Paradoxes of L. Spohr
Background. The creative life of Ludwig Spohr (1784–1859) coincides with at least three historically-cultural periods: Late-Classical, Romantic and LateRomantic, thus creating a straight line from Classical works of XVIII century to those of the middle of XIX century. First works by Spohr having opus number chronologically coincide with the beginning of Beethoven’s central period of life, and in this light, he is rather seen as heir of pre-Beethoven generation of composers. But, having outlived the last Viennese Classicist by 32 years, Spohr assimilated both his experience and innovations of the new generation of musicians, his junior contemporaries. In spite of the fact that Spohr wasn’t inclined to radical innovations, unlike his coeval Weber, he became one of the first harbinger of the new music. Yet we should note that situation of drastic change of musical culture, in which the composer was brought up, programmed his lifestyle and general direction of his creativity. Moreover, “intersection of times” defined contradictions in Spohr’s legacy, that hitherto hurdle his unambiguous evaluation. Literature review. It would be unfair to state that name of Spohr doesn’ figure in musicologists’ researches at all. Although one has to admit that while in Western musicology a certain tradition of studying his creative life has been established, in Soviet and post-Soviet scientific area creativity of Spohr hasn’t ever become on object of separate dissection, with a single exception of Raaben’s essay (Raaben, 1967). But even in this work Spohr only listed alongside with other musicians, but not as a self-sufficient phenomenon. Scattered facts of Spohr’s creative life are incorporated into brief outlines of his works or spheres of activity, created by M. Cherkashyna (1998), N. Antipova (2007), V. Ferman (1961), V. Pluzhnikov (2006). Researches are actively trying to reveal diverse connections between Spohr and the past of the musical culture: his “Mozartness” (Heussner, 1957), efforts to revive music by Bach, Handel and other masters of the past (Homburg, 1958; 1960). Much less attention is drawn to historical typology of Spohr’s legacy, to his place in the spacetime of music. H. Riemann (1961) regards him as a Romantic composer, having more in common with Shubert and Mendelssohn than with Weber, Schumann and Marschner. K. Huschke (1939) notes his soft, elegiac and lofty feelings, beauty of the melodies, his nobility in stark contrast with Weber’s art founded in folk intonations, although claiming both of them to be German in spirit. Although wholistic image of Spohr in research literature, unfortunately, has not been created yet. The aim of this paper is an attempt to present complex creative personality of Spohr, comprised of the opposite constituents, as a whole. Results. On the verge of XVIII–XIX centuries even tradition, that is one of the most profound and fundamental factors of culturally-historical process, is subjected to reconsideration. For Spohr, tradition means mainly possessing skills, professionality. Spohr endeavoured mastership in every single thing he did: practicing violin 10 hours daily, polishing his Kapellmeister art, or embodying appearing musical ideas in his compositions. It was rather predictable that he had become one of the most prominent pedagogues of XIX century, progenitor of violin school and glorious Violinschule. According to the tradition dating back to the Baroque era, Spohr reveals a tendency towards inventio: both in the terms of technology (invention of a chinrest) and in creativity. In the latter case inherited meets modern. Spohr precisely formulates artistic ideas appearing to him thus becoming one of their generators. Spohr’s attitude to tradition can be understood through his favouring of musical classics as vivid reality. Almost all scholars of his legacy unanimously agree that he had enormous adoration of Mozart during all his life. One may say that in mind of Spohr two different approaches to tradition overlap: from the standpoint of XVIII century (when it was regarded as a continuity of knowledge, well-developed skills, order) and from the vantage of XIX century (as an object of reconsideration, adaptation in the context of new stylistic system and Romantic worldview). Not only did ambiguous approach to the tradition defined his art, but also affected societal, political views, spheres of activity and personal traits. Conclusions. Observations on creative life of Spohr allow to demonstrate paradoxes of his personality. He was simultaneously a court musician and a “free artist”; a proponent of musical past and critic of the modernity – and its indefatigable champion as opera Kapellmeister and as symphonic and concert conductor; performer-virtuoso – and serious, ruminant creator of large-scale oratorios, operas and symphonic conceptions; advocate for normativity in art – and pioneer in many respects, – these are pairs-oppositions defining the image of Spohr’s personality.