II

In what way, then, does Schoenberg's dynamic concept of tradition differ from corresponding nineteenth-century concepts — in particular, from those of Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner, from whose works he drew central creative stimuli? Schoenberg evaded the well-established dichotomy of the second half of the nineteenth century — between instrumental music in Brahms's line of development and music theater in Wagner's — and, by boldly breaking through the entrenched mechanism of the "art text" (Kunsttext ) at the end of the century, transcended the dichotomy. He composed both and thereby manifested in his range of genres the same force of synthesis that can be seen in his compositional technique, where he adapted Brahmsian as well as Wagnerian means.

What appears new is that he relinquished any compositional-historical continuity of genre in his work. Although Wagner had drastically modified the category of genre, he did nonetheless remain true to music theater, and — despite what he said to the contrary — it in no way rendered the other areas of creativity superfluous. The only — partial — exceptions to this rule of transcending genres in Schoenberg's oeuvre that might be considered are the string quartets and, with respect to his early works, the lied. But the fact that the first quartet has a single-movement form and the second an integrated voice part shows just how loose the traditional concept of genre had become. In fact, both dodecaphonic quartets are closer to the traditional genre — also a sign of dialectical composition — just as general classical features reasserted themselves in the early dodecaphonic period.^[8]

New traits also emerge in Schoenberg's Kunstbegriff with respect to its pragmatic realization. Ever since Mozart, and particularly Beethoven, had paved the way for the idea of original composition as an indication of artistic autonomy — analogous to the bourgeois emancipation of the subject — a more or less "aesthetic detachment" (in the words of Hans Robert

Jauss) between a new work and what was expected of it by the audience became part of successful composing.^[9] Whereas Brahms worked within the traditional genres and relied upon their institutional contexts, Wagner created an appropriate institution for himself in Bayreuth, whereby this unique project also found its fulfillment in a single genre. With Schoenberg, however, the paradox was that while in terms of aesthetic reception he relied mainly on his oeuvre's connectedness to tradition (he was tireless in associating his works with the tradition of great German music),^[10] the reality of the aesthetic reception was characterized by a nearly insurmountable rupture with the public, who were, apart from the early works, aware only of the innovative and not the traditional features in his music. Schoenberg's Kunstbegriff, then, compared with that of the nineteenth century, is revealed as one that, though conceived traditionally by the composer, functioned in the pragmatic sphere in a more innovative fashion with concomitant institutional consequences (evident particularly in Schoenberg's Viennese Verein für musikalische Privataufführungen). However, Schoenberg's works are so diverse and follow such individual designs that here, too, one can hardly speak of uniform consequences.

Is the entwinement of aesthetics and ethics in Schoenberg new, or was it already anticipated in Beethoven or Brahms? It was precisely in this respect that Gustav Mahler proved so important a model for Schoenberg, perhaps even more important than in any direct compositional sense. Implied entwinement of aesthetics and ethics culminated in Schoenberg in a rigorous artistic morality that is unparalleled. It is because of this concept — artistic morality — that Schoenberg gained such pathbreaking importance, not only as a composer but also as a teacher and a thinker. Concrete instruction and imparting rules of composition were far less important than the realization that only an extraordinary compositional problem was worthy of a truly artistic effort. Therefore it was more important to him to solve incorruptibly the unorthodox problem and thus exert lasting influence through the example of his moral artistic position than to offer illusory means for solutions that in reality failed. Perhaps it is for this reason that Schoenberg is the only truly great composer of recent music history who taught with passion and corresponding success and exerted such formative influence;^[11] the Festschriften and compositions dedicated to him by his pupils testify to this.