From the earliest days of Schubert’s reception history, (excessive) repetition comes to the fore as perhaps the most commented upon aspect of the composer’s instrumental music. Repetition is especially problematic with regards to sonata forms, for there are set expectations for when and how thematic material should be repeated; in comparison, Schubert’s compositions break from the mold. According to critics, they repeat too much, too often, scarcely develop thematic material— and in so doing, fail. Such critics were not reticent to point out these shortcomings, and in so doing established a tradition of faulting Schubert’s repetitions in sonata forms. Consider, for example, the following remarks by Henry Heathcote Stratham, published in 1883:

[Sonata form demands] something more than beautiful melodies. A grasp of the whole materials as subordinate to one complete design must be evident; the constituent elements of the composition must be linked together as parts of an organic whole, presented in new and varied combinations, so as to bring out all their latent expressiveness as well as their harmonic or contrapuntal relationship … [In Schubert’s sonata forms] lovely melodies follow each other, but nothing comes of them; or he repeats an idea without apparent aim or purpose beyond the wish to spin out the composition to a certain orthodox length.

Perceptions of structural inadequacy in Schubert’s sonata forms, as manifest in publications by critics such as Stratham, continued to reinscribe Schubert’s marginalized position as a composer of instrumental music. To avoid perpetuating the notion that Schubert’s repetitions are incompatible with sonata forms, recent scholarship considers Schubert on his own terms. To accomplish this, many scholars adopt alternative modes of discourse.