thought to the possible and desirablenlines of development. Somehow, thenCommon Market is not able to providenthe solid foundation that the Churchnonce did for the medieval universities. Itndoes not have a central idea, a coordinationnof human endeavors under a transcendentalnreality; it does not even haventhe vision of a cultural synthesis. It triesnto accommodate pluralism, to copy innsome undefined respect the Americannmodel, and generally to be all things tonall men. It is also tied, in spite of its autonomy,nto the vicissitudes of the “Europeannidea.”nThese difficulties may yet be turnedninto its advantages. For the moment, thenFlorentine location is, if anything, oppressive.nThe great city by the Arno, absolutelynunchanged—even by the disastrousnflood in the early 70’s—^since I lastnsaw it 15 years ago, is a contradiction tonthe foundation of a “European” institutionnwith cultural pretensions. Florencenand surrounding Tuscany speak of permanence.nEven its social structure hasnremained almost intact: the great housesnof great femilles who felt humiliated whennMaria-Theresa granted them noble tidesn(they had considered themselves aristocraticnsimply because they werenFlorentine) still run the city—^along withnthe Communist Party and some exceptionalnmen of bourgeois origins, one ofnwhom was mayor when the flood struck.nAll—together—saved Florence then. I sayntogether because the little people arenmost adamant about preserving its beautynand taste.nThe EUI represents a new Europengrafted onto the old. The dialogue betweennthem has scarcely begun. DnPOI.KMKS & i:X( IIANGKSnArnold Schoenberg: An Alternate Viewnby Theo. M. Penker IIInThe name of Arnold Schoenbergnevokes reactions from both professionalnmusician and general concertgoer thatnrange from near-irrational, venomousnhatred to “that old fogy,” to conditionalnacceptance to blind adulation. Thesenreactions are cross-cultural. The condemnationnof Schoenberg’s music asn”hideous and feeble” or “a masterfullyncontrived thing of horror” by the musicncritic of The Nation could as easily havenbeen written by an ultraconservative.nMore than a century ago Richard Wagnernwas the target of much the same combinationnof condemnation and adulation.nUnfortunately, Schoenberg had no KingnLudwig to champion him against hisndetractors.nDr. Penker works for the Department ofnHousing and Urban Development innCincinnatinA comparison to Wagner is not reallynfarfetched. For it is in the soil of Wagneriannchromaticism that the musicalnlanguage of Schoenberg germinated, althoughnit was fertilized by many otherninfluences: from Mahler, Bruckner, andnBrahms through Beethoven and Haydnnto Bach and back yet further to latenMedieval and early Renaissance musicians.nStrangely, Schoenberg was also annadmirer of American jazz; a fact he admittednin an interview with Erwin Steinnin 1928. It should come as no surprise,nthen, to learn that he became quitenfriendly with Oscar Levant and GeorgenGershwin, whose music he held in highnesteem, when he setded in Los Angeles.nThe influence of jazz can be detected,nfleetingly, in Variations for Orchestran(1928). This, Schoenberg’s first compositionnfor orchestra in the strict and lliUyndeveloped twelve-tone system, makesnuse of jazz elements in the syncopatednrhythms. There are also brief stretchesnnnthat foreshadow some of the progressivenjazz works of Stan Kenton. Even his operanVon Heute auf Morgen, (1930)nshows decided jazz influences in the orchestralnuse of saxophones and the already-mentionednuse of syncopation.nCombined with this and the “infamous”ntone-row are flashes of Viennese operetta.nThese are, no doubt, reminders of hisnearly days (prior to World War I) whennhe orchestrated or copied parts fornoperettas to earn a living.nDuring these early days—^to some extentnsymbolically portrayed in his operanDie GlUckliche Hand—Schoenbergncomposed the music that seems to benmost easily accepted by the general concertgoernand a number of critics. Despitenthefr present acceptance, much of thisnmusic, so definitely in the Austro-GermannRomantic tradition, was initially receivednwith as little grace as his dodecaphonicncompositions. Verklaerte Nacht, a lovelynromantic work with clear links to thenWagner-Mahler ambience, was hissed atnits premiere. The later string-orchestranversion (which fleshed out what somenconsidered the starkness of the sextetnoriginal) fired much better. It is now approachingnthe status of a concert standardn—one of the few works that those whonhave been misled into believing Schoenbergna harsh, difficult, nonmelodic composernwill accept without shuddering.nHis other orchestral composition of thisnperiod, the tone poem Pelleas andnMelisande, given the structure of a fourmovementnsymphony to express moodsnand characters in formulated units andnpresenting the three main characters innthe manner of Wagnerian leitmotivs, didnnot fare too well at its premiere either.nIt was at this time that the massivensymphonic oratorio/song-cycle Gurreliedernhad its inception. One of his fewncompositions to receive immediate acceptance,nit was begun by Schoenbergnin 1901 but not completed until 1911nand is, therefore, the product of twoncreative periods. The earlier sectionsncomprise a “document of late romanticismncarried to such a pitch that therenwas no possibility of future develop-n^^^•^43nSeptember 1983n