String Quartet in E minor, Op.59 No.2 “Razumovsky” (1806)

String Quartet in E minor Op.59 No.2 “Razumovsky” (1805-6)

Allegro

Molto adagio

Allegretto

Finale: Presto - più presto

The opening Allegro of the second “Razumovsky” Quartet, though even longer than that of the first, is sustained, basically, the two double-stopped chords that so dramatically open the movement and, in one form or another, echo throughout. If the unsettling implications of that figure have little effect on the contemplative serenity of the Molto adagio, they are recalled in the syncopations of Allegretto scherzo - with some respite in the contrapuntal treatment of the “Thème russe” in the trio section - to some extent avoided in the tonal ambiguity of the Finale but confirmed in the hard-drive coda.

When Count Rasumovsky’s resident string quartet - who knew the composer very well - received the first of the three quartets Beethoven had written for them in 1806, they greeted it with disbelief. But, like Beethoven in writing these works, Count Rasumovsky knew what he was doing in commissioning them. As well as being a senior diplomat (the Russian ambassador in Vienna) Rasumovsky was an educated musician, a pupil of Haydn, and an enlightened patron. He sensed where the future might be and was courageous enough to encourage Beethoven to progress towards it,whatever the problems.

In scoring these works, however, Beethoven did take their unprecedented proportions into account. His aim here was not, as in the Op.18 quartets, to make particular effects but to create consistent, long-term textures to reflect the construction of each movement. The opening Allegro of Op.59, No.2, is a particularly successful example. It would not, in fact, be going too far to suggest that one sort of texture, the interweaving of lines of undulating semiquavers, is equivalent to a main theme and that the introductory pair of double-stopped chords and the later passages of chordal syncopations are two others.

The great slow movement - inspired, it seems, “by contemplating the starry sky and thinking of the music of the spheres” - has its own profoundly expressive melodic material, It also associates itself with the opening Allegro, partly by means of triplet rhythms and partly by textural means - as, for example, immediately after the broad chordal statement of the main theme at the climax of the movement.

The third and fourth movements are similarly related to each other, both rhythmically and by the now open texture they have in common, The contrasting fugal treatment of a Russian theme, included in the third movement as a tribute to Rasumovsky, is neatly matched by a contrapuntal episode in the last.

When Beethoven accepted Count Razumovsky’s commission for three new string quartets in 1805 he evidently agreed with the Russian ambassador’s request to include a Russian tune in at least two of them. If that concession seems out of character, the fact is that it in no way compromised his integrity in these works. In the Quartet in E minor the “thème russe,” as the composer identifies it on its first entry in the middle section of the Allegretto, is deployed as an essential factor in the long-term argument.

This second “Razumovsky” Quartet begins with a threat issued by two emphatically double-stopped chords. The melodic phrase that follows that dramatic opening gesture quietly inverts its top notes and extends them into an eloquent expression of restless anxiety in E minor. That state of mind, characteristically reflected in a counterpoint of undulating semiquavers, punctuated from time to time by peremptory echoes of the two chords, prevails through much of the first movement.

At the start of the Molto adagio the harmonies turn to E major and the mood to a serenity inspired, Beethoven is reported as saying, “by contemplating the starry sky and thinking of the music of the spheres.” The threat in this case is very much more subtly indicated: towards the end of the exposition the two violins exchange a melodic idea apparently derived from the first subject of the Allegro. Although this reminder of earlier anxiety is not immediately disturbing, its failure to conform to E major serenity in the recapitulation requires an extended coda to put it right.

The outer sections of the Allegretto scherzo are in E minor and distinctly unsettled in their adventurously syncopated rhythms. The trio section, on the other hand, is in E major and based on a cheerful theme that is not only authentically Russian (both Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov were to use it later) but also similar in melodic shape, if not in rhythm, to the first subject of the first movement. That seems to settle matters – but not for long. The happy outcome anticipated by the main theme of the concluding Presto is illusory. While it insists on retaining its C major harmonies on its every appearance, in an E minor context it cannot prevail. The dispute is sustained up to the wire but is finally resolved in favour of E minor by the irresistible pressure of a quicker and vigorously authoritative coda.

Gerald Larner © 2018

If Ignaz Schuppanzigh and the other members of his string quartet thought that Beethoven’s Quartet in F major, Op.59, No.1, was some kind of joke when they first encountered it, what could they have thought of its even more eccentric successor in E minor, Op.59, No.2? Actually, there is no record of their reactions in this case, but it is known that, after the publication of all three “Razumovsky” Quartets in 1808 and their first public performance a year later, only the third in C major won early approval. Perhaps Count Razumovsky, who had been enlightened enough to commission the three works - and who would have been waiting for the entry of the Russian theme that the composer had agreed to include at some point - understood the Quartet in E minor rather better.

The first movement is even longer than that of the Quartet in F major and yet it seems to be driven by nothing more than the two double-stopped chords that so dramatically open the work. The melodic phrase that follows them, after a thoughtful pause, very quietly inverts that opening gesture and extends it into an eloquent expression of restless anxiety. That state of mind, characteristically reflected in a counterpoint of undulating semiquavers, prevails through much of the movement. The second subject in G major is happier but, having grown out of the first subject on the discreet but insistent request of the cello, it retains the same kind of figuration and the same kind of texture. The two chords - or their rhythm, since the harmonies are different now - have a similar effect on the development, which is even more restive and which seems to offer little prospect that the situation will be any different later. The recapitulation of the second subject in E major is hopeful, however. Although the movement ends in E minor, the reappearance of the two-chord rhythm at the beginning of the extended coda has a significantly less disturbing effect.

The quiet ending of the Allegro anticipates the quiet opening of the Molto adagio, where the harmonies turn to E major and the mood to a serenity inspired, according to a contemporary report, “by contemplating the starry sky and thinking of the music of the spheres.” The tranquillity of the opening chorale, which is to be played con molto sentimento, is not seriously affected by the repeated rhythmic figure applied to it as a kind of decoration by first violin. But from this point on the movement is scarcely ever free from a rhythmic ostinato of one kind or another at some level in the texture. Towards the end of the exposition, where triplet quavers have taken over as the prevailing rhythmic figure, the two violins exchange a melodic idea apparently derived from the first subject of the Allegro. Though this reminder of the anxiety of the first movement is not immediately disturbing, its failure to conform to E major serenity in the recapitulation requires another extended coda to put it right.

An important factor in mitigating the still underlying anxiety is the benign influence of the Russian theme introduced, like the one in the Quartet in F major, as a tribute to Count Razumovsky. The outer sections of the Allegretto scherzo are in E minor and distinctly unsettled in their adventurously syncopated rhythms. The trio section is in E major and based on a cheerful theme that is not only authentically Russian but also similar in melodic shape, if not in rhythm, to the first subject of the first movement. That settles it, though perhaps not, in spite of a second appearance of the trio, in the long term.

The unsettling element in the last movement is a disagreement between the basic tonality of E minor and the individuality of the main rondo theme, which is introduced in C major and which insists on retaining those harmonies on its every reappearance. After an exhilarating contrapuntal development, incorporating yet another reminder of the main theme of the first movement, the more supple second subject is finally recalled in the official E minor. The dispute with main theme remains, however, and is resolved only by the irresistible pressure of a quicker and emphatically louder coda.

Gerald Larner©

If Ignaz Schuppanzigh and the other members of his string quartet thought that Beethoven’s Quartet in F major, Op.59 No.1 was some kind of joke when they first encountered it, what could they have thought of its even more eccentric successor in E minor Op.59 No.2? Actually, there is no record of their reactions in this case, but it is known that, after the publication of all three “Razumovsky” in 1808 and their first public performance a year later, only the third (in C major) won early approval. Perhaps Count Razumovsky, who had been enlightened enough to commission the three works – and who would have been waiting for the entry of the Russian theme that the composer had agreed to include at some point – understood the Quartet in E minor rather better.

The first movement is even broader in construction than that of the Quartet in F major and yet it seems to be driven by nothing more than the two double-stopped chords that so dramatically open the work. The melodic phrase that, after a thoughtful pause, follows them very quietly inverts that opening gesture and extends it into an eloquent expression of restless anxiety. That state of mind, characteristically reflected in a counterpoint of undulating semiquavers, prevails through much of the movement. The second subject in G major is happier but, having grown out of the first subject on the discreet but insistent request of the cello, it retains the same kind of figuration and the same kind of texture. The two chords – or their rhythm, since the harmonies are different now – have a similar effect on the development, which is even more restive and which seems to offer little prospect that the situation will be any different later. The recapitulation of the second subject in E major is hopeful, however. Although the movement ends in E minor, the reappearance of the two-chord rhythm at the beginning of the extended coda has a significantly less disturbing effect.

The quiet ending of the Allegro anticipates the quiet opening of the Molto adagio, where the harmonies turn to E major and the mood to a serenity inspired, according to a contemporary report, “by contemplating the starry sky and thinking of the music of the spheres.” The tranquillity of the opening chorale, which is to be played con molto sentimento, is not seriously affected by the repeated rhythmic figure applied to it as a kind of decoration by first violin. But from this point on the movement is scarcely ever free from a rhythmic ostinato of one kind or another at some level in the texture. Towards the end of the exposition, where triplet quavers have taken over as the prevailing rhythmic figure, the two violins exchange a melodic idea apparently derived from the first subject of the Allegro. Though this reminder of the anxiety of the first movement is not immediately disturbing, its failure to conform to E major serenity in the recapitulation requires another extended coda to put it right.

An important factor in mitigating the still underlying anxiety is the benign influence of the Russian theme introduced, like the one in the Quartet in F major, as a tribute to Count Razumovsky. The outer sections of the Allegretto scherzo are in E minor and distinctly unsettled in their adventurously syncopated rhythms. The trio section is in E major and based on a cheerful theme that is not only authentically Russian (it was later used by both Mussorgsky and Rimsky-Korsakov) but also similar in melodic shape, if not in rhythm, to the first subject of the first movement. That settles it, though perhaps not, in spite of a second appearance of the trio, in the long term.

The unsettling element in the last movement is a disagreement between the basic tonality of E minor and the individuality of the main rondo theme, which is introduced in C major and which insists on retaining those harmonies on its every reappearance. After an exhilarating contrapuntal development, incorporating yet another reminder of the main theme of the first movement, the more supple second subject is finally recalled in the official E minor. The dispute with main theme remains, however, and is resolved only    by the irresistible pressure of a quicker and emphatically louder coda.

Gerald Larner © 2018