Poetics of the Periodical Paratext: Editorial Footnotes and Reader Agency in Robert Schumann’s Davidsbund Writings Tobias Hermans Ghent University / Indiana University Abstract: The periodical landscape of nineteenth-century Germany renders issues of paraand metatextual communication in journalism highly tangible. It particular, it makes us reconsider then universalist notions of ‘Kritik,’ which heralded a close-knit interrelation between text and medium. In this article, I offer an analysis of Robert Schumann’s ‘Musikkritik’ in order to expand on the intricate narrative empowerment of a journal’s paratextual environment. Schumann introduced a fictional Davidsbund in his music criticism, which served as an intermediary mouthpiece for his opinions and views. I illustrate how Schumann uses key features of the journal’s design and layout as a discursive vehicle of narrative interaction. Such instances of paratextual interplay decisively shape the act of informing and convincing the reader, and even go beyond such pragmatic aims. In its relocation of the hermeneutic, critical process from the textual environment to the medial surroundings, in fact, the journal defies its own autonomy in favor of an interartistic enterprise. In examining the journal’s constant suspension of its own autonomy, my article argues in favor of a more integrated awareness of mediality which allows us to cast new light on the poetics and status of early nineteenth-century journalistic communication. As such, I hope to stimulate a more inclusive perspective on (fictional) authorship and narrative identity. Keywords: Robert Schumann, Davidsbund, paratextuality, music criticism, periodicals When we conduct research on periodicals, we often leave unspecified what exactly makes up the text under examination. Most of the time, our attention is drawn to the main body of a given periodical: articles, columns, editorials, etc. 158 Tobias Hermans In such studies, scholars tend to investigate what is said in these sections rather than how it is said. This article, by contrast, sets out to revalue those common approaches to periodical literature� While footnotes, in their peripheral status, may seem to be subsidiary paratexts of the periodical reading experience, I will argue that they make up an integral component of the periodical’s textual fabric. My examination of Robert Schumann’s Davidsbund writings demonstrates how footnotes influence the narrative as well as the pragmatic organization of periodical literature� The textual function of paratexts has been extensively theorized and historicized before, though mostly with regard to fictional prose (Grafton, Benstock) and to a lesser extent in periodical literature. Likewise, measuring the effect paratexts have on a text’s narrative organization is not in itself uncommon. The dominant, Goffmanesque metaphor of the “frame narrative” illustrates the fascination narratologists hold for the liminal and transitional. True enough, most narrative models are concerned with the structure of narration, not the material environment of the narrative text itself and its placement on the page. Therefore, it is even more striking that the most extensive narratological foray into paratexts to date comes precisely from Gérard Genette, the father of structuralist narratology. Despite his strong defense of text-immanent analysis, Genette has always been intrigued by what he calls “transtextuality,” that is to say, with the hierarchy of genres (e.g., concepts such as “architext,” “metatext,” etc.) or the relation between different texts (for instance in the study Palimpsestes of 1982). His work on paratexts - fittingly titled Seuils (1987), meaning “thresholds” - should be read in that very context. Genette argues that “[m]ore than a boundary or a sealed border, the paratext is, rather, a threshold […] that offers the world at large the possibility of either stepping inside or turning back” ( Paratexts 1—2). The paratext, he continues, is a liminal zone that can influence the reception of the text by the reader (2). Its function is clearly pragmatic. Genette relies on an open definition of paratextuality: the notion comprises both the peritext, as he calls it (which ranges from the title on a book cover to footnotes on the page) and the epitext, i.e., the broad range of documents and events outside of the book itself, but still concerned with the act of writing, such as letters, drafts or even the public appearance of the writer. It must be said, though, that Genette sets forth his ideas predominantly with regard to fictional prose and novels. As Georg Stanitzek observes, Genette “is not willing to risk the category of the text as book (or the work) itself” (35). Stanitzek himself champions a more transmedial understanding of paratextuality, without sacrificing the basic pragmatic tenets Genette had outlined. Paratexts, he argues, gain much from “the communication concept, that is, the interpretation of paratextual phenomena as organizers of communication” (36). Although Stanitzek mainly singles out Editorial Footnotes and Reader Agency in Schumann’s Davidsbund Writings 159 television as an example of this transmedial expansion, 1 scholars have recently made the same argument in regard to paratexts in periodical literature. The study of paratextuality in periodicals has been unsystematic, to say the least. Most recently, the topic has been rekindled as part of the materialist turn in Anglo-Saxon modernist studies, which recognizes “[t]he physical material of the magazine itself [as] a crucial factor in understanding the texts and images found within its pages” (Brooker and Thacker 6; Claes). In their introduction to the volume Zeitschriftenliteratur/ Fortsetzungsliteratur , Nicola Kaminski, Nora Ramtke, and Carsten Zelle propose that there is not much use for Genette’s dichotomy of epitext and peritext when it comes to periodical literature. They claim that scholarship has insufficiently accounted for the pragmatic dimension of paratexts. In fact, readers decide what they regard as center and periphery. The borders between text and paratext are constituted by the paradigmatic act that the reading process itself entails. The hierarchy of textual elements in periodicals is not fixed, in other words. Every single reading act delineates text from paratext for itself (Kaminski et al. 33—38). This approach corresponds closely to what Ulrich Breuer calls the functional perspective on paratextuality: “Demnach bestehen die Leistungen von Paratexten darin, dass sie den Zugang der Leser zum Text organisieren, dass sie die Lektüre programmieren und dass sie die Ergebnisse von Lektüreprozessen (bzw. des Umgangs mit Texten) fest-halten” (229)� 2 My approach in this essay likewise adopts such a functional-pragmatic approach. I take my cue from the assumption that the chief expectation generated by different textual elements in newspapers or periodicals is the inherent drive to speak to someone, in this case to the reader� 3 Periodical literature, in that respect, is never an isolated process - it does not simply mean something, but always means something to someone� Periodical literature, in other words, is pragmatic par excellence and it is my intention to show the key role footnotes, as an archetypical subcategory of the paratext, play in that process. I will consider footnotes as an integral part of the periodical’s textual environment. The dialogue between footnote and body text, I will show, affects the narrative identity of periodical literature and has a much greater effect on readers and their position than has so far been acknowledged. The prominent use of editorial footnotes in Robert Schumann’s Davidsbund writings will exemplify these claims. Robert Schumann is widely known as an important nineteenth-century German composer, but we tend to overlook that he was one of the most prolific music critics of his day. In 1831, Schumann wrote his first and most famous critique, a review of Chopin’s ‘Là ci darem la mano’-variations, which was published 160 Tobias Hermans in Gottfried Wilhelm Finck’s Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung . This review introduces several key Davidsbündler who would later appear on a more regular basis in the periodical. Two years later, in 1833, Schumann authored the twopart belletristic essay “Die Davidsbündler” for Karl Herloßsohn’s magazine Der Komet � Fed up with lacklustre, unpartisan music criticism of his time, he founded his own journal in 1834, the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik ( NZfM ) together with Ludwig Schunke, Julius Knorr, and Friedrich Wieck. Schumann stayed on as the journal’s chief editor until 1844. The journal prided itself on being the first periodical for and by musicians. In comparison to long-standing, more scholarly competitors such as the Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung ( AMZ ) and Caecilie , the NZfM was very ambitious when it came to recruiting composers and musicians. Well-known musicians such as Felix Mendelssohn, Richard Wagner, and even Hector Berlioz were happy to share their views about the musical world of the day� Schumann, of course, continued writing criticism, too. He eagerly reviewed new compositions, eulogized the masters of yore (preferably Schubert), and reported about concerts he had attended in Leipzig. In contrast to the pedagogic, at times patronizing texts of his competitors, moreover, Schumann’s style was very diversified: from straightforward reviews and noncommittal commentaries to outright polemics and combative editorials. But Schumann is perhaps most famous for his Davidsbund writings. The Davidsbund is a fictional league that wages a self-proclaimed crusade against the Philistines, a stock trope targeting bourgeois, narrow-minded audiences. The group indulges in lively discussions about a broad range of topics concerning music and articulates “verschiedene Ansichten der Kunstanschauung” ( Gesammelte Schriften v), as Schumann later explained. From a literary point of view, the Davidsbund continues a tradition of dialogic criticism, prevalent since Plato. During the Enlightenment, the strategy became a staple technique of critical discourse, as in the works of Christian Thomasius or Diderot. In nineteenth-century German art criticism, E.T.A Hoffmann’s use of a critical frame narrative in Die Serapionsbrüder (1819-21) constitutes a much-emulated example. 4 Moreover, the narrative organization of criticism resonates with key aesthetic debates about the mediation of art: in their essays Die Signatur des Schönen (1788) and Die Gemälde (1798) theoreticians Karl Philipp Moritz and August Wilhelm Schlegel had long since advocated that art can only be described through another instance of art. If language seeks to aptly represent a work of art, it must itself aspire to poetic expression (see Caduff 41—67). Readers of Schumann’s music criticism would have been familiar with the general idea of filtering criticism through fictional characters. Compared to the rigorous adherence to well-established critical genres such as theoretical Editorial Footnotes and Reader Agency in Schumann’s Davidsbund Writings 161 essays, reviews, and correspondence in journals like the AMZ and Caecilie , the narrative form Schumann introduced into music criticism with the Davidsbund was certainly a novelty. Indeed, the use of multiperspectivism was consistent with his critique of the status quo that his colleagues represented. I wish to argue, moreover, that the dialogic staging of music criticism by the Davidsbund offered key pragmatic advantages. The Davidsbund falls back on key narrative operations that shape critical communication with the reader. As the critic’s voice gets fragmented into different subreviews, the narrative frame profoundly affects the text’s pragmatic outreach to the reader. The limited, only ever partial interventions of the extradiegetic narrator by means of editorial footnotes fuel the discord between the Davidsbund members: symptomatic of his inability to synthesize the different opinions, the narrator only ever operates from the paratextual periphery. The absence of a consensus thus creates a vacuum of opinion that encourages readers to take a position of their own. The use of editorial footnotes is a key element of the narrative design in Schumann’s Davidsbund writings. They foster interaction and discussion between the League’s members and at the same time promote reader agency. Schumann recognizes the wide range of possibilities that the Davidsbund model offers early on in his career as a music critic. The narrative structure allows for flexibility in terms of style, form, and critical perspective. From the Davidsbund ’s very inception, Schumann places interaction at its heart. This multiperspectivism translates in an undercurrent of contention that propels the many exchanges between the different members. Engaging as these disputes might be, they also jeopardize the effectiveness of the Davidsbund ’s criticism. Schumann often tests the limits of the Davidsbund model, expanding the spectrum of his opinion to such a degree that the narrative fabric can no longer support the extreme diffusion of critical voices. Much unlike the problem-solving orientation of critical periodical literature, readers are left facing a plethora of different opinions without any apparent consensus. The footnote, as I will show, constitutes the main instrument Schumann uses to generate this openness of opinion� Before we can explore the pivotal function of the footnote in detail, however, we must first examine the narrative structure of the Davidsbund texts. Take the Schwärmbriefe , for instance, a set of four texts written by different members of the Davidsbund that appeared in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik between October and December 1835. The self-proclaimed “letters of infatuation” are a platform Schumann uses to appraise a series of concerts in Leipzig under the baton of Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy. At the same time, the genre of the letter brings several advantages. On a formal level, it allows Schumann to divide his account into various narratives, thus kindling interaction between the characters. In 162 Tobias Hermans addition, the fragmentation into multiple reviews creates a playground of stylistic versatility. In a self-reflexive turn, Florestan hints at this advantage in a paratextual postscript to the third Schwärmbrief : “Livia bittet mich, über Concerte doch etwas in die ***sche Zeit zu liefern. Du weisst, wie ich abhorrescire vor publiken Musik-Schreibereien, namentlich vor den gutmüthig-arcadischen. Dies liesse sich etwa durch eine freiere, etwa Brief-Form erträglich machen” (Schumann 3.38 [1835]: 152). The narrative fragmentation in the Schwärmbriefe is not only achieved through the three different letter writers Eusebius, Chiara, and Serpentinus. These letters also feature different hypodiegetic voices. In fact, the diegetic narratives of the texts hardly ever pass on criticism. Most of the time, they do so in the form of intradiegetic dialogues. 5 As a result, the diegetic narrators rarely have true responsibility as critics. Instead, they recall utterances of hypodiegetic characters in which, conversely, criticism is couched. The animated interaction between the different narrative instances makes for flexible transitions between the diegetic levels. Florestan is the favored sage in this respect. He is quoted the most, probably because he never writes a letter of his own and can therefore not occupy any position on the diegetic level. 6 A similar contentious template unfolds in other Davidsbund texts� Indeed, whenever the league members face each other within one and the same review, inconclusiveness is generally the result. A case in point is the opening installment of the review series “Museum,” in which we encounter only Florestan and Eusebius. Both Davidsbündler vie for the honor of inducting the first name into the gallery. They each have their own candidate: Eusebius chooses Adolph Henselt, Florestan champions Stephan Heller. Both opponents have ample room to make their case and they gladly embrace the rivalry that the article stimulates. In Schumann’s review of Johann Nepomuk Hummel’s Etudes , to give a final example of the contentious undercurrent in the Davidsbund writings, the duo is joined by Meister Raro. The Etudes serve as the thematic framework of the review. The true discussion, nonetheless, eventually revolves around the position of Hummel within music history. In the text, three different narrators give three different views on Hummel and his Etudes : Eusebius, Florestan, and a short interjection by Meister Raro. Eusebius sees Hummel as the legitimate successor of Mozart and Beethoven. Florestan, on the other hand, dismisses the Etudes - and Hummel altogether - as outdated. He considers the works as mere obstacles for younger composers. Meister Raro, for his part, does not take issue with both “Jünglinge.” By means of a quote from Goethe, he makes clear that Florestan and Eusebius are too much concerned with names and reproves them for not focussing enough on the original subject of the review, i.e., the Etudes themselves. Editorial Footnotes and Reader Agency in Schumann’s Davidsbund Writings 163 This small summary shows that the fragmentation of critical opinion is quite elaborate in the review. Along with delineating and sharpening the different views that might exist on the subject at hand, the review also allows for vivid interaction between the narratives themselves. The characters are constantly locked in battle with each other, they even anticipate each other’s arguments 7 and copiously refer to one another. Multiple apostrophes underline this interaction on a rhetorical level. 8 However, such tokens of interaction never result in a hard-fought consensus: in everything they say, Eusebius and Florestan are at odds with each other, and Meister Raro persists in his neutrality. In other words: in terms of straightforward criticism, the Davidsbund does not seem to get very far. On the contrary, the elaborate narrative setup exactly prevents the formation of a decisive judgement. Schumann’s use of the footnote in particular reinforces that effect and creates an opening for the reader to intervene. The many disputes between the Davidsbündler are certainly entertaining. Still, a crucial element is missing: a consensus. The lack of consensus is all the more striking because the narrative frame offers one great advantage: with regard to the poetics of narrative framing, 9 there is still a narrator who is able to guide the different voices to unity. The presence of an extradiegetic narrator presiding over the conflicting Davidsbündler is a topic often raised with regard to Schumann’s music criticism. 10 This claim is not without its pitfalls, however. It is all too easy to equate Schumann the author with Schumann the narrator. In one of the rare literary studies on Schumann’s music criticism, Hans-Peter Fricker keenly stresses Schumann’s personal stake in the texts: “Schumann will persönlich sprechen, und er will persönlich an-sprechen” (112). He argues that each different Davidsbündler acts as a satellite of Schumann’s own opinion. 11 Fricker’s perspective is flawed because he does not take into account the periodical context. For one, he does not base his study on Schumann’s original contributions in the NZfM , but rather on the Gesammelte Schriften über Musik und Musiker ( 1854), an anthology Schumann compiled at the end of his life and that exhibits notable differences to the original texts. 12 We must approach such a convergence between Schumann as author and Schumann as narrator with more care. In fact, a closer look at many of the Davidsbund writings teaches us that there is most certainly an extradiegetic narrator present in these texts. This narrator - and this is crucial - literally makes his appearance from the margins of the text: the footnote. Despite the disorganized impression they make, for instance, the Schwärmbriefe are not at all unregulated. On the contrary: we encounter a Herausgeber who briefly intervenes and exactly for that reason relieves us of all doubt concerning the narrative structure of the texts. Granted, the extradiegetic level of the letters does not often come 164 Tobias Hermans to light. One might therefore be inclined to assume that the individual letters exist separately from one another. The different letter writers would accordingly act as narrators in parallel frame narratives. The Schwärmbriefe , however, do reveal the presence of an extradiegetic narrator in the role of an editorial staff. He intervenes, not only in words, but also in deeds. A remarkable footnote puts the editorial staff’s presence on prominent display (see image 1). In her letter to Eusebius, Chiara mentions the performance of a certain “Felicitas.” In a small reference at the bottom of the page, a voice, which had not been featured up to this point, feels the need to clarify the identity of Felicitas: “Wir vermuthen, dass hier die Malibran gemeint ist; auch der Vorname passt” (Schumann 3.37 [1835]: 147). This footnote, as we can see, is short but teaches us three fundamental aspects about the narrator of the extradiegetic Davidsbund frame. First, the narrator of the extradiegetic frame is not an omniscient narrator; he has to “presume” things. 13 Second, he mediates between the extrafictional and the fictional world, in that he connects the fictional Davidsbund referent “Felicitas” to her extrafictional surname “Malibran,” a famous Spanish mezzo-soprano in Schumann’s days. Third, whereas the characters within the diegetic narrative all take up each other’s remarks or turn to other Davidsbündler , the narrator, in his editorial capacity, addresses the reader with the footnote. The form of the footnote itself already takes him outside of the physical design of the diegetic narrative frame. The editorial fiction of the footnote, moreover, alerts us to other paratextual markers the extradiegetic narrator uses to directly influence the form and rendition of the letters in the journal. The fact that all the letters lack a formal salutation suggests that the editorial staff manipulates the texts’ formal appearance. We are only made familiar with the precise addressee through small additions under the title: “An Eusebius” or “An Clara.” Even if this by itself does not attest to major editorial interferences, it shows that the reader is not presented with the full version of the letters. The second and fourth letter, as a matter of fact, open in medias res , and the hyphens at the beginning of the texts indicate that the beginning has been cut out (in itself a staple part of eighteenthand nineteenth-century prose fiction). Consequently, the narrator has more than a mere narratorial presence. In his editorial capacity, he also intervenes on a formal level. Editorial Footnotes and Reader Agency in Schumann’s Davidsbund Writings 165 Image 1. The editorial staff asserts its presence by means of a footnote in the Schwärmbriefe (Schumann 3.37 [1835]: 147) 166 Tobias Hermans The editorial footnote persists as a staple element of the Davidsbund texts. The majority of the reviews feature a notable Herausgeberfiktion , 14 most of the time in a clarifying capacity. Indeed, the editorial staff uses the footnote to set itself up as a guide within the web of voices - quite ineffectively, however, as we shall see. In the article on Hummel’s Etudes , for instance, it promises to soon lift the veil on the identity of the true critic behind the Davidsbund reviews (see image 2): Der vollständige Titel lautet: Hummel Etudes. Oeuv. 125. Pr. 3 th. Wien, Haslinger. - Leider können wir über die Aufschrift ‘Davidsbündler’ noch keine vollständige Aufklärung geben. Der geehrte Leser kann sie aber bald erwarten, da uns die unbekannte Hand, dieselbe, die schon in den vorigen Blättern die Chiffern Euseb., F-n, Florestan unterzeichnete, dazu mehr als Hoffnung macht. D. Red. (Schumann 1.19 [1834]: 73) Image 2. The editorial staff promises to reveal the identity of the critic behind the Davidsbund voices (Schumann 1.19 [1834]: 73) Editorial Footnotes and Reader Agency in Schumann’s Davidsbund Writings 167 Early in 1835, still behind on its promise, the editorial staff once again employs the footnote to address the question of identity (see image 3). With its obscure distinction between “Chiffern” and “Zahlen,” however, it complicates the issue even more: 15 Wir bringen später eine detaillirende Recension der einzelnen Etuden. - Zugleich bemerken wir, daß nur die mit Zahlen unterzeichneten Kritiken und Anzeigen die Gesammtmeinung der Herausgeber vertreten, daß aber die andern Chiffern besonderen Mitarbeitern gehören. Doch werden wir es vorziehen, bei Besprechung von Werken, die ungewöhnlich gelobt oder getadelt werden, den Namen des Beurtheilers zu nennen. d. Red. (Schumann 2.2 [1835]: 5) Image 3. The editorial staff revisits the question of authorial identity (Schumann 2.2 [1835]: 5) 168 Tobias Hermans Despite their conciseness, each footnote gives us a clear indication of the profile of the editorial staff in the Davidsbund texts� 16 First of all, the extradiegetic narrator is not omniscient. In the Hummel-review, for instance, the editorial staff confesses to depend on the diegetic narrators to procure more information on the Davidsbund . Secondly, ‘d. Red.’ acts as a mediator between the reader and the Davidsbund : it gives the full titles of compositions (even up to the price of the scores) and admits to being in close contact with the Davidsbündler � Finally, the footnotes are a sign of the clear formal interventions the editorial staff makes in the articles, a trait we see corroborated on other paratextual levels as well. The Hummel review, for example, is the first part of a reviews series about piano pieces. The editorial staff labels the different installments in the series numerically and thus designates them as follow-ups to each other: after “Die Davidsbündler. I. Hummel’s Pianofortestudien” precedes “Die Davidsbündler. II. Heinrich Dorn’s Tonblumen,” for example. In addition, numerical subheadings are used to mark off the accounts of the separate Davidsbündler in each separate text. Nonetheless, the extradiegetic narrator clearly lacks assertive power. His contribution is usually limited to one intervention and most of the time comprises mere clarifying statements. Other than that, he does not aspire to any sort of critical involvement. If anything, Schumann’s Davidsbund criticism effectively creates a narrative void: none of the interlocutors on any of the diegetic levels can convey a sound opinion to the reader. Research so far has been keen to stress that the Davidsbündler are modelled after people from Schumann’s circle of friends or that they bring different personalities of Schumann to light: 17 Florestan as the impetuous side, Eusebius the dreamer, etc. While Schumann himself might have contributed to that interpretation, 18 we must not lose sight of the text-structural function of the Davidsbündler and the decisive role played by paratexts. The Davidsbund itself, as a fictional gathering of seemingly like-minded individuals, satirizes the “gesellige” exchange, the cerebral discussion of the Gelehrtenrepublik or the Schlegelian ideal of symphilosophy; it trades in the art of congenial conversation for bickering and disputes. Should we then conclude that Schumann got lost in his own web of intricate, narrative games? That he was, perhaps, better versed in musical polyphony than he was skilled in its textual counterpart? Or that the clean break with the instructive and at times dogmatic notion of critical evaluation in the music periodicals of his day was ultimately less effective than he had hoped for? Not quite. I want to suggest instead that the footnote’s narrative function grants us insight into the pragmatic objective of the Davidsbund texts. The Davidsbund pushes the omniscient critic 19 to the sidelines of the text. The peripheral position of the footnote masterfully epitomizes the diminished status of Editorial Footnotes and Reader Agency in Schumann’s Davidsbund Writings 169 the critic. His inability to bring the different views on a subject together and consolidate them into a single opinion, coaxes the reader into taking a stand of his own. Schumann fosters the critical competence of the reader by presenting him with the opportunity to fill up the narrative blind spots that result from the Davidsbund interactions - a pattern that propels many pieces of the Davidsbund criticism. When Lawrence Kramer wonders “who makes the affirmation” amidst the plethora of masks in Schumann’s Carnaval (211), that same question applies just as well to Schumann’s Davidsbund . “Where there is other voicedness,” as Kramer continues, “[…] the critical uncertainty of ideal subject matter becomes, or provokes, a productive agency: productive of meaning, and productive of openness of meaning” (213). This “productive agency” arises in Schumann’s Davidsbund when the narrative structure promotes the reader to a crucial evaluative constituent: because neither the narrator nor the characters in the frame narrative are able to reach a consensus, the absence of a critical authority invites the reader to rule on the subject at hand himself. The confusing quarrels of the Davidsbündler result in greater agency for the reader. The narrative void that the conflicting voices of the Davidsbündler create, enables readers to formulate their own stance on a subject and urges them to take part in the formation of critical opinion. Despite the elitist, anti-philistine rhetoric of the Davidsbündler , 20 Schumann fosters the judgement of the reader, a fundamental trait he inherited from Enlightenment criticism. There are many more types of paratextuality to be found in Schumann’s oeuvre, not only in his music criticism, but also in his music. For one, there is the central crux of Romantic music, the famed Unsagbarkeitstopos , which locates the paragon of music and word beyond the text and the textual (see Hermans). By the same token, in combining the roles of both music critic and composer, Schumann effectively distorts the borders between outsider and insider. But these interpretations all very much stretch the notion of paratextuality to its metaphorical limits. In this essay, instead, I have argued that paratextuality has far-reaching effects on the pragmatic force of periodical literature. Indeed, Schumann’s Davidsbund writings broaden the pragmatic function of the paratext to such a degree that they generate a paratextual entity of their own: the narrative organization of the texts produces a voice outside of the text, that of the reader. The analysis of paratextuality in periodical literature thus acknowledges the paratextual environment as an integral component of the periodical’s textual fabric. At the same time, it alerts us to the fact that we should read paratexts along a pragmatic continuum. Above all, we must take into account the profound effect paratexts have on the reading experience, and thus the reader itself� 170 Tobias Hermans Notes 1 Digital media, in particular, have in recent times increasingly benefitted from the transmedial exploration of paratextuality. See Pignagnoli, who studies the role of paratexts in digital narratives, as well as the edited volume by Apollon and Desrochers, which offers a more general view on the subject. 2 The functional approach to periodical literature and the genre of criticism has gained prominence over the years. The most influential typology comes from Thomas Anz, who discerns six central functions of Literaturkritik : 1� information and orientation, 2� selection, 3� didactic mediation (i�e�, the transmission of knowledge to readers), 4. didactic sanctioning (i.e., evaluation), 5. stimulating reflection and communication, and, finally, 6. entertainment (195—96). Steffen Neuhaus proposes a similar functional typology. Although he only distinguishes four main functions, his model essentially runs parallel to Anz’s division. Neuhaus distinguishes orientation (Anz: 1 and 2), information (Anz: 3), - not unsurprisingly - criticism (Anz: 4 and 5), and entertainment (Anz: 6) (167—71). Notable practical applications of this functional approach to periodical literature include Martus, Urban, and Matuschek. 3 Monika Neukirchen defines ‘otherness’ as one of the most basic fundamentals of critical discourse in her essay “Die Geburt der Kritik aus dem Geiste des Gesprächs” (124—34). 4 See Schnaus as well as Walter for detailed analyses of E.T.A. Hoffmann’s music criticism. Chantler as well as Markx, for their part, map insightful connections between Hoffmann’s criticisms and musical poetics. The most often heard argument that scholars bring against Schumann is that the Davidsbund siphons prevalent epic modes, most notably E.T.A. Hoffmann’s Serapionsbrüder , into criticism (see Bartscherer 105—16; Chernaik 46—47). Such allegations of epigonism imply that the use of narrative frames stems from Schumann’s passion for literature and from his love of Jean Paul’s prose in particular. The eagerness to discover analogies between literary and music-critical discourse tends to obscure the differences that exist between them. Apropos the use of a narrative frame, the claim of Schumann copying Hoffmann is certainly legitimate (see Beck 391—536 for an extensive analysis of the narrative frame in the Serapionsbrüder ). Then again, Schumann’s texts can be said to duplicate the grain of narrative prose based on this sole criterion. Moreover, the fact that Hoffmann only added the narrative frame to his Serapionsbrüder in retrospect (that is, when he compiled earlier reviews and other critical texts into one volume), mitigates Schumann’s level of stylistic mimicry. On their original appearance in newspapers, in fact, Hoffmann’s separate installments exhibited but minimal, and certainly no Editorial Footnotes and Reader Agency in Schumann’s Davidsbund Writings 171 narrative coherence (for more on the Serapionsbrüder and the genesis of the four-volume work, see Pikulik, Brown, and Japp). The narrative Davidsbund frame, on the contrary, is already embedded in the initial publication in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik. 5 For instance by recounting a conversation between or with audience members: “‘Welche Ouverture von F. Meritis mir die liebste [sei]? ’ fragte mich ein Einfältiger […] und ich wußte keine bessere Antwort, als die beste ‘jede’” (Schumann 3.32 [1835]: 127). 6 “doch fiel mir der Ausspruch Florestans auf” (Schumann 3.32 [1835]: 127); “und dabei fällt mir Florestans lakonisches Wort ein” (Schumann 3.37 [1835]: 147). 7 “Auch den Vorwurf, den ich auf Deinen Lippen schweben sehe, Florestan, daß nämlich im Werk nichts neues vorzufinden wäre […]” (Schumann 1.19 [1834]: 73). 8 “Florestan - wenn Du ein größer König wärest […]” (Schumann 1.19 [1834]: 74); “Schönes Eusebiusgemüth, du machst mich wahrhaftig zum Lachen.” (Schumann 1.19 [1834]: 74); “Jünglinge, Ihr irrt beide” (Schumann 1.19 [1834]: 75). 9 See Jäggi; Beck; Dembeck; Wirth. 10 e.g., Klimek; Bartscherer; the claim is even made for his music, see Bernhart 449—76. 11 For a good example of such a reading see Fricker 113—14. 12 In the process of including articles into the anthology, Schumann often made changes. For example, he leaves out articles and suppresses contributions he had written as editor, or he adds a narrative frame where previously there was none� In the Gesammelte Schriften , the text “Das Komische in der Musik,” for instance, suddenly introduces the character Eusebius, where this was not the case in the NZfM . See Schumann 1.3 (1834): 10—11 vs. Schumann, Gesammelte Schriften 184—86. 13 The indication of “not knowing something” is of course a typical attempt to give omnisicient narrators a more realistic cachet. The fact that this strategy is here marked by a Herausgeberfiktion - in itself already a strong sign of simulated extratextual authority (see note 14) - hints at irony: the inability to do something constitutes a modality of the text’s ludic nature. 14 Periodical literature shares the discursive phenomenon of Herausgeber and Redakteure with other text genres, among which the novel, as studies about Herausgeberfiktionen in literature (see Wirth; Dembeck) show. The introduction of Herausgeberfiktionen in periodical literature marks a remarkable, self-reflexive moment in the development of the institution. From a sociodiscursive point of view, the prominence of Herausgeber and Redakteure in 172 Tobias Hermans critical discourse mirrors the growing autonomy the periodical industry attained in the eighteenth century. Editors come from the very structures that sustain and facilitate journalism. They are free from the regulations that the public sphere imposes on critical discourse (see Bücher 257—60; Habermas 276—78). Instead, Herausgeber and Redakteure can control and manipulate critical discourse by intervening in texts or even by selecting what gets printed. Furthermore, they venture outside of established journalistic forms and genres. In addition to fixed textual platforms (editorials, reactions to certain contributions or open letters, etc.), they also make their appearance in paratexts, such as footnotes, as we are witness to in this essay� 15 Although signed by a certain “2.”, the review carries all the traces of a genuine Davidsbund text, including the youthful bravado and the characteristic Philister -rhetoric. This might be the reason why Schumann later designated Florestan as author of the review in the Gesammelte Schriften � 16 Schumann, it might be noted, also uses other paratextual instances to stage a Herausgeberfiktion . In the text “Museum,” for example, we encounter a third party who tries to bring opposing views together. A hand signing with “Die Redaction” opens the article and signals that it acts as a mediator of the Davidsbund : “Unter diesem Titel [Museum] erhielten wir vor Kurzem einige Beiträge der Davidsbündlerschaft mit der Anfrage […]” (Schumann 7.18 [1837]: 69). All in all, however, “Die Redaction” remains distant and detached. It does comply with the “Anfrage,” yet merely signals its consent with the apathetic comment “die Bündlerschaft sollte nur” (Schumann 7.18 [1837]: 69). Consistent with its behaviour in other texts, it does not intrude any further on the dealings of the “Bündlerschaft.” 17 Such interpretations often go along with a persistent psychological assessment of Schumann. See for instance Granzow; Rauchfleisch 28—30; Hoffmann-Axthelm 40—49. 18 In July 1831, Schumann enters the following caveat to his diary: “Ganz neue Personen treten von heute in’s Tagebuch - zwey meiner besten Freunde, die ich jedoch noch nie sah - das sind Florestan und Eusebius” (Schumann, Tagebücher 344)� 19 I borrow the term “omniscient critic” from Robert D. Schick, who has used the notion to describe the discursive position of authority that music critics simulate in order to validate their opinions (60—62). 20 The standard way of thinking about Schumann in secondary literature has it that his Musikkritik is elitist: as a critic, he imposes his verdict on a marginalised reader audience by means of depreciative language use (see Daverio; Taruskin). In 2011 still, for instance, Dana Gooley described Schumann as an archetypical representative of such an elitist criticism (300—01). Editorial Footnotes and Reader Agency in Schumann’s Davidsbund Writings 173 Works Cited Anz, Thomas. “Theorien und Analysen zur Literaturkritik und zur Wertung.” Literaturkritik. Geschichte, Theorie, Praxis . Ed. Thomas Anz and Rainer Baasner. Munich: Beck, 2004. 194-219. Apollon, Daniel, and Nadine Desrochers. Examining Paratextual Theory and its Applications in Digital Culture . Hershey: IGI Global, 2014. Bartscherer, Christoph. “Kongenialität als Kompositionsprinzip. Robert Schumann auf den Spuren E.T.A. Hoffmanns und Jean Pauls.” E.T.A. Hoffmann-Jahrbuch 14 (2006): 88-106. Beck, Andreas� Geselliges Erzählen in Rahmenzyklen: Goethe, Tieck, E.T.A. Hoffmann . Heidelberg: Winter, 2008. Benstock, Shari. “At the Margin of Discourse: Footnotes in the Fictional Text.” PMLA 98.2 (1983): 204-25. Bernhart, Walter. “Narrative Framing in Schumann’s Piano Pieces.” Framing Borders- in Literature and Other Media � Ed� Werner Wolf and Walter Bernhart� Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006. 449-76. Breuer, Ulrich. “Paratexte der Romantik.” Zeitschrift des Verbandes Polnischer Germanisten 2 (2013): 227-34. Brooker, Peter, and Andrew Thacker. “General Introduction.” The Oxford Critical and Cultural History of Modernist Magazines. Vol. 1, Britain and Ireland 1880—1955 � Ed� Peter Brooker and Andrew Thacker. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. 1-26. Brown, Hilda M. E.T.A. Hoffmann and the Serapiontic Principle: Critique and Creativity � Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2006. Bücher, Karl: “Die Anfänge des Zeitungswesens.” Die Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft � Vol.-1. Tübingen: Laupp, 1917. 229-60. Caduff, Corina. Die Literarisierung von Musik und bildender Kunst um 1800 . Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2003� Chantler, Abigail. E.T.A. Hoffmann’s Musical Aesthetics . Burlington: Ashgate, 2006. Chernaik, Judith. “Schumann's Doppelgängers: Florestan and Eusebius revisited.” The Musical Times 152.1917 (2011): 45-55. Claes, K. “Supplements and Paratext: The Rhetoric of Space.” Victorian Periodicals Review 43.2 (2010): 196-210. Daverio, John. Robert Schumann. Herald of a “New Poetic Age � ” Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. Dembeck, Till. Texte Rahmen. Grenzregionen literarischer Werke im 18. Jahrhundert (Gottsched, Wieland, Moritz, Jean Paul) . Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Fricker, Hans-Peter. Die musikkritischen Schriften Robert Schumanns: Versuch eines literaturwissenchaftlichen Zugangs . Bern/ Frankfurt a.M./ New York: Peter Lang 1983. Genette, Gérard. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation . Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Gooley, Dana. “Hanslick and the Institution of Criticism.” The Journal of Musicology 28�3 (2011): 289-324. Grafton, Anthony. The Footnote: A Curious History . Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1997. 174 Tobias Hermans Granzow, Gerhard. “Florestan und Eusebius. Zur Psychologie Robert Schumanns.” Die Musik 20.2 (1928): 660-63. Habermas, Jürgen. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Mit einem Vorwort zur Neuauflage 1990 . Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1990. Hermans, Tobias. “Das Unsagbare als Sagbares: Die Musikkritik als Entlarvung der Romantischen Musikästhetik. Betrachtungen zu E.T.A. Hoffmann, Robert Schumann und Richard Wagner”. Praxis und Diskurs der Romantik. 1800-1900 . Ed. Norman Kasper and Jochen Strobel. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schönigh, 2016. 159-76. Hoffmann-Axthelm, Dagmar. Robert Schumann. Eine musikalisch-psychologische Studie � Stuttgart: Reclam, 2010. 40-49. Jäggi, Andreas. Die Rahmenerzählung im 19. Jahrhundert. Untersuchungen zur Technik und Funktion einer Sonderform der fingierten Wirklichkeitsaussage . Bern/ Frankfurt a.M./ New York: Peter Lang, 1994. Japp, Uwe. “Das literarische Werk - Die Serapionsbrüder (1819/ 1821).” E.T.A. Hoffmann: Leben - Werk - Wirkung . Ed. Detlef Kremer. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009. 257-67. Kaminski, Nicola, Nora Ramtke, and Carsten Zelle. “Zeitschriftenliteratur/ Fortsetzungsliteratur: Problemaufriß.” Zeitschriftenliteratur/ Fortsetzungsliteratur . Ed. Nicola Kaminski, Nora Ramtke, and Carsten Zelle. Hannover: Wehrhahn, 2014. 7-40 Kerr, Alfred. Das neue Drama . Berlin: S. Fischer, 1905. Klimek, Sonja. “‘Betragt euch schön romantisch! ’ - Autorschaft als Rollenspiel in Robert Schumanns musikjournalistischem Werk”. Medien der Autorschaft: Formen literarischer (Selbst-)Inszenierung von Brief und Tagebuch bis Fotografie und Interview � Ed� Lucas Marco Gisi, Urs Meyer, and Reto Sorg. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2013. 29-36. Kramer, Lawrence. Music as Cultural Practice. 1800—1900 . Berkeley: U of California P, 1990� Markx, Francien. E.T.A. Hoffmann, Cosmopolitanism, and the Struggle for German Opera. Boston: Rodopi, 2016. Martus, Steffen. Werkpolitik. Zur Literaturgeschichte kritischer Kommunikation vom 17. bis ins 20. Jahrhundert . Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007. Matuschek, Stefan, ed. Organisation der Kritik. Die Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung in Jena 1785-1803 . Heidelberg: Winter, 2004. Neuhaus, Steffen. Literaturkritik. Eine Einführung . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004� Neukirchen, Monika. “Die Geburt der Kritik aus dem Geiste des Gesprächs”. Hat Literatur die Kritik nötig? Antwort auf die Preisfrage der Deutschen Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung vom Jahr 1987 . Frankfurt a.M.: Luchterhand, 1989. 115-60. Pignagnoli, Virginia. “Paratextual Interferences: Patterns and Reconfigurations for Literary Narrative in the Digital Age.” Amsterdam International Electronic Journal for Cultural Narratology 7-8 (2012/ 2014). Web. 28 Nov. 2016. Pikulik, Lothar� E.T.A. Hoffmann als Erzähler. Ein Kommentar zu den ‘Serapions-Brüdern.’ Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987. Editorial Footnotes and Reader Agency in Schumann’s Davidsbund Writings 175 Rauchfleisch, Udo. Robert Schumann: Eine psychoanalytische Annäherung . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004� Schick, Robert D. Classical Music Criticism . New York: Routledge, 1996. Schnaus, Peter. E.T.A. Hoffmann als Beethoven-Rezensent der Allgemeinen Musikalischen Zeitung . Wilhelming/ Salzburg: Musikverlag Katzbichler, 1977. Schumann, Robert. “Die Davidsbündler. I. Hummel’s Pianofortestudien.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 1.19 (1834): 73-75. —� Gesammelte Schriften über Musik und Musiker . Vol. 1. Reprint of the Leipzig-Edition of 1854. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1985. —. “Kritik. 1) Ferdinand Hiller, XXIV Etudes p. 1.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 2�2 (1835): 5-6. —. “Monument für Beethoven. Vier Stimmen darüber.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 2�51 (1836): 211-13. —. “'Museum.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 7.18 (1837): 69-71. —. “Schwärmbriefe. An Chiara.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 3.38 (1835): 151-52. —. “Schwärmbriefe. An Chiara.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 3.46 (1835): 182-83. —. “Schwärmbriefe. An Eusebius.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 3�37 (1835): 147� —. “Schwärmbriefe. Eusebius an Chiara.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 3.32 (1835): 126-27. —� Tagebücher. Band I: 1827-1838 . Ed. Georg Eismann. Basel/ Frankfurt a.M.: Stroemfeld/ Roter, 1971� —. “Ueber den Aufsatz: Das Komische in der Musik von C. Stein im 60. Hft. der Cäcilia.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 1.3 (1834): 10-11. Stanitzek, Georg. “Texts and Paratexts in Media.” Critical Inquiry 32.1 (2005): 27-42. Taruskin, Richard: “Music in the Nineteenth Century. Chapter 6: Critics.” Oxford History of Western Music. Ed. Richard Taruskin. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Web. 20 Jan. 2017. Urban, Astrid. Kunst der Kritik: Die Gattungsgeschichte der Rezension von der Spätaufklärung bis zur Romantik . Heidelberg: Winter, 2004. Walter, Michael. “Musikkritik und Kanonisierung: Über Ernst Theodor Amadeus Hoffmanns Rezension der Fünften Symphonie Beethovens.” Musiktheorie 12�3 (1997): 255-65. Wirth, Uwe. Die Geburt des Autors aus dem Geist der Herausgeberfiktion. Editoriale Rahmung im Roman um 1800: Wieland, Goethe, Brentano, Jean Paul und E.T.A. Hoffmann � Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2008.