In the last two decades, Schubert has come to occupy a central position in Anglo-American and European music theory and musicology. (1) That the composer should find himself in such a position may seem unsurprising to future historians of theory; after all, many of the recent shifts in academic musical discourse-the interest in sexuality and identity studies, the emergence of neo-Riemannian theory, and the revival of Formenlehre-would seem to have created the ideal soil for renewed interest in him to take root.[2] And yet, the figure of Schubert is not at the "center" of some monolithic discursive field. 14. "Most striking" about RS, Byrne Bodley and Horton write, is "the depth of thought that a-aches to the instrumental works," whose reception history "has proved uncongenial to musical analysis" (10).Return to text 15. Another trope that continues to permeate the Schubert discourse but that has long since lost its truth value: "it is no longer acceptable to dismiss Schubert's instrumental forms as flawed lyric alternatives to Beethoven" (10). Return to text