Moses and Aaron as a Reflection of Arnold Schoenberg’s Spiritual

. ,~

Volume XII 5754/1991-92

. Journal of the American Society for Jewish Music

•

••

MOSES AND AARON AS A REFLECTION OF ARNOLD SCHOENBERG'S SPIRITUAL QUEST

BOAZ TARSI

o Wort, du Wort, das mir JehU!

"Gh Word, thou Word, that I lack!" These final words of Moses in Ar­nold Schoenberg's opera, Moses and Aaron, express the ultimate failure to complete a critical mission. As with the other aspects of that opera, this-faitureTorrcerrrs-more man-tneretytneClcnons ancEnner-teehngs' of a particular character. It is, rather, the dismal result of the interaction between an abstract idea and its concrete representation. Although Moses and Aaron probably is Schoenberg's most transparent demonstra­tion of such interaction, the issue of conflict between idea and tangible representation occupies a prominent place throughout his collective oeuvre. That theme is reflected both in his writings and in his music, as well as in his own personal spiritual development; and, to some ex­tent, in the course of events in his life.

Underlying this matter is the basic contention that any phenomenon may be perceived in terms of two separate forms: the abstract and the concrete. Through the application of this dualistic concept to a given issue, that issue may itself become transformed into a dichotomy be­tween these two forms, which, in turn, may then also be understood

.. as two facets of a single issue. As the following discussion of Schoen­< berg and his opera will demonstrate, that approach to multi-faceted

phenomena may yield a symmetrical perception in which all consti­tuent factors function on two parallelle'vels (viz., the abstract and the concrete). In that perception, a direct correlation can exist between the respective components of each level: Any idea, person, object or sym­bol on one level may be shown to have its counterpart on the other. Moreover, in some cases the very existence of any of those factors on. one level may suggest ipso facto its parallel presence on the other.

52

--

TARSI/ARNOLD SCHOENBERG'S SPIRITUAL QUEST 53

Although shaped into his own personal version, this concept does not .. derive entirely from Schoenberg's original thinking. A more direct in­

fluence on Schoenberg's thoughts in this regard, however, may be at­tributed to the work of Arthur Schopenhauer.1 Among Schoenberg's prose writings, the 'abstract idea versus concrete representation' duality finds its expression in four essays: "The Relationship to the Text" (1912); "New Music, Outmoded Music, Style and Idea" (1946); "Gustav Mahler" (1912 and 1948); and "Schopenhauer und Sokrates."2 A full examination of these articles in relation to Schopenhauer's phi­losophy, and to Schoenberg's own personal convictions, deserves a separate study. For the purposes of the present consideration, we may confine ourselves to the observation that Schoenberg's very choice oC a title for the collection in which these articles appeared, Style and Idea, itself suggests that duality. Therein is an evident echo of the published English title of Schopenhauer's volume, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstel­lung,3 as it appeared in its initial translation: The World as Will and Idea. 4

Actually, Schopenhauer's use of the German term, Vorstellung, is more accurately rendered as 'image,' which belongs to the concrete level of perception and thus better reflects Schopenhauer's view-as opposed to 'idea,' which belongs to the abstract realm. 5 Indeed, the 1966 English emnonoHfieS-cfiOperifiau-eTvO!UmerenaersVofsTelTtingas'reprei'-en­tation.'6 In view ofthe publication date of Schoenberg's book, how­

., !

ever, it is still possible to suggest some connection between his choice of an English title· and that of the initial published translation of Schopenhauer's work.

The Two Levels in Schoenberg's Spirituality

Much has already been written and discussed on the issue of Schoen­berg's religious attitudes, conflicts and affiliations. Our concern here is merely to offer an illustration of the thesis that religion, for Schoen­berg, embodied yet another case of the 'abstract versus concrete'

I A detailed demonstration of Schopenhauer's influence on Schoenberg, includ­ing evidence from Schoenberg's private library, is found in Pamela Cynthia White, Schoenberg and the God-Idea, the Opera Moses und Aron (Ann Arbor, UMI Research Press, 1985), Chapter II.

2The first three appear in Dika Newlin, ed., Style and Idea (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1950); the fourth is an unpublished paper.

3Leipzig, Brockhaus, 1859. 4R. B. Haldane and J. Kemp (London, Triiber and Co., LTD., 1883). 5This is pointed out clearly by Schoenberg in "New Music, Outmoded Music"

(op. cit.). 6Translated E. F. J. Payne (New York, Dover Publications, 1966).

54

dilemma. The abstJ clear identification. and ambivalence ofl persistence with w what we may ide awareness' and a IT

ture.

The pervasiveness c

indicated in his del Freund: "I have nev have never really bE as it may appear or that his religious co of doubt. It is a ty Schoenberg's thou~

already apparent by 1891, to his cousin. self an "unbeliever, spect for the Bible­amount ot rrorrse-m stratesthatSchoenb of religion at a relal

Schoenberg's ambi\ early childhood an< mother and an "ide, liable information c< his youth, it is tern about the implicati< home environment

7(n Erwin Stein, Am. don, Faber and Faber

8See in White (op.'( 9Ibid. lOIn Alexander Ring,

Oxford University Pres: (for the Yom Kippur eve hood memories (p. 76). child (at least on Yom] pecial1y in view of his I

Jacob Sonderlin to com] Stuckensmidt, "Arnold sic" in Judith Cohen, e< ale;ll, 1978 (Tel Aviv, Ir

~<'"

UALQUEST 53

, this concept does not :ing. A more direct in­, however, may be at­Among Schoenberg's lCrete representation' le Relationship to the ;tyle and Idea" (1946); hauer und Sokrates."2 ) Schopenhauer's phi­mvictions, deserves a :onsideration, we may nberg's very choice of tpeared, Style and Idea, :echo of the published It als Wille und Vorstel­World as Will and Idea. 4

m, Vorstellung, ismore o the concrete level of ~r's view-as opposed deed, the 1966 English ~ IrsfiilTung-as'represen­ ~~

oenberg's book, how­on between his choice blished translation of

lj

n the issue of Schoen­Ins. Our concern here t religion, for Schoen­Tact versus concrete'

ce on Schoenberg, indud­in Pamela Cynthia White, _nn Arbor, UMI Research

~a (New York, St. Martin's

0., LTD., 1883). t1usic, Outmoded Music"

tions, 1966).

54 MUSICA JUDAICA

dilemma. The abstract level of experience, by its very nature, defies clear identification. It would appear, however, that the complexities and ambivalence often associated with religion, and the frequency and persistence with which religious issues are touched upon, indicate what we may identify as a struggle between an abstract 'God­awareness' and a more concrete religious, or religion-oriented struc­ture.

The pervasiveness of this God-awareness in Schoenberg's own life is indicated in his declaration in a letter of December, 1922, to Marya Freund: "I have never at any time in my life been anti-religious, indeed, have never really been unreligious either."7 That statement, emphatic as it may appear on the surface, still subtly implies at the same time that his religious commitment or conviction had not always been free of doubt. It is a typical illustration of the complexity surrounding Schoenberg's thoughts on religious matters. Indeed, ambivalence­already apparent by the age of sixteen-can be seen in a letter of May, 1891, to his cousin. In that communication, Schoenberg declares him­self an "unbeliever," while expressing concurrently his profound re­spect for the Bible-in opposition to his cousin's notion about "the amount otnorrse-rrs-e"trrit.-s-krrrb-ivaterrc-e- a-sm-e-,tha-tletter d-emlYrr­strates that Schoenberg was already pre-occupied with some questions of religion at a relatively young age.

Schoenberg's ambivalence concerning religion may be traceable to his early childhood and adolescence. He was born to a devoutly Jewish mother and an "idealistic freethinker" father. 9 Whil~ we possess no re­liable information concerning his religious thoughts or conduct during his youth, it is tempting nonetheless to engage in some speculation about the implications of so polarized and potentially inconsistent a home environment. 1o

'7Jn Erwin Stein, Arnold Schoenberg's Letters, trans. E. Wilkens andE. Kaiser (Lon­don, Faber and Faber, 1964), p. 82.

8See in White (op. cit.), p. 5l. 9Ibid. lOIn Alexander Ringer, Arnold Schoenberg: The Composer as few (London and NY,

Oxford University Press, 1990), the author states that the traditional Kol Nidrei tune (for the Yom Kippur eve service) should inevitably have evoked Schoenberg's child­hood memories (p. 76). This suggests that Schoenberg did attend synagogue as a child (at least on Yom Kippur eve). However, this may be open to challenge, es­pecially in view of his reaction to that tune when he was commissioned by Rabbi Jacob Sonderlin to compose his own setting and version of Kol Nidrei. See Hans H. Stuckensmidt, "Arnold Schoenberg's 'Kol Nidre' and the Jewish Elements in his Mu­sic," in Judith Cohen, ed., The Proceedings of the World Congress on Jewish Music, Jerus­alem, 1978 (Tel Aviv, Institute for the Translation of Hebrew Literature, 1982).

TARSIJARNOLD SCHOENBERG'S SPIRITUAL QUEST 55

Traditional, or 'orthodox' Jewish religious commitment demands, among other less determinate things, faithful adherence to established Jewish law (halakha). That complex and all-embracing labyrinth of reg­ulations extends virtually to every aspect and parameter of the prac­titioner's existence and conduct-from the loftiest ethical, moral, spir­itual and theological concerns to the seemingly most mundane minutae of daily life. Moreover, while that religious-legal system pertains osten­sibly to conduct (verbal as well as all other actions, obligations as well as prohibitions) rather than to imposed belief or thought, the very breadth of behavioral regulation often suggests certain accompanying, culturally acquired modes of thinking that are, in turn, conducive to the acceptance of such all-encompassing regulation. In the less formal­jargon of the late twentieth century, this might be construed as a sort of 'mindset' -one which espouses as well as welcomes that form of overall control. If the rigors of such religious commitment and obser­vance, together with the desire for (or, at least, acceptance of) such de­tailed control, were associated in the mind of the young Schoenberg with the 'mother figure,' it must have stood in continual contrast to the figure with whom he actually identified: the 'freethinker' father. That .contradiclo.ry~nyjmnment_may_w..£Jl_haY_e_b..een_a.s.QULC.e..Qflhe.suhs.e­quent conflict between Schoenberg's 'freethinking God-awareness,' which is not defined necessarily by any accepted code of behavior or ritual, and a continuous yearning for strict, well-defined rules-which he sought in institutionalized religion.

This latter, lifelong need may offer some partial explanation for Schoen­berg's obsession with superstitions-chiefly numerically-orientated ones. His two most recurrent superstitions involved the fear of the number thirteen, and his insistence on matching the opus numbers of his compositions with the year of their expected publication. I I Obses­sive or not, those superstitions constitute an aspect of Schoenberg's pursuit of religious structure. Indeed, he actually regarded them as a legitimate part of his religious experience. This is evident in his fre­quent statement, "It is not superstition, it is belief."12 On the other hand, Schoenberg may have been seeking a single religious structure with two constituent levels: one level that included aspects of Judaism and, perhaps, Christianity as well-an admixture that would itself pro­duce both a non-resolving conflict and a problematic, undefined ab­stract level of religious experience; and a second one-superstition-a

J IFor a fascinating description of Schoenberg's superstitions see, Joan Peyser, The New Music: The Sense Behind the SOl/lid (New York, Delacorte Press, 1971), Chap­ter I.

12Ibid., p. 11.

~

;.~, :~. 'l;'t;,,.

-\ ;It .~~

il

'fii fi'

I­I;

tt; f, R I'1 1

*,11,

I! 1[1

Ii Ii Ii,,I'.

56

religious level at once IT

could be perceived as a

Perhaps the most obvi cussed-evidence of Sd version to Christianity adopted a new name (i Jewish community, tra) His marriage to Mathil 1901, was performed in indicate that the COUplE in Pressburg on 7 Octe

Schoenberg's spiritual even more variegated' sonally involved inten These included existel phy, mysticism, and 1 Arthur Schopenhauer

-_. _... - -- _." _.-.­

Schoenberg's return to to Alban Berg reveals: earlier. This documeni

cal concern with ac' occupation with religi

... What was in th. mony] and since is the presence bf 'to" return to the Jewisl my return to the Je1

demonstrated in sc Thou shalt.') and drama Der biblisc11t at the latest, thou:

Indeed, the process (

13The information co

ter lI. 14lt should be obsen

marriages in certain Em day) regardless of the fa and apart from any adc

15Stein, Arnold Schoe

"UAL QUEST 55 56 MUSICA JUDAICA

)mmitment demands, :herence to established 'acing labyrinth of reg­)arameter of the prac­~st ethical, moral, spir­cost mundane minutae ;ystem pertains osten­lS, obligations as well or thought, the very ertain accompanying, in turn, conducive to on. In the less fonnal )e construed as a sort eicomes that form of nmitment and obser­ceptance of) such de­e young Schoenberg ltinual contrast to the -thinker' father. That _s_QJ,uce.QfJhel?]Jb~e­ng God-awareness,' code of behavior or

efined rules-which

lanation for Schoen­nerically-orientated 'ved the fear of the he opus numbers of l1blication. l1 Obses­~ct of Schoenberg's regarded them as a evident in his fre­

£"12 On the other religious structure aspects ofJudaism at would itself pro­ltiC, undefined ab­~-superstition_a

ms see, Joan Peyser, te Press, 1971), Chap­

,ii

r I

religious level at once more concrete and more superficial, one which could be perceived as a set of well-defined rules.

Perhaps the most obvious.,....and certainly the most frequently dis­cussed -evidence of Schoenberg's undulating religious path is his con­version to Christianity. He was baptized as a Protestant in 1898, adopted a new name (Arnold Franz Walter Schoenberg), and left the Jewish community, transferring his birth certificates to the Church. 13

His marriage to Mathilde Zemlinsky (herself Jewish) on 18 October, 1901, was performed in a church ceremony. However, church records indicate that the couple had been married already in a civil ceremony in Pressburg on 7 October of that year. 14

Schoenberg's spiritual quest after 1920 appears to have assumed an even more variegated pattern of experimentation, as he became per­sonally involved intermittently with various philosophical currents. These included existentialism, Gennan rational philosophy, theoso­phy, mysticism, and the philosophical teachings of Karl Kraus and Arthur Schopenhauer. .

--~. - ----".- _... - ... ... _- .

Schoenberg's return toJudaism occurred in 1933. Aletterfrom that year to Alban Berg reveals that his thoughts had been occupied by it much earlier. This document, too, reflects a sense of obsessiveness, his typi­cal concern with accuracy of details, and his unremitting pre­occupation with religion in general:

... What was in the newspapers before that [the conversion cere­mony] and since is fantasy, just like the alleged ceremonies and the presence bf 'tout Paris' on the occasion of what is called my return to the Jewish religion.... As you have doubtless realized, my return to the Jewish religion took place long ago and is indeed demonstrated in some of my published work ('Thou shalt not ... Thou shalt.') and in Moses and Aaron . .. but especially, in my drama Der biblische Weg, which was also conceived in 1922 or '23 at the latest, though finished only in '26-'27. 15

Indeed, the process of return to Judaism had begun in the early 1920s:

13The information contained in this paragraph is from White (op. cit.), Chap­ter II.

14It should be observed, however, that civil ceremonies were required for all marriages in certain European countries (and are still so required in some to this day) regardless of the faith of the couples-whether Christian or Jewish-separate and apart from any additional religious ceremony of their choice.

15Stein, Arnold Schoenberg's Letters (op. cit.), p. 184.

TARSI/ARNOLD SCHOENBERG'S SPIRITUAL QUEST 57

Although Schoenberg's formal entry into the Jewish community did not occur until 1933 ... by ca. 1922 Schoenberg's wide­ranging quest in both musical and philosophical realms had ended with a sense of arrival and a sense of matured fulfillment of personal destiny.16

The fact that Schoenberg's return to Judaism was not simply an isolated event in 1933, but, rather, the culmination of a process that had begun eleven years earlier, is significant in view of the other artistic events in his life and work that have been traced to 1922-23; viz., his comple­tion of the development of the twelve-tone system, and his initial work on the composition of Die Jakobsleiter. '

Die Jakobsleiter is one of three works that offer the most important in­sights into Schoenberg's internal religious struggle. The other compo­sitions in this category are Moses and Aaron and Modern Psalms. These three works share among them' a number of characteristics in com­mon-characteristics that are highly significant to our understanding of that struggle. All three confront religious predicament. Moreover, eachcorrtains'expressions-of-the-same-speciflC-problematie-faeets-e-fre­ligion:the 'idea-representation' issue, man's quest for faith, and the concept of unity with God. All three are based upon texts written by the composer, each during a critical period of his personal as well as professional life. Finally, each remained uncompleted.

Work on the first of those three, Die Jakobsleiter, was an integral part of the process of development of the twelve-tone system. In fact, it is commonly regarded in terms of a study of that system-as a prelimi­nary exercise in the new discipline.!7 Whether or not Die Jakobsleiter was intended primarily as an exercise, it is possible that, once the concept of the twelve-tone system had been established, Schoenberg felt an ur­gency to move on to new work. He did, however, plan to return to it and complete it. As late as 1948 he stated, "If I could work I should -"

like best to finish Die Jakobsleiter and Moses and Aaron";!8 and, "; .. my

16White (op. ciL), p. 83. 17The most recentdiscussion of this piece and its role in the development of the

twelve-tone method is -found in Chapter III of Ethan Haimo, Schoenberg's Serial Od­yssey: The Evolution of his Twelve-tOile Method, 1914-1928 (London and New York, Oxford University Press, 1990). See also, Dika Newlin, "Self Revelation and the Law: Arnold Schoenberg in his Religious Works," in Yuval I (1968), pp. 206-20.

18Quoted in Karl H. Worner, Gotteswort und Maggie, Die Oper 'Moses und Aron' von Arnold SchOnberg (Heidelberg, Verlag Lambert Schneider, 1959); English translation: P. Hamburger, Schoenberg's 'Moses and Aaron' (London, Faber and Faber, 1963), p. 90.

58

life task would be fulfill those two largest of my

Schoenberg was evidel among all three of the w two until his death, whi Modern Psalms. Apparer and importance for him, ished struggle whose co cance:

In his later years Schc . leiter] in the hope of ( is expressed in a lette: leiter and to Moses und of the oratorio took n music for the first ps pray-."20

... The Modern Psaln 6.ffiislife. The setlm: textual context as tha posing Moses und Ar,

Itwould seem from the, attempted to address re ternal reference point, h vented him from arrivi! hand.

The Ultimate Control

The conflict between al the core of Moses and Aa veyed throughout the I vices. On a philosophi, is straightforward: An assigning him a missio:

19Quoted in Alan Philip The Critical Years, 1908-19:<

2°Ibid. 21Peyser (op. cit.), p. 6(

RITUAL QUEST 57

the Jewish community 2 Schoenberg's wide­osophical realms had of matured fulfillment

ras not simply an isolated 1 process that had begun the other artistic events

:122-23; viz., his comple­item, and his initial work

r the most important in­Iggle. The other compo­ld Modern Psalms. These f characteristics in com­lt to our understanding >redicament. Moreover, problematidaee-ts-o-fre­quest for faith, and the d upon texts written by .his personal as well as 'mpleted.

?r, was an integral part me system. In fact, it is t system-as a preIimi­r not Die Jakobsleiter was , that, once the concept , Schoenberg felt an ur­ver, plan to return to it I could work I should

taron";18 and, "; .. my

. in the development of the imo, Schoenberg's Serial Od­: (London and New York, . "Self Revelation and the -uval I (1968), pp. 206-20. )ie Oper 'Moses und Aron' ;chneider, 1959); English rOil' (London, Faber and

58 MUSICA JUDAICA

life task would be fulfilled only fragmentarily if I failed to complete those two largest of my musical ... works...."19

Schoenberg was evidently aware of the herein-cited relationship among all three of the works. He remained pre-occupied with the first two until his death, which occurred as he was working on the third, Modern Psalms. Apparently, all three held the same sense of urgency and importance for him, since he referred to each of them as an unfin­ished struggle whose completion bore religious and existential signifi­cance:

In his later years Schoenberg returned to the oratorio [Die Jakobs­leiter] in the hope of completing it. His dedication to the project is expressed in a letter of 22 January, 1945, referring to Die Jakobs­leiter and to Moses und Aron . ... Interestingly enough, the "idea" of the oratorio took root again in Schoenberg's last work ... the music for the first psalm breaks off with the words: "and yet I pray-."20

. . . The Modern Psalms reveals Schoenberg's thoughts at the end arms life. The settlngrernafn-s ui1fri11s!le-u In pre-asefythe saIl).e textual context as that point at which Schoenberg stopped com­posing Moses und Aron. 21

Itwould seem from the above assessments that, whenever Schoenberg attempted to address religious matters without the guidance of an ex­ternal reference point, his unresolved intellectual-spiritual conflict pre­vented him from arriving at a solution relative to the composition at hand.

* * * *

The Ultimate Confrontation: Moses and Aaron

The conflict between abstract idea and concrete representation forms the core of Moses and Aaron. The specific message of that conflict is con· veyed throughout the libretto as well as the dramatic and musical de­vices. On a philosophical plane, the sequence of events in the opera is straightforward: An abstract Divine Truth presents itself to Moses, assigning him a mission to communicate it to 'The People.' Aaron be­

19Quoted in Alan Philip Lessem, Music and Text in the Works ofAmold Schoenberg: The Critical Years, 1908-1922 (Ann Arbor, UMI Research Press, 1979), p. 205.

2°Ibid. 21Peyser (op. cit.), p. 60.

TARSI/ARNOLD SCHOENBERG'S SPIRITUAL QUEST 59

comes the intermediary between Moses and the People, but distorts the Divine Truth by attempting to render it as a concrete phenomenon for the purpose of communication. This misleads th~ People, which re­sorts to pagan idol worship. Thus, the mission is not fulfilled: Moses has failed. The libretto reveals an extremely concise plot, with no sec­ondary story-lines and no other events that would distract from the philosophical issue. The characters' actions and interactions all ad­vance the presentation of that single topic.

Dramatically, the message is delivered through the fashioning and pre­sentation of three characters: Moses, Aaron and 'The People,' together with one abstract entity, the Divine Truth. Each of these is given a dis­tinct, well-defined role within the plot, as well as on the philosophical level. Moses is the representative of the Divine Truth in its pure form, and thus belongs to the abstract level himself. Aaron, as executor of the Divine Truth's tangible expression, belongs to the concrete level. The People functions as a 'feedback' mechanism, reacting to Moses' and Aaron's actions and indicating their failure or success. Although some specific, individual figures emerge from the crowd occasionally _duJ.ingJh_eJ)p-~:@J 'T1J~~~Qpk' should be_~-9J}~ic;!gregj1gngJ~cham~t~r.

The Divine Truth, as presented in the text, is an abstract essence be­yond either man or nature-one, everlasting, intangible, omnipotent, omnipresent, invisible and inconceivable:

(Moses:) Only one, infinite, though omnipotent One, unper­ceived and inconceivable God! God the Almighty exists apart from men ...·ever-unseen One greatness unimagined.... Not conceived because unseen can never be measured, everlast­ing eternal because everpresent. ...22

The plot consists of the accumulation of interactions among the char­acters, as they find themselves confronted with the Divine Truth and its implications.

Moses' character is shaped through the opera in ways that connect him continually to the abstract level of experience. He has seen the Divine Truth in its pure form, and he is the only person who will remain per­sistently faithful to it. He is associated with thoughts and beliefs, and with the biblical 'burning bush' (Exodus III, 1-7, wherein the bush is described as burning without being consumed)-all of which consti­tute the abstract element of the drama. In the opera, the burning

22All quotations here from Acts I and II are taken from the English translation of the libretto by Allen Forte as it appears in Worner (op. cit.), pp. 112-195.

60

bush-itself a symbol of t rooted elements. The seo (Exodus IV; 10). This is ( stimme-representing that Words-speech-belong to outside Moses' powers of , trast with the Christian un New Testament:

"In the beginning was tl the Word was God." (Tl

Schoenberg further under by giving Moses certain . faithfulness and consisten he remains stable and pE challenged, his faith canll

In addition to the portrayc his speech difficulties, his iiaiVf€aooli1fne-po1HiCaI· his unworldliness. In that identification with the ab: limitations, even though I that he may be unable to

... God, ask not Thy: Thee, let me tend my bat the power and for them proof of my man tongue is not flexible; I, Scene 1.)

He reveals the steadfastn4 theless.

For Schoenberg, the sy dichotomy demanded t would strive would be m concrete goal. In the bib a very well-defined goal much as that is a concretE opera; in fact, his sole c(

. the People must first a,

SPIRITUAL QUEST 59 60

md the People, but distorts t as a concrete phenomenon sleads th~ People, which re­ssion is not fulfilled: Moses y concise plot, with no sec­tat would distract from the ns and interactions all ad-

ugh the fashioning and pre-and 'The People,' together

Each of these is given a dis­{ell as on the philosophical 'ine Truth in its pure form, ;elf. Aaron, as executor of ongs to the concrete level. anism, reacting to Moses' [lure or success. Although >ill the crowd occasionally tsid~JJ~{ti!~ingl~char..i!l:j:~r. is an abstract essence be­;, intangible, omnipotent,

lnipotent One, unper­e Almighty exists apart tness unimagined. . . . be measured, everlast­

ractions among the char­"ith the Divine Truth and

in ways that connect him . He has seen the Divine ion who will remain per­lOughts and beliefs, and -7, wherein the bush is ~d)-all of which consti­the opera, the burning

'rom the English translation (op. cit.), pp. 112-195.

MUSICA JUDAICA

bush-itself a symbol of the abstract level-is one of two biblically­rooted elements. The second concerns Moses' speech impediment (E.xodus IV; 10). This is expressed musically by the use of Sprech­stzmme-representing that which cannot be explained through words~ Words-speech-belong to the concrete level; they must therefore be outside Moses' powers of expression. Here one may observe th~ con­trast with the Christian unity of word and Divinity as expressed In the New Testament:

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." (The Gospel According to John, Ch: I, v. t.)

Schoenberg further underscores the higher value of the abstract level by giving Moses certain virtuous character attributes: truthfulness, faithfulness and consistency. In spite of the obstacles and frustrations, he remains stable and persistent throughout. Although continually challenged, his faith cannot be shaken.

In addition to the portrayal of Moses as heroically modest and human, his speech difficulties, his helplessness during~?~()~!ati()~~,_(}_nd~~ iiaivteabouTtlle-poflfiCa-frariilliCatlonsof his mission all demonstrate his unworldliness. In that sense, these factors actually contribute to the identification with the abstract. He accepts the mission in spite of his limitations, even though he believes himself to be unworthy and fears that he may be unable to fulfill it:

... God, ask not Thy servant to be Thy prophet. I am old. I ask Thee, let me tend my sheep in silence.... Who am I to com­bat the power and force of that blindness? ... What will give them proof of my mandate? ... No one will believe me! ... my

- tongue is not flexible; thought is easy; speech is laborious. (Act I, Scene1.).-,

He reveals the steadfastness ofhis faith by accepting that mission none­theless.

For Schoenberg, the symmetrical nature of the 'abstract-concrete' dichotomy demanded that any abstract goal toward which Moses would strive would be matched by tlie parallel existence of some other, concrete goal. In the biblical story God's mission for Moses includes a very well-defined goal, viz., to take the People out of Egypt. Inas­much as that is a concrete task, it becomes Aaron's responsibility in the opera; in fact, his sole concern. In the opera, in order to leave Egypt,

. the People must first accept the Divine Truth. Thus, there are two

TARSI/ARNOLD SCHOENBERG'S SPIRITUAL QUEST 61

principal but complementary objectives: Aaron's objective, to lead the People physically out of Egypt and to the desert (concrete); and Moses' goal, to communicate the Divine Truth to the People, and to convince them to accept and believe in it (abstract).

How, though, can Moses deliver so abstract a message to an ignorant, unfaithful and self-indulgent People without first offering them some concrete, tangible evidence? To resort to palpable means would amount to dishonesty and could only misrepresent the abstract, intan­gible essence of the Divine Truth. Here Schoenberg follows the biblical narrative. Since Moses' speech is faulty, it falls to Aaron to speak to the People. Moses' purity as a character on the abstract level remains, thus, intact; Aaron's function as the spokesman suits his association with the concrete level; and the dilemma itself is transformed into a conflict between those two representatives of two different experiential levels.

ignoring the problem that, in order to be persuaded to leave Egypt, the People must first believe in the unperceivable, Aaron tries to convince

.ihem.b.pneans..otheLtban reJigions.iaith.Hejs.as.sD.ciate.cUnlhe_op_era, therefore, with explicit, perceptible aspects of the drama: words, bel canto singing, miracles, and, finally, the idolatrous Golden Calf. These concrete devices easily become deceptive vehicles of betrayal. Indeed, Aaron stands for all that is false and distorting. He is the cunning poli­tician, attracted to power and to ruling and manipulating the People. He views Mose~ and his ideology merely as vehicles to further his own ambition. In order to prevail upon the People to follow him, Aaron dis­torts Moses' ideas, making them appear both comprehensible and ap­pealing. His presentation converts the Divine Truth into a mighty be­ing of great power, an object of love and worship, a form and an image-visible to the righteous.

Aaron's bel canto-like singing voice constitutes a musical device to rep­resent popular appeal and the illusion of comprehensibility. Like his other attributes, Aaron's singing functions so as to shape his into the more attractive and seductive of the two roles. Moses, on the other hand, is made to appear less immediately attractive and less accessible to the people. Here, the composer's use of Sprechstimme-a vocal style that would have been perceived by audiences as uncouth in the context of nineteenth-century operatic singing standards - furthers the realiza­tion of that dramatic intention.

Both Aaron's character and his distortion of the Divine Truth idea are best seen in his first dialogue with Moses (Act 1, Scene ii), which also

M 62

reveals the contrast between ing which they posit their diJ sion, creates a brilliant effec1

between them. An early inc may be found there in the c( those two characters. Rathel time, each appears almost t enthusiastically about his h Sprechstimme, tries in vain ideas, nO communication i

Straying significantly from "0, son of my fathers, are ~

vealS his character. That known already about the e, is now shrewdly directing terests. Even at that early ~ speaks his misconception Aaron replies, "holy grace t~,:~g~.re~~~tiOE~:~~_~-~ folks, to have one mighty : vails." Aaron's next step, sense of logic, is to coron highest fantasy, how glad Moses asks, "How can £0 Aaron proclaims, "Love' is this folk to revere its G

As the two monologues stract quality of God Cf measured, everlasting, Aaron relates to God as 0

and an image. Referrir imagined ," Aarori ceive " -a subtle y{ can not be conceived." political gain, attributin: That detractory charact er's obviously sympath

23Emphasis the author': is quoted), indicating word to the nature of the Divin

: the Divine Truth idea are \.ct I, Scene ii), which also

Straying significantly from the biblical account, Aaron's opening line, "0, son of my fathers, are you sent by mighty God?", immediately re­veals his character. That question suggests that Aaron may have known already about the earlier dialogue between God and Moses, and is now shrewdly directing the conversation so as tu serve his own in­terests. Even at that early stage, Aaron's choice of particular words be­speaks his misconception of Moses' ideas. Asked what he perceives, Aaron replies, "holy grace," while Moses comments, "Grace is granted ~~ro~g~_reco£niti~~~'_~':\~!Q~!~~~~_clar~_~GOc!~~EOW~!:~:2lt_ap£y folks, to have one mighty god against whose forces no other power pre­vails." Aaron's next step, which follows naturally according to his own sense of logic, is to commence his distortion of the idea: "0 vision of highest fantasy, how glad it is that you've enticed it to form you." When Moses asks, "How can fantasy thus picture the unimageable? [sic]," Aaron proclaims, "Love will surely not weary of image forming. Happy is this folk to revere its God SO!"23

As the two monologues proceed, Moses continues to describe the ab­stract quality of God ("Not conceived because unseen, can never be measured, everlasting, eternal, because ever present...."), while Aaron relates to God as a powerful and punishing being, a love-object and an image. Referring to the description ". . . not be seen, not imagined ," Aaron says, " ... what you dare not even con­ceive " -a subtle yet important difference from the words, "what can not be conceived." All Aaron's descriptions of God are aimed at political gain, attributing to God qualities that will appeal to the People.. That detractory characterization of Aaron, together with the compos­er's obviously sympathetic portrait of Moses, le'ads the audience to re-

MUSICA JUDAICA

reveals thect' . . din . on rast between the two. Their simultaneous smgmg, ~r-. g whIch they posit their differing ideas about God and abou t the mIS­

SIon, creates a brilliant effect that emphasizes powerfully the vast gulf between them. An early indication of the opera's unresolved ending may be found there in the complete absence of confrontation between t~ose two characters. Rather, by expressing opposing ideas at the same tIme, each appears almost to be conversing with himself. Aaron sings enthusiastically about his false perceptions, while Moses, confined to Sprechstimme, tries in vain to explain his ideas. While both express ideas, no communication is established.

62

23Emphasis the author's (in this and succeeding paragraphs where the libretto is quoted), indicating words voiced by Aaron that are, by definition, contradictions to the nature of the Divine Truth.

61SPIRITUAL QUEST

Aaron's objective, to lead the desert (concrete); and Moses'

the People, and to convince t).

act a message to an ignorant, out first offering them some to palpable means would

"represent the abstract, intan­,hoenberg follows the biblical it falls to Aaron to speak to n the abstract level remains, Ik~sma~ suits his assoc!ation ~ Itself IS transformed Into a ) of two different experiential

ersuaded to leave Egypt, the Ilble, Aaron tries to convince l:iejs-assD_ciatecUnl-h~op-e.Ia, :ts of the drama: words, bel 'olatrous Golden Calf. These Ilehicles of betrayal. Indeed, ting. He is the cunning poli­d manipUlating the People. s vehicles to further his own lIe to follow him, Aaron dis­>th comprehensible and ap­ine Truth into -{l mighty be­:I worship, a form and an

tes a musical device to rep­:omprehensibility. Like his so as to shape his into the ~oles. Moses, on the other ttractive and less accessible 'prechstimme-a vocal style $ as uncouth in the context lards - furthers the realiza­

TARSI/ARNOLD SCHOENBERG'S SPIRITUAL QUEST 63

spond more favorably to the latter and leaves no doubt as to which of the two perceptions of the Divine Truth we are supposed to accept.

Towards the end of each act Aaron's role becomes more clearly delin­eated, and the conflict between the brothers more intense. In each of those conclusions, Moses reaches a crisis in which his ideas are chal­lenged by Aaron's pragmatic point of view. The first crisis occurs in Act I, Scene iv, when Aaron introduces God to the People. He describes a holy, almighty, intimidating God who calls for worship: "On your knees, then, to give him worship!" Aaron invokes worship, a concrete ritual, to give the People tangible access (with which they are already familiar) to God. He senses as well that combining worship withintimi­dation is an effective strategy. Realizing the People's resistance to the idea of a God who cannot be seen, Aaron first promises that they will see Him if they shut their eyes and close their ears. When this proves insufficient, he alters his argument, suggesting, "But the righteous shall see him." He carries that notion even further: "Who sees Him not is forsaken."

As soon as Aaron gains control of the scene, Moses becomes silent and immobtlizectSdTCfenb-erg'-s-own-stage- directions-indieate-Moses!-{eel­ings: The more Aaron distorts Moses' ideas, the farther downstage Moses retreats.. For a brief moment it seems that Aaron may return to the true path when he declares, "No living man otherwise perceives Him" (although still implying that there is some way by which God can indeed be seen); Moses then returns back upstage. His hope, however, is in vain. Aaron states that the righteous can see Him. Several of the People immediately claim revelations and offer descriptions of God. Aaron's warning, that "who sees Him not is forsaken," is followed by the People's laughter and mockery: "Then we must all be forsaken, since we still see Him not!" By this point Moses has retreated to the background, and his crisis is expressed by his words, "Almighty One, now my strength is exhausted, and my thoughts become powerless in Aaron's word." Moses' crisis has reached its peak. From that point un­til the end of the first act morality deteriorates further, and the concrete level dominates in the form of miracle displays. Schoenberg's persis­tent emphasis on Aaron's representations of the tangible, surface level of religious experience lies behind yet another departure from the bib­lical account, in which it is Moses who is the miracle-worker. The scene ends with calls for killing, and with bribes that promise freedom for the People.

Moses' second crisis occurs in Act II, Scene v, after the Golden Calf in­cident, the blood offering, the dancing and the drunken orgy. Aaron

64

explains to him why let for their emotio comes an ideologie< tablets of the Law should belong to t leaves him devasta break the tablets anI these tables, and I ~

Aaron then shows t of fire and the pill<

The scene closes v God's signs, but m sonal authority: "T, a signal to the Peol

'- tion is false, and tl of the stage, in con and defeat:

Inconceivable G it-b-e-SCf expiainE Then I have fas] Thus I am defea fore, and can al that I lack!

There is no anSWE clusion.

Although this rna moment in the dr. concrete goal-to Moses' different ( message has beco: the abstract Divir truth from the ab: inherently abstral attempt to materi complished, the E

for repeated failu is there any cessa ered his opera in lution therein ha

:'5 SPIRITUAL QUEST 6463 MUSICA JUDAICA

leaves no doubt as to which of :h we are supposed to accept.

Ie becomes more clearly delin­thers more intense. In each of :is in which his ideas are chal­Tiew. The first crisis Occurs in ;od to the People. He describes J calls for worship: "On your n invokes worship, a concrete . (with which they are already 1mbining worship with intimi­the People's resistance to the n first promises that they will ~ their ears: When this proves ggesting, "But the righteous n further: "Who sees Him not

1e, Moses becomes silent and rections-indicate-Moseg!-£eel_ deas, the farther downstage ms that Aaron may return to ng man otherwise perceives '­; some way by which God can upstage. His hope, however, ; can see Him. Several of the d offer descriptions of God. t is forsaken," is followed by ~n we must all be forsaken, t Moses has retreated to the his words, "Almighty One,

Dughts become powerless in its peak. From tha t point un­tes further, and the concrete :plays. Schoenberg's persis­of the tangible, surface level ther departure from the bib­e miracle-worker. The scene s that promise freedom for

~ v, after the Golden Calf in­:l the drunken orgy. Aaron

explains to him why he found it necessary to furnish the People an out­let for their emotions and frustrations. Soon their disagreement be­Comes an ideological debate. Moses is confronted with a paradox: The tablets of the Law he has been given (which, as a Divine message should belong to the abstract level) are themselves an image. This leaves him devastated. He feels that he has no choice other than to break the tablets and announce his failure: "Then I smash to pieces both these tables, and I shall also ask Him to withdraw the task given me." Aaron then shows the People more tangible evidence of God: the pillar of fire and the pillar of cloud.

The scene closes with the People and Aaron hopeful, pleased with God's signs, but mistaking them for God Himself. Aaron claims per­sonal authority: "To lead us by night-Thus through me has God given a signal to the People." The inevitable has occurred: the People's ela­tion is false, and they have been utterly misled. On the opposite side of the stage, in complete contrast, Moses voices his boundless despair and defeat:

Inconceivable God! Inexpressible, many-sided idea, will You let it~1Je-ST)explainect?5halt Karon, my m6iiffi~ fasmonlTiis--iilliigeT Then I have fashioned an image too, false, as an image must be. Thus I am defeated. Thus, all was but madness thatI believed be­fore, and can and must not be given voice. 0 word, thou word, that I lack!

There is no answer from God; the struggle has no resolution, no con­clusion.

)"

Although this may not be Moses' last critical point, it is clear at that moment in the drama that he will never achieve his objective. Aaron's concrete goal- to take the People out ofEgypt-is accomplished, while Moses' different one-to communicate the Divine Truth-is not. The message has become clear: It is impossible to communicate or to deliver the abstract Divine Truth. To do so, one would have to transfer that truth from the abstract to the concrete level of understanding. But the inherently abstract nature of the idea renders it destroyed by the very attempt to materialize it. Yet, although that mission can never be ac­complished, the effort must continue-even though it is still destined for repeated failure. There is no possibility of prevailing, but neither is there any cessation of the attempt. The fact that Schoenberg consid­ered his opera incomplete only emphasizes this idea, and the irreso­lution therein harkens back to his own life story.