, in which he considers music
as a higher art form, “Töne sind höhere Worte.”
In a speech about poetry that he delivered in 1827 Schumann said, “Der Dichter lebt in
der idealischen Welt und arbeitet für die wirkliche.”80 Also for Schumann the poetic was not
merely an aesthetic concept. Already in his early writings did Schumann have thoughts about
the influence of the poetic on the real world. Poetic music, he said, was a “Seelensprache”, an
expression of the soul, and therefore could get to the heart of life.81 By its ability to come
close to the essence of life it could express something veritable, it could approach the “truth”.
Schumann’s ideas, obviously, were based on the thoughts of the philosophers mentioned
above.
Genoveva’s poetic music is not the habitual expressive and lyrical music composed for
the prima donna in Italian and French opera. Her music has a different expression. To
compose for the role of Genoveva poetic music implies that she is the one who has access to
the “truth”. Her music expresses the moral values that serve as the guiding principle for a just
society. By her music one can perceive that she is the one to whom one should “listen”.
77
Ibid., 124.
Ibid., 125.
79
Constantin Floros, “Schumanns musikalische Poetik,” in Musik-Konzepte Sonderband: Robert Schumann I, ed.
Heinz-Klaus Metzger and Rainer Riehn (München, 1981), 90-104.
80
Ibid., 91.
81
Ibid., 93.
78
62
Still, her music cannot be associated with decisive leadership. The music is never heroic,
nor does it take the lead, it even lacks some prominence. It is clearly delineated from the other
music, but it does not claim the attention in a demanding way. This aspect of her music refers
to the devout woman Genoveva is, and both aspects, devout and feminine, are important in
this respect.
The role of women in society changed in the course of the nineteenth century. Women’s
role, particularly in the middle-class, more and more was seen as predominantly domestic. A
woman’s “natural” role was being a mother and wife, and marriage was one of the pillars of
the society. As Eve Rosenhaft writes: “The return of love, sealed in marriage, was the basis of
humanity’s moral progress, while for both men and women marriage was the precondition for
self-realization and meaningful life in society.”82 Rosenhaft underlines, though, that the
domestic role of women did not mean that theirs was merely a private one. Women were not
totally excluded from the public sphere. In the household, Rosenhaft writes, the public and
private converged.83 Although not in an active role, engagement in the social sphere took
place, since a wife was expected to be supportive for her husband, also in his public life.
However, it was assumed that the fact that women did not have an active role in the
public sphere, made them less liable to moral corruption. This, as opposed to the male hero
who by nature presented himself in the public sphere. For him the temptations of the world
were on the lurk. Tieck’s personage Karl Martell, and Schumann’s Siegfried both had to deal
with these temptations and the moral choices they subsequently had to make. The role of a
woman as mother and wife primarily, not directly involved in the public sphere, gave her
some authority in moral issues. Genoveva’s role as the guardian of virtue therefore does not
come as a surprise.
Although Schumann rather stresses Genoveva’s human nature instead of her saintly one,
she is portrayed as a beacon of morality. Not through a miraculous life – Schumann has
omitted much of Genoveva’s miracles compared with the versions by Tieck and Hebbel – but
through her exemplary conduct she represents the values that should form the core of society.
As a woman she did not engage herself in the practical matters of leadership, but the higher
principles behind leadership is what she represents.
82
Eve Rosenhaft, “Gender,” in Germany 1800-1870 ed. Jonathan Sperber (Oxford: Oxford University Press),
212.
83
Ibid., 215.
63
Example 7.1
64
Example 7.2
65
Example 7.3
66
Schumann created a very specific musical language for the third category. However,
even less so than in the other categories does repetition play a part. No returning motives, or
notable instrumentation can be heard. Still, Genoveva’s music has a very distinguishing tone.
Examples 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 show the first pages of typical music of Genoveva. The first two
examples are arias, the last one is an arioso sung just before the Gaunerlied. What strikes first
is the slow tempo of all three parts: “sehr langsam”, adagio, and “langsam” respectively. The
tempi suit the content of the lyrics. In the first aria of scene 8 Genoveva mourns over the
absence of Siegfried at court, in the aria number 11 Genoveva foresees difficulties and prays
to God for protection, and in the last arioso she bemoans her fate being dragged through the
forest. These slow tempi are significant. Although Genoveva gets in ever more trouble during
the opera, and in the end she is dragged into the forest to be executed, she remains the person
she has always been. She does bemoan her fate, but never she is in panic, nor does she accuse
anyone about the circumstances she is in. Therefore, no accelerations, no shifts in tempo are
heard. The constant slow tempi are a confirmation of her steadfastness. These are hard times,
but Genoveva is the person who can endure them.
Aside from the slow tempi, Genoveva’s sections show more similarities. Both arias and
the arioso are well-structured, but in a loose way. The aria of number 8 has a periodic
structure. 84 The antecedent (measures 1-6) is built as a musical phrase with a basic idea
(measure 1) which is repeated in measure 2, and compressed and continued in the subsequent
measures. The consequent (from measure 7 onwards) then develops in a free way. The aria
number 11 also has a periodic structure that is repeated from measure 19 onwards (with
upbeat). In the arioso sequences form the constructing element. The orchestral introduction of
eight measures can be divided in a presentation (measures 1-4), and a sequence a fifth higher
(measures 5-8). Each unit of four measures then consists of the presentation of the motive
(measure 1), and two descending sequences. Sequences continue to be a constructing factor
(see for instance measures 9 and 10; and the reiteration of measures 5 and 6 in measures 17
and 18). Repetition, of course, plays a part within the numbers, but the arias/arioso do not
share a common motive. Obviously, Schumann did not want to create unity with a motive, but
rather with a specific way of expression.
Harmonically Genoveva’s music is very rich. It is highly chromatized music with a
wandering harmony. The chromaticism, though, does not express chaos or distortion, but
rather enriches the harmony and leads to an intensification and compression of the expression.
84
For terminology and concepts of structure, see William E. Caplin, Classical Form: A Theory of Formal
Functions for the Instrumental Music of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
67
The expression is not extravert, but rather restrained. This sense of modesty is strengthened
by the overall descending melodic lines. Although the orchestral introduction of number 8
shows an ascending line, the (repeated and compressed) basic idea shows a descending line
that also prevails in the melodic lines sung by Genoveva. Similar descending lines dominate
in numbers 11 and 14. A certain restrainedness fits Genoveva’s position as a supportive rather
than dominant wife. A humble, modest position, of course, is also all-important in her relation
to God. Nevertheless, she is the one who is closest to God, and consequently to the truth, and
therefore she is the one who has poetic music.
Perhaps, Genoveva’s music can be best described by what it is not, as Floros did when
he wanted to sum up Schumann’s ideas about poetic music. Her music is not for the sake of
effect only, not merely virtuosic, nor is it mechanical or academic; it does not tell of heroic
deeds, nor does it express her anxieties or suffering in a self-centred way; it does not show the
shrill sounds or nervousness of Margaretha’s music, nor harsh harmonies or distorted
chromaticism; it is not loud or overpowering as the music of the people was. Instead,
Genoveva’s music demonstrates continuity and steadfastness, but above all poetry.
In the aria that begins after the Gaunerlied Genoveva expects to die soon. In this aria, and
the subsequent duet with Golo (scene 15), she is tried to the utmost. Given the dramatic
situation she is in, one would expect drama in the music as well. But Schumann does not first
of all expose drama. Although the music does display some sadness, above all it shows
continuity. In fact, it is a tone that is quite similar to the tone of scene 8.
In scene 8 Genoveva was sad her husband had left, in scene 14 she is about to be
murdered. To compose similar music for scenes which dramatically are so different seems to
be incongruous. But what has already been shown in the libretto, is confirmed by the music:
Schumann’s main interest was not to compose a dramatic opera. He wanted to create a
morality. His music for Genoveva demonstrates predominantly her firmness in her faith, and
her poetry. Her music conveys that even in these hard times she is more occupied with faith in
those she has always trusted – God and Siegfried – than with her own fate.
Her trust in God will be rewarded when the cross appears for her in the forest, “Ein
Kreuz, ein Muttergottesbild!” The music then has a lucid quality with long sustained chords.
After this passage the music modulates to B flat major (heitere Liebe, gutes Gewissen,
Hoffnung, Hinsehen nach einer besseren Welt), and Genoveva can now put all her trust in
Mary. A choir from behind the scenes sings “Frieden sei mit dir,” and Genoveva’s trial seems
to have come to an end.
68
However, she is tried for a last time when Golo arrives (announced by a reminiscence of
the thrill from scene 9, see Example 3). She rejects his last attempt to seduce her. When she
is finally confronted with the truth about Siegfried’s treason, she even then proves to be loyal
and firm. The music that accompanies her words, “Wenn mein Gemahl zurückkehrt, sagt ihm
dies: dass ich, wie hart er auch mit mir verfuhr, ihm Alles doch, bevor ich starb, vergab!” has
the same poetic tone (see Example 8).
Example 8 Act IV, No. 17 measures 142-149
Genoveva is not a suffering prima donna, who extrovertly expresses her sorrows or
sufferings. Although for her dramatic situation dramatic music would seem appropriate,
Genoveva’s music rather is somewhat restrained. This suits her female position in nineteenth
century Germany. Still, it is the richest music in the opera. Golo and Siegfried in the end were
dominated by evil, and the music of evil became theirs, but Genoveva keeps her own music.
She is tried more than any other person in the opera, but her music retains the same poetic
tone throughout. It proves her enduring power: she is the stable factor in society. Her music
does not have a dramatic tone, but rather is a “Seelensprache”, a musical language that gets to
69
the heart of life. Her music shows, that she is the one who can change society for the better.
Her music conveys the “truth”.
The Social Order
In the first scene of the opera the whole court is present. Schumann deliberately mentions in
his description of the stage that all classes are there: the clergy, the nobility, and the common
people. The gathering above all expresses unity, and optimism. The chorale, sung by the
entire community, is a metaphor for the shared philosophy of the community. It is as if
Novalis’s ideas about a community united by the same universal Christian faith, as expressed
in Die Christenheit oder Europa, are put on stage here.85 The chosen philosophy, the Catholic
faith, of course is appropriate for the time, the ninth century. The scene presents an ideal
social order: a people cheering their leader, who is willing to sacrifice his life for the benefit
of his people. Moreover, the benefit is not prospect, wealth, or other worldly values, but a
moral and social value. Siegfried and his knights are going to defend a civilization based on
ethic principles. And on top of that, the representative of this philosophy, the bishop, is at the
centre of the gathering. He is the one who blesses the crusaders, and in fact is in charge. The
heiligen Sinn certainly is present at that moment.
As the opera proceeds it becomes clear that this philosophy was not supported by
everyone. In the end, when all hardship is overcome, it seems that the old order has returned.
This is criticized by Lawrence Kramer as being reactionary:
With Schumann (…) the society that ends the opera is one restored to its original form. It is
distinctly pre-modern; it is steeped in the idealization of both ecclesiastical and political authority; it is
grounded in an idea of organic community and the power of tradition. All this the ceremonial
character of the music insists we remember. The conception is profoundly conservative, especially in
the revolutionary year 1848. It suggests a strong disposition to favour continuity and belonging over
social transformation and its uncertainties.86
The analysis of the libretto had already demonstrated that there is no restoration of the old
order, but that in reality a transformation took place. Kramer not only overlooked this fact in
the libretto, but apparently also missed this transformation in the score.
85
Safranski, Romantik, 125-126. And Arnold Heumakers, De esthetische revolutie (Amsterdam: Uitgeverij
Boom, 2015), 302-303.
86
Lawrence Kramer, “A New Self: Schumann at 40,” The Musical Times Vol. 148, No. 1898 (Spring, 2007), 5.
70
Example 9.1 Act IV, No. 20 measures 1-12
Example 9.2 Act IV, No. 20 measures 31-36
71
Example 9.2 (continued) measures 37-39
The second last scene is composed for double choir. The first choir begins and sings the
praise of Genoveva in a cradling twelve-eight meter: the music conveys that all hardship is
over now (Example 9.1). Then, when the orchestra for the third time introduces the first
choir, not the theme of the first choir sounds, but instead the second choir sings the chorale
theme (Example 9.2, measure 34-35). What follows is an alternation of the two choirs and
their themes.
72
Schumann does not create contrast between the two choirs, though, but rather presents
the two themes as complement of each other. Genoveva’s music blends in with the chorale,
symbol of the existing social order. The scene ends with the chorale: a new element is added
to the social order, which seems to be renewed.
In a glorious last scene the restored social order is celebrated, and blessed by bishop
Hidulfus. However, a transformation has taken place. The social order was an idealized order,
but it did not function anymore. To make it function again, a new kind of leadership was
needed. A leadership based on moral principles. Siegfried has shown that he alone could not
warrant this. Someone else, next to him, was needed to protect and control these principles.
This person next to him, of course, is Genoveva. The opera ends when the choir praises
both Siegfried and Genoveva. The principles of the social order have not changed: everybody
is present again, and unity is restored. What is changed, though, is the organization of the
state. Not one hero, not one absolute monarch, but a shared responsibility is the best guarantee
for a just society.
To approach an opera composed in the experimental times of German opera in the first
half of the nineteenth century with a standard methodology is a contradiction in terms.
The use of reminiscence motives and leitmotives, certainly, was a new and would prove to be
a seminal development in German opera. However, to search for these motives as the way to
explain Schumann’s opera, passes over the fact that there really was a search for German
opera. Besides, Schumann was a far too experimental and inventive composer to follow new
developments in a servile way.
Although we do not know if Schumann was familiar with Mosel’s treatise – in fact there
is no indication whatsoever for this – Mosel, indeed, is useful to analyze the music of
Genoveva. Mosel applied the concept of unity, so important in the German states, to an
operatic language. Mosel’s characters were unities, clearly delineated from others.
Mosel’s Character der handelnden Personen was not applicable for Genoveva, since
Schumann’s opera is not in the first place a personal drama. Out of Mosel’s concept, though,
originated the idea to create a new Character of Social and Moral Value. With this character
Schumann’s operatic language could be revealed.
The Character of Social and Moral Value offers some seminal chances. First, the opera
now could be analyzed as a reflection on its time on a social and political level. Not people
were opposed to each other, but principles, virtues and vices. Second, the division of this
character in four categories offered the opportunity to get to the core of Schumann’s operatic
73
language. In a peculiar way it was the fact that Mosel was vague about how to realize his
characters – a king majestically, a woman tenderly etc. – that left open the possibility for an
operatic language in which a character could be portrayed with a great variety of means.
Anything goes the motto seemed, if the character was expressed in a way appropriate for the
character. It is as if Schumann has seized this opportunity with both hands in this opera.
In the category of evil a motive was exposed, but it was not used as one entity. Rather,
the separate elements of this motive were used, and out of these elements originated other
motives related to the original form, that could evoke evil just as much. However, the
category of evil was not restricted to (elements of) this one motive, but Schumann added other
motives, and used also Schubart’s characteristics of tonalities. Evil could be presented in a
disguised form, but most importantly, all these forms of evil demonstrate how first Golo and
then Siegfried respond to this force. The category of violence and threat consists of music
that wants to overpower. It is done with music that is compulsive, rather primitive, and in the
final of act II overpowers with a massive orchestral sound. For the category of the good
Schumann created music with one poetic tone, as a metaphor for steadfastness in hard times
and knowledge of the “truth”. Finally, the social order, indeed, is expressed by one theme: the
chorale.
74
Chapter 6
Conclusion
Schumann’s student Louis Ehlert, seemingly, was right when he, cloaked in compliments,
blamed the lack of drama in Genoveva. Most of Ehlert’s fellow critics shared his opinion,
often with less flattering words. This study does not aim at denying this observation. Both the
text and the music analysis have demonstrated how Schumann time and again opted not for a
possible dramatic effect, but rather for a moral or social statement. Besides, not only the
analysis of Schumann’s libretto, but also the comparison with the texts by Tieck and Hebbel
clearly indicate that drama was not Schumann’s main interest.
Although Schumann’s political views remain unclear, his political involvement around
1848 is evident. Schumann had always been a passionate reader. Poetry, novels and plays, but
also history had his greatest interest. From January 1845 till the end of 1852 Schumann made
notes in his so-called Lektürebüchlein, in which he wrote what he had read every year, often
with a small comment.87
87
See Gerd Nauhaus, “Schumanns Lektürebüchlein,” in Robert Schumann und die Dichter: Ein Musiker als Leser,
ed. Joseph A. Kruse (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1991), 50-87.
75
Until the year 1847 the list shows this combination of genres. In 1848, though, that
changed:“ Groβes Revolutionsjahr. Mehr Zeitungen gelesen als Bücher.”88 In 1849 the same
remark can be read: “Revolutionsjahr. Mehr Zeitungen gelesen, als Bücher.” To follow the
news was not uncommon for Schumann. During their Russian tour in 1844 Schumann and his
wife wrote on several occasions that they had been to cafés to read the newspapers: “Abends
las Robert gewöhnlich bei Pedolli [a pastry shop, EB] Zeitungen.” And: “Nach dem ging
Robert (…) in die Muβe, wo zwar Zeitungen die Menge lagen, doch, die interressantesten
politischen Berichte vielleicht, mit Druckerschwärze überzogen waren. Das kam uns recht
88
Ibid., 73.
76
tyrannisch und kleinlich vor.”89 A certain political engagement seems inevitable in the years
of the Vormärz, but Schumann had never wanted to commit himself politically. In a letter to
Brendel (October 16, 1849) he wrote: “Vom Beitritt zu Ihrem Verein entbinden Sie mich,
lieber Brendel. Sie wissen, ich habe immer das Freie, Unabhängige geliebt, bin nie einem
Verein, welcher Art er sei, beigetreten und werde es auch künftig nicht.”90 The few reports
that exist in which he expresses some political view, switch between enthusiasm for the
French revolts in 1830, admiration for the conservative Austrian chancellor and diplomat
Metternich as expressed in his diary in 1842, and apparent annoyance about censorship, as
cited above.91 This, of course, does not throw much light on his position.
Of importance for this study is the question if Schumann was politically interested. The
image of Schumann as an apolitical person derives from the revolutionary days in May, 1849
in Dresden, when Wagner stood at the barricades while Schumann fled the city, afraid for the
revolutionary forces. One cannot conclude from this event only, however, that Schumann was
apolitical. After all, the fear for the militants who forced men to fight on the barricades seems
to be justified, and obviously, not only revolutionaries were politically committed as Sperber
has demonstrated.
Schumann’s aversion to join a (political) association and a lack of evidence about his
political convictions, do not alter the fact that Schumann in Genoveva chose to show the
necessary moral and social values of a society. This, obviously, is done at the expense of the
drama. A case in point is the character of Golo. In the renditions by both Tieck and Hebbel
this personage is dramatically well-exposed, and his life ends, appropriate for his character
and deeds, in a tragic climax. Schumann begins in a similar way, and in the first two acts it
seems that Golo even will develop into the main character of the opera. While the other
characters remain rather flat, his character shows the greatest depth. Golo’s longing to go on
the crusade and subsequent frustration that Siegfried does not allow him to go, his feelings of
love for Genoveva that he tries to suppress out of loyalty to Siegfried, but then, the gradual
change caused by the indifference of Siegfried and the temptations of evil: all seemed wellprepared to create a typically tragic opera character, with similar tragic, climactic music.
However, Schumann chose not to do so. Instead, from scene 9 onwards the character of Golo
merely functions as a mirror of the behaviour of Siegfried and Genoveva. In scene 18 Golo,
literally, dissolves in the night.
89
Schumann, Tagebücher Band II, 358 and 323.
Cited in Reinhard Kapp, “Schumann nach der Revolution,” in Schumann in Düsseldorf: Schumann
Forschungen Band 3, ed. Bernard R. Appel (Mainz: Schott, 1988), 319.
91
Kapp, “Schumann nach der Revolution,” 316 and 319.
90
77
A similar, deliberate lack of drama in favour of expressing a moral value can be found in
Genoveva’s role. She has the most poetic music in the opera, and her music forms a stylistic
unity so that it is clearly delineated from the other characters. Obviously, she is the main
character (as was, of course, inherent in the title). But, to paraphrase Ehlert: “Alles was man
will, nur kein Drama.” A woman, striped of all saintly features so emphatically present in the
versions by Tieck and Hebbel, who has to bear such a great suffering. Betrayed by Golo who
first tried to seduce her, humiliated and imprisoned by her servants who later drag her to a
forest to have her executed, and hated and despised by her husband Siegfried who does not
even wants to meet her anymore. At least her misery is saint-like. What Schumann shows,
though, is not primarily her dramatic life, but her endurance and steadfastness, her faith in
God and Siegfried. Her music forms a stylistic unity, because it has a constant poetic tone, not
because it is theatrical on the whole. That is remarkable, to say the least, not only because,
after all, it is opera, but also because the drama was there for the taking.
The one who does come up to the dramatic expectations is the witch Margaretha,
representative of evil. She is sly, shrewd and vicious as might be expected from a witch, and
her music has the same characteristics. Margaretha does have her own music, contrary to the
protagonists Golo and Siegfried, and that, of course, is also significant. The character of
Margaretha and what she represents, is crucial to understand Schumann’s opera. On the one
hand, Margaretha represents everything that should not belong to an ideal society – or a future
Germany. On the other hand, the protagonists are tested by her strength and temptation, and
the result of that test makes clear who is valuable for society and who is not. The failure of
Siegfried – the representative of the absolute monarch – becomes apparent in his
confrontation with Margaretha. Her elaborate, diverse musical expressions demonstrate not
only her omnipresence, but also her prominence.
The people have a double role. They are part of the ideal social order in the first and in
the last scenes, but if under the influence of wicked powers without morally just leadership to
guide them, they form a devastating force. This is expressed musically as well. If they are at
one with the social order, they sing the characteristic music of this order: the chorale. But, if
these social bonds are broken, they have their own compulsive, overpowering music.
Nevertheless, although tragic events are a result of their conduct, what prevails is how they
function socially if leadership has gone astray.
78
Figure 1 Plot structure
Golo
↑
Margaretha/Evil
→
Siegfried
←
↓
The People
Genoveva/Good
↓
←
Social Order
Figure 1 visualizes the main dramatic relations. Two active poles can be discerned: good
and evil. All arrows start from one of these (with the exception of the social order, which in
fact is part of the good), and target the ones within reach. Visualized is also Siegfried’s
central, but at the same time passive role. He is torn between good and evil, but does not
actively target someone. His position is not disputed, but he needs Genoveva to solve the
disorder at his court. He is a man who lives between two worlds, apparently, not able to create
his own. As a consequence, Siegfried although one of the protagonists does not have his own
characteristic music.
If German opera first and foremost is typified by a strong contrast between good and evil,
as Meyer and Jahrmärker maintain, then Genoveva is an exemplary one. As figure 1 shows,
and has been demonstrated by the music and text analyses, the opera is structured by the
contrast between good and evil. Contrast suggests drama, but paradoxically the opposite is
true in Genoveva. The opposite of the evil is the good, but the latter is also the opposite of
drama. The choice for a woman of blameless conduct as the heroine of an opera, undermines
the drama, as Meyer already stated in his analysis of Euryanthe.92 Devoutness, subservience,
steadfastness and virtuousness are perhaps important values for society, but they are not preeminently operatic qualities.
The lack of drama, thus, is a consequence of conscious choices Schumann has made. Yet,
there is another reason why some of the expected drama is missing. The concept of Character
92
Meyer, The Search for a German Opera, 150.
79
as discussed by Mosel again is useful. Mosel’s first character is translated by Meyer as
“Character in the Opera as a Whole” and described by Mosel as the “allgemeinen Character”
and the “Hauptton des Gemähldes.” The composer, Mosel writes, should try to find one
general tone appropriate for the text,
Der Tonsetzer suche daher vor Allem in den Geist des Gedichtes einzudringen, das er mit Musik
bekleiden soll; er betrachte genau die Art, den Gang, und das Ende der vorgestellten Handlung, und
setze darnach den allgemeinen Character seiner musikalischen Composition fest. Derselbe sey in der
tragischen Oper gross und ergreifend; in der heroischen glänzend und würdevoll; im romantischen
Singspiele zart und rührend; im komischen lieblich und heiter.93
This study of Genoveva makes clear that this opera was neither tragic, nor heroic or
romantic. In short, it is an opera about ideas, rather than about people. It functions on a social
and moral level, not primarily on a relational level. It follows from this, that the music neither
could be tragic, heroic, or romantic. The term that best defines Genoveva, perhaps, is
“operatic morality”. As a consequence, the general tone also had to be moral. In other words,
a too dramatic musical language was not desired. It would ruin the unity of the “opera as a
whole”. Given Schumann’s aversion from exorbitant display of drama as he found in grand
opera, restriction of an excessive expression of emotions rather was in keeping with his
operatic ideas.
As for the music analysis, the emphasis on social and moral subjects had important
consequences, and gave a major opportunity too. The social and moral themes the opera
addressed now also would become the main structuring principle of the opera. An analysis
that focuses on the protagonists could not be seminal. The fact that both Siegfried and Golo
do not have their own music, proves that an methodology based on characters leads nowhere.
Therefore, another approach was needed that took the essence of the libretto as the
premise. Mosel’s operatic concept of Charakter was not only interesting because it was a
contemporary methodology that underlined one of the most relevant concepts in Germany in
the first half of the nineteenth century: unity. From Mosel’s interpretation and use of
character, originated one of the concepts of this study: the creation of a new character that
could address moral and social values. The four categories of this Character of Moral and
Social Value – the evil, the good, violence and threat, and the social order – thus conveyed the
musico-dramatic story lines of the narrative. The music analysis has demonstrated that these
93
Mosel, Aesthetik, 42-43.
80
categories, indeed, form a unity in Genoveva, and the main caesuras by then can be put.
Having made this division in the score, subsequently, Schumann’s operatic language can be
mapped. From each category the musical material that Schumann uses, can be investigated.
Schumann’s operatic language proves to be extremely varied. Each category has its own
musical language, appropriate for the category involved. Evil is depicted in all its dangerous
forms, violence and threat as the feared ignorant mass: primitive and overpowering, the good
has a poetic tone that conveys the truth, and the idealized, unified social order is represented
by one genre only: the chorale.
This study, hopefully, has made clear that Schumann composed, in the revolutionary
year 1848, a political opera, an opera that emphatically wanted to play a part in the public
debate about a new Germany. Schumann’s rendition of the Genoveva legend, first and
foremost, displays the high values needed for the leadership of a state. The enormous
diversity with which he gave form to this view proves that Schumann had no lack of ideas.
The varied music he composed for the one poetic tone of Genoveva shows that there was no
loss of inspiration on his side. The (habitual) speed with which Schumann composed this
opera – the dates of completion were 23 January, 30 March, 13 June, and 21 July 1848 of
each act respectively – neither indicates that he had a lack of inspiration.94 Besides, to depict
evil in such a diverse way – with motives that derive from elements of another motive,
distinct parameters such as articulation, or instrumentation that evoke evil just as much, and a
suggestive use of tonalities – demonstrates Schumann’s intellectual power. That Schumann
was not able to control such a large-scale work, as Warrack opinions, is unlikely given the
analysis in this study.95
As the experimental composer he had always been, his innovative and very personal
operatic language could not come as a surprise, and demands a different approach. And
indeed, to surprise and confuse criticism can also be interpreted as a positive judgment of this
very personal composition style. As Geck wrote about Schumann’s opera: “Gottlob hat es
noch kein bedeutender Komponist geschafft, so zu komponieren, wie es die Kritik von ihm
verlangt – was wäre sonst wohl von seiner Musik geblieben?”96
The investigation of Schumann’s operatic musical language, and the contextualization of
this work in times of social unrest and longing for more political influence, have put this
94
See Jensen, Schumann, 245.
Warrack, German Opera, 371.
96
Geck, Robert Schumann, 233.
95
81
work in a different light. For Schumann “die Gesetze der Moral sind auch die der Kunst.”
Whether Schumann’s choice to abandon (partially) the drama in favour of social and moral
issues was successful, is still to be discussed. This can now be done in a another perspective.
82
Bibliography
Editions
Hebbel, Friedrich. Genoveva: Eine Tragödie in fünf Akten. Hamburg: Hoffman und Campe,
1843. Reprinted with biography by Michael Holzinger. Berlin: Holzinger, 2015.
Tieck, Ludwig. Leben und Tod der heiligen Genoveva: Ein Trauerspiel, in “Romantische
Dichtungen.” Jena: Fromman, 1800. Reprinted with biography by Michael Holzinger. Berlin:
Holzinger, 2014.
Scores
Schumann, Robert. Genoveva: Oper in vier Akten. Op. 81. Leipzig: Verlag von Breitkopf &
Härtel, n.d.
Schumann, Robert. Genoveva: Grosse Oper in vier Akten. Vocal score by Clara Schumann.
Leipzig: C.F Peters, n.d.
Secondary sources
Abert, Hermann. “Robert Schumann’s Genoveva.” Musik-Konzepte Sonderband: Robert
Schumann II, ed. Heinz-Klaus Metzger and Rainer Riehn, 177-190. München: Richard
Boorberg Verlag, 1982.
Caplin, William E. Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music
of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Clark, Christopher. “Religion.” In Germany 1800-1870, ed. Jonathan Sperber, 162-184.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Dahlhaus, Carl. “Die Kategorie des Charakteristischen in der Ästhetik des 19. Jahrhunderts.”
In Die Couleur locale in der Oper des 19. Jahrhunderts, ed. Heinz Becker, 9-21. Regensburg:
Gustav Bosse Verlag, 1976.
Eichner, Barbara. History in Mighty Sounds: Musical Constructions of German National
Identity, 1848-1914. Suffolk: Boydell Press, 2012.
Ewert, Hansjörg. Anspruch und Wirkung: Die Oper Genoveva von Robert Schumann.
Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 2003.
Floros, Constantin. “Schumanns musikalische Poetik.” In Musik-Konzepte Sonderband:
Robert Schumann I, ed. Heinz-Klaus Metzger and Rainer Riehn, 90-104. München, 1981.
Geck, Martin. Robert Schumann: Mensch und Musiker der Romantik. München: Siedler
Verlag, 2010.
Heumakers, Arnold. De esthetische revolutie. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Boom, 2015.
83
Jahrmärker, Manuela. “Versuch einer deutschen Reform-Oper: Zu Schumanns Genoveva.” In
Robert Schumann, ed. Jessica Distler and Michael Heinemann, 137-157. Berlin: Weidler
Buchverlag, 2006.
Jensen, Eric Frederick. Schumann. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Jost, Peter. “Schumanns und Wagners Opernkonzeptionen: Genoveva versus Lohengrin.” In
Musik-Konzepte Neue Folge Sonderband: Der späte Schumann, ed. Ulrich Tadday, 133-152.
München, Richard Boorberg Verlag, 2006.
Kaiser, Fritz. Introduction to Ideen zu einer Ästhetik der Tonkunst, by Christian Friedrich
Daniel Schubart, v-xi. Reprinted with preface by Fritz and Margrit Kaiser. Hildesheim: Georg
Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1969.
Kapp, Reinhard. “Schumann nach der Revolution. Vorüberlegungen, Statements, Hinweise,
Materialien, Fragen,” In Schumann Forschungen, Band 3: Schumann in Düsseldorf, ed.
Bernard R. Appel, 315-415. Mainz: Schott, 1993.
Kramer, Lawrence. “A New Self: Schumann at 40.” The Musical Times, Vol. 148, No. 1898
(Spring, 2007), 3-17.
Kiesewetter, Raphael Georg. Geschichte der europäisch-abendländischen oder unsrer
heutigen Musik: Von den ersten Jahrhundert des Christenthumes bis auf unsre Zeit. Leipzig:
Breitkopf und Härtel, 1834.
Meyer, Stephen C. Carl Maria von Weber and the Search for a German Opera. Bloomington:
Indiana Universtiy Press, 2003.
Mortier, Gerard. Dramaturgie van een passie. Antwerpen: De Bezige Bij, 2014.
Mosel, Ignaz Franz von. Versuch einer Aesthetik des dramatischen Tonsatzes. Vienna: Verlag
Anton Strauss, 1813.
Nauhaus, Gerd. “Schumanns Lektürebüchlein.” In Robert Schumann und die Dichter: Ein
Musiker als Leser, ed. Joseph A. Kruse, 50-87. Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1991.
Nipperdey, Thomas. Deutsche Geschichte: Bürgerwelt und starker Staat, 1800-1866.
München: Verlag C.M. Beck, 1983.
Paley, Elizabeth. “Dramatic Stage and Choral Works.” The Cambridge Companion to
Schumann, ed. Beate Perry, 195-219. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Rosenhaft, Eve. “Gender.” In Germany 1800-1870, ed. Jonathan Sperber, 209-229. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004.
Safranski, Rüdiger. Romantik: Eine Deutsche Affäre. München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 2007.
Sheehan, James J. German History, 1770-1866. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
84
Simms, Brendan. “Political and diplomatic movements, 1800-1830: Napoleon, national
uprising, restoration.” In Germany: 1800-1870, ed. Jonathan Sperber, 26-45. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004.
Schubart, Christian Friedrich Daniel. Ideen zu einer Ästhetik der Tonkunst, ed. Ludwig
Schubart. Wien: J.V, Degen, 1806. Reprinted with preface by Fritz and Margrit Kaiser.
Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1969.
Schumann, Robert. Tagebücher, Band II 1836-1854, ed. Gerd Nauhaus. Basel:
Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, 1987.
_____. Gesammelte Schriften über Musik und Musiker, Band 1, ed. Martin Kreisig. Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Härtel, 1914.
_____Gesammelte Schriften über Musik und Musiker, Band 4. Leipzig: Georg Wigand’s
Verlag, 1854.
Sperber, Jonathan. The European Revolutions, 1848-1851. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1984.
Thibaut, Anton Friedrich Justus. Ueber Reinheit der Tonkunst. Heidelberg: Verlag von J.C.B.
Mohr, 1825.
Walser Smith, Helmut. “Nation and Nationalism.” In Germany: 1800-1870, ed. Jonathan
Sperber, 230-255. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Warrack, John. German Opera: From the Beginnings to Wagner. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001.
Whittall, Arnold, "Leitmotif." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University
Press, accessed June 18, 2016,
http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/16360.