53

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

19th-Century Music, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 5395. ISSN: 0148-2076, electronic ISSN 1533-8606. 2007 by the Regents ofthe University of California. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce articlecontent through the University of California Presss Rights and Permissions Web site, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/ncm.2007.31.1.053.

3Richard Specht likens the nales tumult to the four horse-men of the apocalypse, and in its end the silence of anni-hilation (Richard Specht, Gustav Mahler [Stuttgart:Deutsche Verlags-anstalt, 1925], p. 245). Bruno Walter ndsthe Sixth bleakly pessimistic: it reeks of the bitter cup ofhuman life. . . .The work ends in hopelessness and thenight of the soul (Bruno Walter, Gustav Mahler, trans.from the German supervised by Lotte Walter Lindt [NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957], p. 137). More recently, War-ren Darcy has suggested that the work turns resolutelynihilistic by posit[ing] utopia as an illusion, a self-delud-ing conceit, the pursuit of which is ultimately futile (War-ren Darcy, Rotational Form, Teleological Genesis, andFantasy-Projection in the Slow Movement of Mahlers SixthSymphony, this journal 25 [2001], 4974, at 50). For anoverview of reception trends, see Henri-Louis de la Grange,Mahler, Volume III: Vienna: Triumph and Disillusion(19041907) [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], pp.81920; 83841).

1A short score of the entire movement, annotated to serveas a companion piece for this article, may be downloadedat http://caliber.ucpress.net/toc/ncm/31/1. My sincerethanks go to James Hepokoski for his comments on anearlier version of this article.2As is well known, Alma Mahler claimed that her hus-band intended the Symphony to depict various aspects ofhis domestic life: herself (in the second theme of the open-ing Allegro), their children (in the trios of the scherzo),and himself in the nale (Alma Mahler, Gustav Mahler:Memories and Letters, rev. and ed. Donald Mitchell, trans.Basil Creighton [New York: Viking Press, 1969]; orig. publ.as Gustav Mahler: Erinnerungen und Briefe [Amsterdam:Allert de Lang, 1940], p. 70).

Inescapable Coherence and the Failureof the Novel-Symphony in the Finale ofMahlers Sixth

SETH MONAHAN

Few symphonic works of the late Romantic eraare preceded by a reputation as extravagant asthat of Mahlers Sixth Symphony.1 Beginningwith Mahlers own epithet (Tragic) and exac-erbated by Alma Mahlers mawkish portrayalof the work as prophetic of its composersdownfall, the A-Minor Symphony has been en-shrouded in a morbid mystique that every com-mentator seems obliged to address in someway.2 The received lore links two related tropes.

The rst is that the Symphony is a consum-mate essay in negativity or cynicism. Much ofthe weight for this interpretation falls on theenormous nale, which draws together materi-als from the preceding movements and enacts aviolent struggle ending in failure.3 The second

54

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

is that the work discloses some uniquely per-sonal message, either as veiled autobiographyor as a grim allegory on the human condition.4The second tradition has at least a limited ba-sis in historical fact, in that Mahler envisionedthe works harshness as a reection of the cru-elty he had suffered at the hands of others.5 Yetthe autobiographical program of Almas mem-oirs stands squarely at odds with Mahlers pro-fessed attitudes toward symphonic programs atthat time.6 And inasmuch as Mahler was in-clined to compose autobiographically or philo-sophically, it is difcult to defend the Sixth asa more sincere statement than his other ma-ture works. In all likelihood, the Sixth has en-joyed special privileges because the works mu-sical character resonates most keenly with theMahler that postwar audiences have constructedin their own image: cynical, knowing, inter-nally conicted, and immune to the untenablepromises of fast-fading Romantic ideologies.

But what of that musical character itself,the rst tradition named above? Can we legiti-mate the notion that this untexted work con-veys a singularly tragic or negative message?From one viewpoint the question is so obviousas to be trivial. After all, the lay concertgoerdoes not need score analysis to tell that thenale is bad news. From timbral, tonal, andtopical viewpoints the works outcome is asobviously and intuitively negative as theSeconds or Eighths is positive. For much of itsthirty-odd minutes, the nale alternates be-tween caricaturized elation and turmoil, withthe most bombastic moments occurring pre-cisely where the former gives way to the latter.(And just in case we werent paying attention,several of these shifts are punctuated by thevisually arresting drop of a gigantic hammer.)Even the sonic surface of the piece seems togrimace, with Mahlers marvelously noxiousorchestration inspiring one early critic to com-ment on his peculiar cult of ugliness.7

And yet no matter how vital they are, sensu-ous, transient attributes such as timbre andgesture fail to penetrate the deeper recesses ofthe work and are incapable of sustaining coher-ent musical arguments across entire movementson their own. Ideally, a more trenchant explo-ration of the nales negativity would movebeyond its tumultuous surface to a close read-ing of its expansive formal, tonal, and thematicprocesses. Yet in the vast bibliography on theSixth and its nale, there are few sustainedattempts to forge a link between the move-ments structure and expression. Technical dis-cussions have tended to be interpretively neu-tral, with authors like Bekker, Ratz, and Redlichmarveling at the nales Byzantine construc-tion and taut motivic relations mainly througha formalist lens.8 The tradition stemming from

4Prophetic elements notwithstanding, some scholars havefound the autobiographic basis of the work at least par-tially credible (see Constantin Floros, Gustav Mahler: TheSymphonies, trans. Vernon and Jutta Wicker [Portland:Amadeus, 1993], orig. publ. as Gustav Mahler III: DieSymphonien (Wiesbaden: Breitkopf and Hrtel, 1985), p.161; and de la Grange, Gustav Mahler, Volume III, p. 841).More often, critics distill from the work a depiction ofmans struggle with fate . . . in its full, tragic grandeur(Erwin Ratz, Musical Form in Gustav Mahler: An Analy-sis of the Finale of the Sixth Symphony, trans. Paul Ham-burger, Music Review 29 [1968], 3448; orig. publ. Zumformproblem bei Gustav Mahler: Eine Analyse des Finalesder VI. Symphonie, Die Musikforschung 9 [1956], 15671). Compare with Jonathan Carr: It is not just Mahlergoing down under those hammer blows but mankind it-self (Jonathan Carr, Mahler: A Biography [New York: Over-look Press, 1998], p. 136).5Alfred Roller, Die Bildnisse der Gustav Mahler (Leipzig:E. P. Tal, 1922), p. 24.6Alma Mahlers recollections of her husband proved tre-mendously inuential, despite having been met with skep-ticism from the outset. In 1969 Henri-Louis de la Grangedeclared the need for a new image of Mahler, foundedon a dismissal of Almas most serious distortions (Henri-Louis de la Grange, Mahler: A New Image, SaturdayReview, 29 March 1969, p. 48). But even if, as DonaldMitchell maintains, Almas recollections are exception-ally well founded and accurate (Alma Mahler, Memoriesand Letters, p. xxxv), Mahler would certainly have beenrepulsed by the way in which liner notes and programguides have ossied his off-hand comments into a vir-tual programthe kind painfully evident, for example, ina recent concert review that glibly likened the demise ofthe nales hero to a Star Wars character being slowlyvaporized (Anthony Tommasini, The Ways that MaazelKnows His Mahler New York Times, 24 June 2005).

7Albert Kauders, after the immensely unpopular Viennapremier of the Sixth (cited in de la Grange, Mahler, Vol-ume III, p. 541).8See for instance Paul Bekker, Gustav Mahlers Sinfonien(Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1969), pp. 22533; Ratz, Musi-cal Form in Gustav Mahler; Hans Redlich, Mahlers Enig-matic Sixth, in Festschrift Otto Erich Deutsch zum 80.Gerburtstag am 5 September 1963, ed. Walter Gerstenberg,Jan LaRue, and Wolfgang Rehm (Kassel: Brenreiter, 1963),pp. 25056. Though these early studies differ in scope andemphasis, they all tend to treat form and motive as essen-tially separate from tonal design. Later analysts include

55

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

Adorno raised the bar for interpretive sophisti-cation, but his image of the nale as a grueling,self-negating critique of the Formenlehre so-nata makes scarcely more headway in bindingthe works myriad particulars into a compel-ling teleological whole. For Adorno, as for themore mainstream critics, the nales semanticprole still seems to arise in large part from thelarge-scale juxtaposition of sharply differenti-ated musical topics, barely moving us beyondour original (and inadequate) formulation ofnegativity as a function of unchecked hyper-bole and a minor-mode nish.9

In this study, I propose a reading of the nalethat construes its negative outcome as the cul-mination a coherent narrative plotone thatassimilates a maximum of compositional de-tails across a wide array of coordinated musicaldomains. Embarking from a single suggestivecomment in Adornos Mahler: A Musical Physi-ognomy, I will aim to link the nales negativeexpression to a breakdown of what that authorfamously called the symphonies novelisticcharacter. Adorno saw Mahlers music as a het-erogeneous tissue of individualized impulses,amassed in deance of the synthetic meaningthat ossied formal schemes could no longerassure. The long, convoluted arc of the Mah-lerian novel-symphony disdains any path pre-determined by the Classical ontology offorms. Rather, each unfolds according to theunique dictates of its thematic constituents,which are energized by the tense forceeld oftheir collective nonintegration and ultimatelybrought to pronounce a higher truth. ForAdorno, this was Mahlers grand trump, thebreakaway gesture that turned obsolete sym-phonic means against themselves in scathingcritique. Mahlers triumph, Adorno maintained,was the liberation of music from an aesthetic

of integration that had governed the Beetho-venian tradition and from the formal and the-matic protocols that underwrote musics im-age as a closed system without contradictions,an irresistibly logical and self-conrming dy-namic structure.10

In the nale of the Sixth, however, the inte-grative totality returns with a vengeance. Inthis movement, Adorno remarks, Mahler daresto undertake a work of the Beethoveniantypemeaning one in which the parts existonly to serve the wholeand, moreover, thatthis relationship might be seen as coercive,transgressive, and even sadistic: The totalitythat sanctions for its own glory the destructionof the individual, who has no choice but to bedestroyed, rules unchallenged.11 The commentis striking for two reasons. First, it offersAdornos only direct acknowledgment of a lapsein Mahlers novelistic construction. Second, itimplies that this lapse might be elemental tothe nales singularly dark demeanor. In con-text it seems little more than an offhandedrhetorical ourish; it receives no follow-up andis difcult to square with Adornos broader lineof thought.12 Yet the doubly anthropomorphicconceit that Adorno tosses off herethat of themonolithic work pitted against its own con-stituent elementsis uniquely potent as thebackbone of an emplotted view of the nale. Iwill show that it is possible to see the workstaging a spectacular confrontation between thenovelistic freedom of its individual subjectsand precisely the type of implacable integra-tion over which Mahlers earlier works hadtriumphed. Negativity in this reading is notthe destruction of some programmatic hero butan exercise of power run rampant, a hyper-bolized Classicism in which coherence becomesa damaging condition, one that liquidates indi-vidual impulses according to the whims of avoracious totality. In the end, we nd it is nocoincidence that Mahlers most procedurally

Del Mar, Floros, and de la Grange (Norman Del Mar,Mahlers Sixth Symphony: A Study [London: EulenbergBooks, 1980], pp. 5164; Floros, Gustav Mahler: The Sym-phonies, pp. 18086; de la Grange, Mahler: Volume III, pp.82941).9The view of the nale as a study in extreme contrastsgoes back at least as far as Bekkers 1921 monograph(Bekker, Gustav Mahlers Sinfonien, p. 238) and nds itsmost celebrated expression in Ratzs portrayal of the workas alternating between positive and negative event-spaces (Ratz, Musical Form in Gustav Mahler, p. 43).

10Theodor W. Adorno, Mahler: A Musical Physiognomy,trans. Edmund Jephcott (Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1992); orig. publ. as Mahler: Ein musikalischePhysiognomik (Frankfurt: Suhrkampf, 1960), p. 62 ontol-ogy of forms; p. 14 without contradictions. See alsochap. 4, Novel.11Ibid., p. 97.12See this articles nal section.

56

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

traditional symphony is also the bleakest inexpression.

The rst section of this article explores howAdornos novel-symphonic principle might beabsorbed into a more contemporary herme-neutics of form, and the second section lays thefoundations for a narrative reading by address-ing the movements sonata processes at thelargest level of structure and how the exposi-tions premature collapse precipitates largerproblems in the unfolding sonata drama. Thethird section takes a closer look at the exposi-tion, with particular interest in how the workposes its abiding dramatic problems throughvarious semantic oppositions; the fourth ex-plores the procedural and material grounds forwhat numerous critics have termed the nalesinescapable coherence, by linking certain ob-sessive and asphyxiating aspects of the worksthematic processes to its sonata story, whichdramatizes the violent ascendance of strict for-mal and tonal imperatives above all dissentingelements. With the hermeneutic foundationsin place, the next two sections retrace the re-mainder of the work, from development to coda,nding the drama of this inescapable coher-ence to play out across both tonal and thematicdomains and corroborated at a remarkable levelof detail. In closing, I return to Adornos com-ments and explore how his estimation of Mahlerthe man may have led him to two irreconcil-able views of his favorite Mahler movement.

Adorno, the Novel-Symphony,and Sonata-Form Hermeneutics

When Mahler warned of the many riddleshis Sixth Symphony would pose to posterity,he surely had the structure of its enormousnale in mind.13 The movement is so brazen inscale and complexity that analysts have oftenseen it as a singular challenge, a musical Everestwhose peak would reveal some unique vantageon the horizons of Mahlers genius. Conquer-ing the nale has been tantamount to proclaim-

ing a symbolic mastery of its form.14 Becausethis study advances a hierarchic approach tomusical plotone that considers individual de-tails in relation to the large-scale musical argu-ment wherever possibleform will be a cen-tral concern here as well. The initial task willbe to develop a hermeneutics of plot that notonly strikes a middle path between myopia andreductivismallowing us to attend to theworks countless idiosyncrasies without losingsight of its dialogue with past modelsbut alsoabsorbs as much as possible of Adornos thoughtwithout forfeiting the clarity and navigabilityof modern analytic writing.15 But before begin-ning to customize the novel-symphonic con-ceit for analytic purposes, I will pause for acloser look at what it actually entails.

As one might expect from Adorno, the novel-symphony is not so much a well-formed theoryas an aggregate of ideas about Mahlerian form,melody, and process, gathered around the uni-fying themes of temporality, expectancy, andfreedom. Its central conceit is the liberation ofthe works materials from the ritual execu-tion of a tautological, self-conrming whole:renouncing the hope that preexistent forms canstill guarantee meaning, Mahlers music un-folds according to the individual impulses ofits heterogeneous materials, which the novel-symphony brings into seemingly fortuitous col-lusion and collision.16 Adorno refers to this in-

13My sixth will propound riddles that may be solved onlyby a generation that has absorbed and digested my rst vesymphonies (undated letter to Richard Specht, 1904, inGustav Mahler, Gustav Mahler Briefe: 18791911, ed. HertaBlaukopf, rev. edn. [Vienna: Paul Zsolnay, 1996], p. 318).

14Critical testimony often reveals a ush of expeditionaryenthusiasm: Bekker marvels at the power of the form tobind the most extreme contrasts into a convincing whole.Ratz heralds the nales somnambulistic sureness ofconception, de la Grange its irresistible logic of architec-ture. Adorno speaks in superlatives: the nale is nothingless than the center of Mahlers entire uvre, the workwhich the composers epic expansion attains tightest con-trol over itself (Bekker, Mahlers Sinfonien, p. 225; Ratz,Musical Form, p. 41; de la Grange, Mahler, Vol.III, p.838; Adorno, Mahler, p. 97).15On this point a certain amount of distortion is necessaryand even desirable. It is the nature of Adornos expression,brimming over with electric antitheses, that to validateany one of his ideas concretely is all but to necessitate thenegation of anotherthe price we pay for a terrestrialAdorno is the damage we do to his ideas when bringingthem down to earth. Yet we can be faithful, I think, to thespirit of what Adorno hoped to celebrate in his image ofMahler without fetishizing his most intractable theses orplacing nave stock in the patently irreducible.16Adorno, Mahler, p. 49 ritual execution; p. 128 indi-vidual impulses. See also pp. 6162.

57

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

version of the part-to-whole relationship as com-posing from the bottom up, rather than fromthe top downa strategy that allows a com-mingling of antitheses and degrees of graphicjuxtaposition that are elemental to the literarynovel but unthinkable in the top-down con-struction of the Viennese Classical symphony,whose seamless identity shuns anything itcannot assimilate without contradiction.17 Asit suits him, Adorno extends this novelisticanalogy to the themes themselves, which hefashions as the novels characters. Like sub-jects in prose novels, Mahlers themes possessa core identity that is transformed outwardlyby context, duration, and experience. Their rolein the overall conceit is critical, as their degreeof variance from appearance to appearance mani-fests not only the passing of novelistic time,but the concrete logic itself of Mahlersstyle.18

I will return to these themes below. What isstriking at this point is how many of Adornosideas already point beyond the modular-taxo-nomic views of his contemporaries, towardmore modern dynamic conceptions of formas an unfolding transaction between composerand listener, one that draws semantic capitalfrom the fulllment and deection of expecta-tions, and as such is closely intertwined withmusics expressive functions.19 The inspiration

for the novel-symphonic principle arises in thevicissitudes of the listening experience itself,as a response to the second and superior logicof Mahlerian discourse, which dictates that thelistener abandon himself to the ow of thework, from one chapter to the next, as with astory when you do not know how it is going toend.20 This entails a radical shift of emphasis,from form as an objective attribute to form as aprocess. Because novelistic construction pre-sumes a form that unfolds in a state of almostconstant generative tension, it cannot be reck-oned against any static, ontologically bindingschema. At the same time, though, Mahlersinnovations . . . are not comprehensible with-out reference to the norm from which he devi-ated. This meansand the idea is crucial aswe move aheadthat these same conventionalschemes cannot be disposed of entirely, be-cause they supply critical points of referenceand are thus indirectly constitutive of theworks meaning.21

In focusing attention on the gap betweenMahlers immanent structures and the balanced,symmetrical archetypes that they so urgentlydistort, the novel-symphonic idea anticipatescertain modern understandings of musicalnarrativity as well. As Maus has shown, many

17Theodor W. Adorno, Mahler, Centenary Address, Vienna,1960, in Quasi una Fantasia: Essays on Modern Music,trans. Rodney Livingstone (London: Verso, 1998), p. 87bottom up (see also Adorno, Mahler, pp. 4950, 62, 128);Adorno, Mahler, p. 13 seamless identity.18Adorno, Mahler, p. 72: In general Mahlers themes arerecognizable, like characters in a novel, as developingthemes that retain their essence unchanged. . . . Driven onby impulses, as the same beings they yet become different,shrink, expand, even age. . . . Time passes into the charac-ters and changes them as empirical time alters faces. Seealso p. 88: The relations between [the thematic charac-ters] deviations, the degree of proximity between them,their proportions and syntactic connections, make up theconcrete logic . . . of Mahlers epic manner of composing.19This tradition made important early strides in the worksof Anthony Newcomb, who advocated a more uid ap-proach to formal analysis, recognizing formal paradigmsas signiers that triggered expectations whose fulllmentwas nonobligatory. Once invoked, formal paradigms mightbe deected, truncated, or merged with others, allow-ing the analyst to account for structures otherwiseunclassiable with ontological binding schemes. See espe-cially Anthony Newcomb, The Birth of Music Out of theSpirit of Drama: An Essay in Wagnerian Formal Analysis,

this journal 5 (1981), 3866, and Once More BetweenAbsolute and Program Music: Schumanns Second Sym-phony, this journal 7 (1984), 23350.20Adorno, Centenary Address, p. 87.21Ibid., p. 81. Adorno seems to contradict this when heinsists elsewhere that Mahlers formal asymmetries andirregularities are not in fact surprising surrogates forthe expecteda position especially confusing in apparentdenial of the propensity for surprise that the novel-sym-phonic principle celebrates (Adorno, Mahler, p. 67). Butsuch comments should be read as a jab at Richard Strauss,whom Adorno routinely derided for his dependence onsupercial surprise-effects (see Richard Wattenbarger, AVery German Process: The Contexts of Adornos StraussCritique, this journal 25 [2001], 31336). Adorno couldhave been clearer by stating that Mahlers irregularitiesare (unlike Strausss) never arbitrary, but in fact necessi-tated by the objective laws of formthe very same lawsthat by various turns require the debris of transformed,disguised, and invisible objective forms like the sonata toprotrude into the immanent novelistic ow (Adorno,Mahler, p. 67). In the late essay On the Problem of Musi-cal Analysis, Adorno makes his case more emphatically:the specic task of analysis is to negotiate the complexrelationship of deviation to schema (emphasis in origi-nal) (in Theodor W. Adorno, Essays on Music, ed. RichardLeppert, trans. Max Paddison [Berkeley: University of Cali-fornia Press, 2002], p. 165).

58

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

critics regard musical narrative as a kind ofalternative or supplementary musical logic, in-tended to compensate for the degradation ofsupposedly self-evident traditional plans.22 Withits bias against the dramatic validity of eigh-teenth-century schemata, this position has rootsin Adornos idea of novel construction as asecond and superior logic.23 In the case ofMahlers sonata forms, the novelistic impulseis realized through the intrusion of individualfreedom within a eld of events that is de-temporized by its own ponderous symmetries.These improvisatory impulses strain againstthe tendency of ponderous and predictable ar-chitectonic schemes for imposing order. Inso doing, they reinvigorate musics temporalpresence, its capacity to arise vitally, of itsown enactment rather than from rote patterncompletion.24

But Adornos own breakthrough is not hisobservation that Mahlers music ran roughshodover received forms, unfolded with the appar-ent nonlinearity of complex prose, or employedincessant thematic transformationall this hadbeen noticed before.25 Rather, it is his convic-tion that the music conjoins these attributes in

a system that brings broad formal gestures andisolated musical details into demonstrable,causal interrelation. The signicance of thenovel-symphony lies less in its observation thatMahlers music follows a novelistic curve inits gestural-mimetic language (rising to greatsituations, collapsing into itself26) than in thepresumption that the logic of this curve couldbe corroborated on a material levelthat laterhappenings, down to their smallest inections,might be understood as the consequence ofearlier events. For all its apparent irregularity,the sequence of Mahlers musical congura-tions is subject to a certain organic teleologywhich can be studied down to the very lastinterval. Nothing is unaffected by succes-sion. What happens must always take specicaccount of what happened before.27 In hispromise that a discernible (if often subterra-nean) logic binds the most distant chapters ofthe musical novel, Adorno takes us enticinglyclose to the threshold of genuine musicalemplotmentthe idea that the works mate-rial congurations themselves might be under-stood to realize a coherent story, however com-plex its inner workings.28 But then he backsaway. Dening this novelistic logic accord-ing to any strict measure would surely inAdornos eyes have led to a reduction ofMahlers music to just the kind of program-matic analyses that he abhorred. Enticing as itsounds, the logic that we inherit from Adornois merely a placeholder for a set of metaphysi-cal relationships that can only be degraded byconcrete exegesis.29

22Fred Everett Maus, Music as Narrative, Indiana TheoryReview 12 (1991), 1819.23Adorno, Mahler, pp. 69, 75. Adornos comment that itis not that music wants to narrate, but that the composerwants to make music in the way that others narrate isperhaps the most ubiquitous sound bite in the vast bibli-ography on music and narrativein part at least becauseof its apparent generality (ibid., p. 62). Yet Adornos viewof Mahlers narrative qualities is rather subtler than thiscomment suggests out of context; see for instance discus-sions on pp. 2425 and 75, where he uses the term todenote narrative in the strict sensethat is, as a kind ofdiegetic distancing-effect.24Ibid., p. 35 de-temporize; p. 78 improvisatory (seealso pp. 37, 87, 91); p. 97 imposing order; p. 93 of itsown enactment.25Talia Pecker Berio shows that Erwin Stein used thenovel metaphor as early as 1930, in an article that shesurmises Adorno may have read (Mahlers Jewish Par-able, in Mahler and His World, ed. Karen Painter[Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002], pp. 87110,at 99). Many authors had noted Mahlers proclivity forcomplex thematic transformationsincluding the com-poser himself (Mahler, Selected Letters of Gustav Mahler,ed. Knud Martner [New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux,1979], p. 182). And as Hermann Danuser points out,Friedrich Schlegel was already drawing analogies betweenthe development of musical themes and literary charac-ters in that late eighteenth century (Hermann Danuser,Musikalische Prosa [Regensburg: G. Bosse, 1975], p. 110).

26Adorno, Mahler, p. 69.27Adorno, Centenary Address, p. 95; Adorno, Mahler, p.52.28Ibid., p. 35, subterranean.29Despite its central position in his critical armory (to saynothing of the implied rigor of the term itself), Adornosnotion of musical logic is especially specious from thepoint of view of applied analysisno less suspect than theobjective laws of musical form it is intimately tied upwith. Though it is musical logic that ostensibly distin-guishes Mahler from predecessors and contemporaries alike,it is all but impossible to pin that logic to a set of denitecriteria or techniques. (The most we can glean is thatMahlers logic is superior to that of the Classical periodin its ability to mediate breaches the latter would notallow [Adorno, Mahler, p. 14].) In large part Adorno usesthese concepts polemically, to reinforce preexisting biases.For an illuminating discussion, see Wattenbarger, AdornosStrauss Critique, pp. 32329.

59

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

For those intent on pursuing Adornos prom-ise to more concrete analytic ends, account-ing for the constructive logic of Mahlerianemplotment has been a formidable task. Somehave mapped plot archetypes from the literarysphere onto Mahlers instrumental symphonies;others have rationalized the successive stagesof his works with ad hoc narrative/dramaticschemes grounded in gestures, topoi, key net-works, and other artifacts unique to the score.30Both paradigms have yielded enlightening ana-lytic results and made good on our abiding cul-tural intuitions that Mahlers music is funda-mentally plot-driven. But they have tended nev-ertheless to lean toward the Adornian assump-tion that traditional forms, being dynamicallyinert, are beyond the purview of dramaticemplotmentthat narrative begins whereconventional forms end. Both approaches arecompromised by their reluctance to tell Mah-lers stories in relation to a musical plot para-digm, one that transcends the individual work.

A decade ago, Gregory Karl argued that theformulation of viable models of musical plotwould be among the foremost challenges fac-ing modern analysts.31 The urgency was hardlyoverstated. If we abide by Peter Brookss insis-tence that plots are not merely organizingstructures but also intentional structures,goal-oriented and forward moving, then muchtwentieth-century formal analysis falls short ofthe mark.32 In the case of the nale, questions

of paradigmatic plot would surely focus on thesonata most critics see vestigially in the work.Yet to the extent that they regard the sonataplan as relevant (which is not always the case),analysts have tended toward a modular/spatialconception of form, one less concerned withmodeling form as an intentional structurethan with reducing the work to some rationaland unequivocal taxonomic plan. This has ledsome commentators to downplay the nalescomplexities or dismiss them as overstated.Others have rationalized its idiosyncrasies us-ing custom-built taxonomic categories or le-gitimated them as modular rearrangements ofthe traditional scheme, necessitated by suchquasi-spatial criteria as balance, symmetry, andproportion.33 Adorno was justiably critical ofsuch normalizing approaches. Not only do theyinsist on folding its irregularities into a harmo-nious, aestheticized whole, but they also fa-tally underplay the temporal, teleological basisof Mahlers discourse. (These are the pitfallsthat the principle of novelistic construction in-tends to overcome.) Yet owing to its perceiveddramatic redundancies, the sonata genre itselffor Adorno like many of his contemporariesfails to be either goal-oriented or forwardmoving. Even in Adornos intensely tempo-rized conception, Mahlers forms unfold novelis-tically only at the expense of some hypotheti-cal underlying sonatathey are not narrativecomplications within a sonata plot that un-folds before us. In his readings, the sonata isrelevant mainly as historical debris, as a huskwhose brokenness and superuity testify to theimpossibility of composing sonatas with impu-nity.34

30Newcomb uses the Romantic Bildungsroman as an in-terpretive heuristic for Mahlers Ninth (Newcomb, Nar-rative Archetypes in Mahlers Ninth Symphony, in Mu-sic and Text: Critical Inquiries, ed. Steven Paul Scher[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995], pp. 12036; see also Robert Samuels, Mahlers Sixth Symphony: AStudy in Musical Semiotics [Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press, 1995], pp. 14951). Recent plot-oriented analy-ses eschewing real-world story paradigms include VeraMicznik, Music and Narrative Revisited: Degrees ofNarrativity in Beethoven and Mahler, Journal of the RoyalMusical Association 126/2 (2001), 193249; Darcy, Rota-tional Form, Teleological Genesis, and Fantasy-Projection;James Buhler, Breakthrough as Critique of Form: TheFinale of Mahlers First Symphony, this journal 20 (1996),12543; and Steven Allen Gordon, Mahlers Seventh Sym-phony, Modernism, and the Crisis of Austrian Liberalism(Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1998).31Gregory Karl, Structuralism and Musical Plot, MusicTheory Spectrum 19 (1997), 15.32Peter Brooks, Reading for the Plot: Design and Intentionin Narrative (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), p. 12.

33Del Mar and Floros nd the movement to be in normalsonata form (Del Mar, Mahlers Sixth Symphony, pp. 5152;Floros, Mahler: The Symphonies, p. 180); Williamson de-clares it the most traditionally oriented of the sonata struc-tures in the central symphonies (Williamson, The Devel-opment of Mahlers Symphonic Technique, with SpecialReference to the Compositions of the Period 18991905[Ph.D. diss, Oxford, 1975], pp. 10809). Erwin Ratz and HansRedlich are more eager to embrace the nale as defor-mational. Ratz acknowledges Mahlers many licenses, butjusties them as evidence of the composers sensitivity tospatial-formalist criteria. Redlich accommodates the worksad hoc formal categories like ante- and post-recapitula-tions (Ratz, Musical Form in Gustav Mahler, pp. 35, 46;Redlich, Mahlers Enigmatic Sixth, pp. 25556).34See Adorno, Mahler, pp. 7778, 95.

60

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

Here we can customize Adornos apparatusmost benecially by adopting a view of sonataform that better accommodates Brookss con-ception of plot: James Hepokoski and WarrenDarcys Sonata Theory, which reconstitutes theFormenlehre sonata scheme into a genuine plotparadigm.35 Hepokoski and Darcy construe theeighteenth-century sonata as an inherently te-leological form, bent on achieving an array ofgeneric goals, through a constellation of con-ventionalized (if highly variable) processes; it isnot simply a synchronic plan or mold intowhich musical content is poured. What is more,these generic goals and genre-dening featuresoften appear to transcend the incrementalchanges that the genre underwent from decadeto decade, as the normative and optional proce-dures available to composers in a given histori-cal moment gradually evolved.36 We might sayinformally that Sonata Theory posits a set ofplot functions for the genre, whose consumma-tion, omission, or evasion constitute the worksmain dramatic outlines, as well as generic func-tional roles, correlated to specic anthropomor-phized theme-types.37 In toto, these plot func-tions provide a narrative map of the genre ex-ible enough to accommodate repertoire severalgenerations removed from the originary sona-tas of the mid- and late eighteenth century.38

Like the narrative models of Newcomb andothers, Hepokoski and Darcys notion of dia-logic form regards deformations, distortions,and deections of historical norms as groundsfor strong interpretation.39 But by eliminatingthe crisp opposition between narrative and tra-ditional forms, it facilitates a more integratedview of emplotment, one that capitalizes onthe genres built-in teleologies and incorporatesthem into the semantic eld generated by theworks intrinsic narrative threads.

Given Mahlers late historical moment, thequestion naturally arises as to the aptness ofany interpretive model, however pliable, thatsituates him in a tradition with roots plantedrmly in the eighteenth century. But thecomposers middle-period symphoniesand theSixth in particular among thempresent a spe-cial case. After his Third Symphony Mahlerturned self-consciously to more traditional sym-phonic idioms (and to a late-century concept ofsonata form above all) as expressive vehicles.His own comments suggest that departures fromhistorical precedent in these works take on anew semantic weight.40 The stylized navet ofthe Fourth notwithstanding, it is the Sixth thatproves to be Mahlers most profound engage-ment with the structural rhetoric of the Classi-cal style. As David Matthews points out, it isthe only Mahler symphony to feature the tradi-tional four movements in their traditionalorder, within an ostensibly Classical keyscheme.41 Moreover, the opening Allegro ex-hibits by far Mahlers strictest, clearest sonataformone that dramatizes the plot points rec-ognized by Sonata Theory as the most funda-mental.42 This is critical, because the nale,

39For more on dialogic form, see Hepokoski and Darcy,Elements of Sonata Theory, pp. 911.40Natalie Bauer-Lechner, Recollections of Gustav Mahler,trans. Dika Newlin, ed. and annotated Peter Franklin (Lon-don: Faber Music, 1980), p. 131.41David Matthews, The Sixth Symphony, in The MahlerCompanion, ed. Donald Mitchell and Andrew Nicholson(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 336.42The rst movement of the Sixth offers a textbook ex-ample of what Hepokoski and Darcy call a failed reca-pitulation (the inability of the secondary theme to achieveessential structural closure in the tonic key) and anequally conventional compensatory strategythe deferralof secondary-theme tonic conrmation until the (spectacu-larly effusive) coda. Despite its advanced idiom, the move-mentunlike the more elliptical No. 4/Iconsummates

35Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory: Norms,Types, and Deformations in the Late Eighteenth-CenturySonata (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 25154.36Ibid., p. 15.; see also p. vii. Hepokoski and Darcys chap.2, Sonata Form as a Whole: Foundational Considerations,summarizes the basic teleological outlines of the sonata asthey conceive it.37Plot functions are generic types of acts within a genre,dened with regard to their signicance for the entirety ofthe unfolding story; they may or may not occur in a giventale, but their relative order remains xed. Roles are con-ventionalized characters-types, variable in their outwardappearance, that are common to most or all instances of acertain genre of story. Both were introduced in VladimirPropp, Morphology of the Folktale, trans. Laurence Scott(Bloomington: Research Center, Indiana University, 1958).For a very different treatment of plot functions in amusic-analytic environment, see Karls analysis of theAppassionata Sonata (Karl, Structuralism and MusicalPlot, pp. 2031).38Though unlike Propps, the plot functions of SonataTheory do not form a universal, neutral background struc-ture. As the genre develops and compositional prioritieschange, certain functions take on different hues and inten-sities of meaning. There is, in other words, no PlatonicSonata underwriting a centurys worth of repertoire.

61

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

though far from conventional in any regard,expressly reworks the thematic substance ofthe opening Allegro, inviting us to view thelatter as a constant point of reference. We canhear the nale simultaneously invoking its pre-decessor (in terms of key, materials, and genre)and negating it (by the nale staging a sonata asfraught as the Allegros was effortless).43 Mahlernot only points us toward some abstract refer-ential paradigmhe has built that paradigmright into the Symphony.

To best model the nales protracted sonatastory, my analysis will adopt some of Adornosmore exible conceits, with particular focus ontwo: (1) the construal of themes as anthropo-morphic characters, and (2) the notion thatthese characters, under normal circumstances,will comport themselves in a way that impactsthe large-scale form (an exertion of their nov-elistic freedom) and realizes some long-rangemusical teleology.44 But I will dispense with

Adornos ineffable governing logic and searchinstead for a coherent plot, grounded in theSonata Theory plot paradigm, and centered onthese characters, their motivations (recon-structed through both contextual clues andgenre norms), and their role in the execution ofthe sonata. Ultimately, I will show the nalesturmoil arising from a proprietary conict be-tween different character groups, each of whichis invested in one of several proposed outcomes.

Expositional Failure, RotationalHavoc, and the Errant S-Themes

One reason that the nales sonata plot is sodifcult to untangle is that it interweaves anumber of narrative strands that remain largelyindependent until its denouement. I begin bylooking at the strand with the most decisiveeffect on the nales large-scale formal unfold-ing: the increasingly desperate plight of thesonatas secondary themes to secure major-mode closureparticularly following the col-lapse of the exposition at m. 228. The task inthis section is to trace this particular threadacross the entire movement, providing a large-scale overview of the whole work, and a se-mantic scaffolding that will allow the additionof critically important details in the essayssubsequent sections.

To make the nales daunting proportionsmore manageable, g. 1 offers a much simpli-ed overview of its thematic and tonal organi-zation.45 (Where applicable, I use the standardSonata Theory abbreviations for thematic zoneswithin a normative sonata exposition: P [pri-mary theme]; TR [transitional theme]; S [sec-ondary theme].) The piece divides into fourblocks corresponding to the four sections of

its Classical pretensions by playing out a structural crisisand resolution well within the rhetorical vernacular ofcomposers writing a hundred years prior (see Hepokoski,Back and Forth from Egmont: Beethoven, Mozart, andthe Nonresolving Recapitulation, this journal 25 [200102], esp. 149; see also this article, p. 63 for more on theobligatory structural goals of the sonatas secondary theme).43This view may originate with Adornos comment thatthe nale raises up [steigert] and then negates [negiert]the opening Allegro (Mahler, p. 138). In his lengthy analy-sis, Bernd Sponheuer corroborates the view of the twomovements as negative images by documenting the ex-tensive material, constructive, and topical links connect-ing them (Logik des Zerfalls: Untersuchungen zumFinalproblem in den Symphonien Gustav Mahlers [Tutzing:Schneider, 1978], pp. 32150). Yet for all its painstakingdetail Sponheuers analysis disappoints, as it shows all tooclearly how Adornos critical apparatus, adopted in toto,exposes its own weaknesses when overloaded with theanalytic particulars Adorno originally withheld.Sponheuers aim is to document the nales processivecurve (Verlaufskurve). But as his (otherwise astute) ob-servations pile up, the chimerical concepts of musicallogic and logical progressionno better dened herethan they are in Adornoare asked to bear an unmanage-able amount of explanatory weight, and ultimately showthemselves to be little more than tautological validationsof the work in question. Beyond the rough sonata outline,Sponheuer lacks an organizing principle to bind the myriaddetails into a convincing narrative whole, and to help hisVerlaufskurve transcend measure-by-measure description.44As a means of eshing out the implications of a novel-istic musical idiom, my analysis reads the nale as astory unfolding within a self-contained musical world, onewhose plot comprises the deeds performed by musicalagents (characters) capable of sentience and volition.More conventional, perhaps, would be the ascription of

global agency to a ctional Mahler, one said to stage allof the dramatic events I read into the score. But suchlocutions grow unnecessarily cumbersome in profusion andtend to imply intentionality where none can be proved.Though an imaginary, intending composer is implicitthroughout this article, I will prefer to tell the nalesmusical story without such mediation, and with the hopethat readers will indulge the agency of Mahlers musicalcharacters just as they would the illusory agency of hu-man characters in ction.45For a detailed comparison of six earlier analyses of thenales form, see Samuels, Mahlers Sixth Symphony, pp.6482.

62

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

----

--

I. Expositional Block (228 mm.)

Pre-expositional (Generative) Space (113 mm.)

P

1c a a c a a/C D

16 49 67 114 139 191Measure:Key:

Key: d D A Ac/C d

Key: c

Key: a a

Dissolution Chorale Mobilization TR S1

D205

S2I

I

P

TR

S

Introductory Chord Complex

Primary Theme

Transitional Theme

Secondary Theme

Hammer Blow

=====

Exposition Proper (115 mm.)

(ANTICIPATION PHASES) (ACCOMPLISHMENT PHASES)

Pre-Recapitulatory Space (105 mm.)

520a

P

642Measure:B575

A612

a670

TR/S1I

Recapitulation Proper (78 mm.)

A

TranscendentAfrmation (S2/I)

728c

537

Section I (160 mm.)

March (P-based)

229 237 336 397 479Measure: 288 364 458

Hammer-blow (TR)

Hammer-blow (TR)

UtopianVision (S1)

UtopianVision (S/I)

I

Section II (123 mm.)

Epilogue (32 mm.)

773 790Measure:

I

II. Developmental Block (290 mm.)

III. Recapitulatory Block (252 mm.)

IV. Coda Block (49 mm.)

No cadence: failed exposition!

No cadence: failed recapitulation!

X

XX

X

RetransitionS1Dissolution

S2Dissolution/S1

Figure 1: Modular-thematic overview of the nale.

63

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

the traditional sonata, each beginning with theintroductory complex (labeled I), a briefbut highly characteristic formal marker. In eachcase, the introductory complex gives way towhat I call dissolution elds, spaces charac-terized by ethereal pianissimo textures, frag-mented motivic utterances, unstable tonality,and an overall lack of symphonic impetus.46 Inthe expositional block, this eld is the startingpoint for an extended generative process (mm.16113), where the themes of the expositionwhose onset is delayed by over a hundred mea-suresemerge from the ether and gradually ac-cumulate the momentum sufcient to launchthe sonata.

The exposition proper (m. 114) unfolds witha functional clarity reminiscent of theSymphonys rst movement: primary, transi-tional, and secondary thematic zones are allsharply delineated. It is only in the last of thesethat signicant complications arise. As g. 1indicates, S-space in fact contains two distinctthemes: a buoyant but restrained S1, and a surg-ing, ecstatic S2.47 Despite differences in charac-ter, the two themes share a common purposeto secure the secondary key of D majoraswell as a common fate: both are cut short be-fore being able to do so.48 S1, spirited but toolightweight to contrast the oppressive marchpreceding it, peters into aimless sequences and

is hastily nudged aside by its more assertivesuccessor. But S2after much condent prom-iseis cadentially derailed (and with it, theexposition) at m. 228. This tonal and rhetoricalcollapse results in a particularly graphic in-stance of what Hepokoski and Darcy term ex-positional failurethe inability of the S-themes to secure a strong cadence (in this case,any cadence) in the new key. This collapse is ofvital importance to the musical narrative ofthe entire movement. To understand its impli-cations, we must delve into Sonata Theoryscentral teleology: the generic imperative of S toachieve tonic closure in the recapitulation.

Sonata Theory regards the eighteenth-cen-tury exposition as having both determinativeand referential functions. It is determinative inthat it proposes how the recapitulation is likelyto be effected. This hinges largely on the trajec-tory of S. In the exposition, the generic goal ofS is to secure cadential conrmation in thesecondary key, the moment of essential expo-sitional closure (EEC). Hepokoski and Darcyargue persuasively that the correlative toniccadence in S-spacethe ESC, or essential struc-tural closureis in turn the single generic goalof the recapitulation and thus the movement atlarge.49 This means that the teleological mis-sion of an entire sonata is allotted solely to S,making it the most generically critical mate-rial in the exposition.50 For this reason the fail-ure of an exposition to secure an EECthefailure to produce a satisfactory perfect authen-tic cadence (PAC) in the new keysuggests astructural-rhetorical defect or crisis that mayhave ramications across the entire movement.In many cases this involves a parallelrecapitulatory failure, often with tonic-cadentialclosure deferred as late as the coda.

The exposition serves a referential func-tion in that it provides a normative order ofmodules, a basic layout against which laterdeviations might be assessed, in conjunctionwith what Sonata Theory identies as rota-tional principles. As Darcy states in his owndiscussion of the Sixth, rotational form is a

49Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, pp.1920; see also chap. 7: The Secondary (S) Theme andEssential Expositional Closure (ESC).50Hepokoski, Beyond the Sonata Principle, p. 134.

46I borrow the notion of the dissolution eld(Auflsungsfeld) from Adorno, who uses it to describe cer-tain collapsing passages in the nales development(Adorno, Mahler, p. 99). Here I reserve it for the inert andinchoate expanses following each I-complex, where themusic expresses less an active disintegration than a stateof absolute fragmentation and stasisand thus a fertilestaging ground for the generative process. For this reason Iprefer Robert Samuelss translation of the term (dissolu-tion) over Jephcotts more graphic disintegration eld(Samuels, Mahlers Sixth Symphony, p. 78).47The designation of the second theme as S2 deviates fromSonata Theory standards. Without a clear cadential divi-sion, we should call this S1.2 instead (Hepokoski andDarcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, p. 71). Nevertheless, Iopt for the exponent that suggests maximum differentia-tion, as the two themes serve different functions in theform, and it would be misleading to use nomenclaturethat suggested S2 was in some way part of S1. However,I concur with Hepokoski and Darcy that this second S-theme cannot be a proper closing group (as Ratz andSponheuer contend) since S1 remains unclosed.48D major has a brief but critical back story in the SixthSymphony as the tonality of the rst movements failedrecapitulation (see n. 42 above).

64

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

cyclical, repetitive process that begins by un-folding a series of differentiated motives orthemes as a referential statement or rst rota-tion; subsequent rotations recycle and reworkall or most of the referential statement, nor-mally retaining the sequential ordering of theselected musical ideas.51 Rotational processesmay operate independently or in conjunctionwith other formal paradigms. In the sonatagenre, the exposition serves as the referentialarrangement of a rotation comprising P, TR,S, and possibly C (closing, or post-EEC ideas).As a rule, Mahlers music is strongly rotationalin design, treating order of presentation as aconstant around which other variables may vary(often drastically). Here, the division of the -nale by recurrent formal markers surely invitesus to look for large-scale rotational process atwork.52 But that task proves more difcult thanwe might expect. Figure 1 shows that it is dif-cult to square referential arrangement of theexposition proper (P-TR-S1-S2) with the suc-ceeding blocks. A quick comparison shows thatno large block expressly cycles through the con-tent of any other. And though the recapitula-tion proper (m. 642) reinstates the modular lay-out of the exposition, this ordering is conspicu-ously absent from the intervening sections: thedevelopmental blocks section I (m. 237) lacksany denitive presentation of P, and the TR-equivalent hammer blow theme falls betweentwo secondary theme zones; in section II, P (m.397) proceeds directly to a variant of S (m. 458),and only then moves on to TR (m. 479); andbefore retransitioning, the recapitulatory blockdwells entirely on S1. My contention, how-ever, is that this rotational irregularity is ex-actly the crisis situation precipitated by theuntimely derailing of the S-themes in the expo-

sition. From a narrative perspective, we cantrace many of the nales formal irregularitiesto the erratic behavior of the thwarted S-themes,which exhibit an increasing desperation to sta-bilize the major mode originally denied them,often using formal and tonal means unsanc-tioned by the sonata at large.

If the designation of the S-themes behavioras erratic is not simply arbitrary, however, weshould be able to identify the normative under-structure they have upset. To blame them forthe rotational havoc, we must unearth a deeplyembedded, conceptual rotational scheme, how-ever fractured at the musical surface. We cando this most convincingly by focusing on theone constructive element (beyond the intro-ductory complex) common to all three blocks:the delayed onset of the main concentration ofP-materials. The appearance of the primarytheme (P) only halfway into each would-berotation marks a striking departure fromHepokoski and Darcys normative role of P asthe rhetorical initiator of rotations. The au-thors of Sonata Theory show that the mainsections of the Classical sonata (exposition, de-velopment, recapitulation, coda) tend over-whelmingly to begin with elements of P. Thisturns out to be the norm as much with Mahleras it is with Haydn or Mozart.53 Given acenturys worth of association between P-ma-terials and musical beginnings, then, we canreasonably presume that the initiatory func-tion of P might be residually preserved evenwhen those materials appear in the midst ofsome larger span.

In the case of the nales expositional block,there is little doubt that the musical proceed-ings begin in earnest only after the generativeintroduction, with the onset of P (and thus theexposition proper) in m. 114. But the nalesoverall design snaps into much sharper focuswhen we realize that this basic structuralrhythman extended period of anticipation and

51Darcy, Rotational Form, Teleological Genesis, and Fan-tasy-Projection, p. 52. For a detailed account of the meth-odological underpinnings of rotational form, see Hepokoskiand Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, Appendix 2: Ter-minology: Rotation and Deformation.52Mahlers music abounds with rhetorical markers like this,which dene large strophic or rotational patterns whileremaining insulated from the main musical argument. Themost obvious precedent for the nale is the opening move-ment of the Third Symphony, discussed below. Other ex-amples (among many) include the sleigh bells of Sym-phony No. 4/I, the Schreckenfanfaren of No. 2/V, and thedisintegrating inferno outbursts of No. 5/II.

53Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, chap.5: The Primary Theme (P); esp. p. 65. With the excep-tion of the Second Symphonys opening movement, all ofMahlers other sonata developments and recapitulationsbegin either directly with P-materials or by a rotationalreturn to introductory space followed by P (as in the reca-pitulation of No. 7/I, the development of No. 1/IV, andboth post-expositional rotations of No. 3/I).

65

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

disarray followed by a concentration of forcesaround the P-themerecurs in both post-expo-sitional blocks as well. If there is a single keyto unlocking the nales formal argument, it isthis: at the highest level of structure, each ofthe three main blocks comprises two broadchaptersan anticipation phase (beginningwith the introductory [I-] complex) and an ac-complishment phase (where the P-theme ele-ments at last discharge their traditional initia-tory function). (These phases are indicated atthe top of g. 1.) In this respect the form revis-its that of the Third Symphonys rst move-ment, each of whose massive rotations dwellin a distended introductory space before themain sonata materials parade onto the scene.In the nale of the Sixth, however, this con-structive principle is harder to detect becauseits anticipation phases (unlike those in theThird) are not rotationally congruent. Otherthan beginning with a dissolution eld, theyapparently have little in common.54 Our taskthen is to look beyond their rhetorical and ma-terial differences to see their narrative/dramaticcongruence as zones of instability, disorder, andpostponement. And in each of the post-exposi-tional blocks we will nd that the determiningagents of postponement and disorder are con-sistently the S-themes, always preoccupied withtheir own immediate (and unattainable) fulll-ment, and always at the expense of an orderlyor tautly constructed sonata.

The rst indication that expositional fail-urethe curtailing of S-space prior to cadentialclosurehas set the secondary themes on aproblematic path comes with their apparentrefusal to acknowledge that the exposition iseven over. Shortly after the developmental blockbegins (m. 229), a full-voiced S2 breaks in with-out warning (m. 288) and begins to replay al-most exactly as it had in the exposition, pre-serving both key and phrase structure. Indeed,the transposition of the original melody by afourth subdues a subdominant inection in theoriginal, making the second S2 even more

strongly vectored toward D major. (Figure 1displays this reentry with the dotted line con-necting the rst two blocks.) This kind of near-redundancy is striking enough for its rarity inMahlers idiom; it is all the more jarring here inbaldly undermining the many rhetorical cuesthat a new, developmental rotation had begun.Thus the instability of the second anticipationphase is not simply tonal or thematic (and it isboth of these at times), but temporal and evenontological. The reintrusion of S2 (as some-thing of a second try) does not simply callinto question our position in the unfoldingformit induces a temporal short-circuitwhereby the listener seems to be present toexpositional and developmental space simulta-neously.55

It is against this waywardness that the rstof the famous hammer blows (marked X ong. 1) takes punitive action. On reappearing, S2resumes its original tonal agenda with increasedfervor, extending to nearly twice its originallength and building to feverish intensity by thetime it locks onto the dominant of its D-majortarget in m. 328. But the nal drive to clo-sureseemingly so secure at this pointissmashed by the hammers colossal minor-modedeceptive cadence (m. 336), which reasserts thesymphonic present tense and declares the ex-position closed once and for all. To celebratethis moment (as nearly all critics have) mainlyfor its violently theatrical shift of mode andlocal affect is to miss its larger signicance.Mahlerian emplotment demands equal atten-tion to the circumstances surrounding a musi-cal elements rst and nal appearances. Look-ing ahead, we see that after falling under thehammer neither the once-hopeful S2 nor itskey of D major appears again in the nale. Thisis but the rst instance of an essential plotdevice: the tendency of the nales emphaticcadential efforts to produce a corrupted repre-sentation of the intended tonic and in so doingto permanently negate or expel one or moremusical elements associated with the S-themes.

55Paul Bekker apparently saw enough ambiguity in thereprise of S2 to conclude that the exposition was stillunderway at this point, only terminating with the ham-mer-blow (Bekker, Gustav Mahlers Symphonien, pp. 23031).

54The distinctions between sonata and non-sonata space arenot so sharply drawn in the nale as in the rst movementof the Third, whose rotations we can productively view asbeginning outside sonata space, and entering (or reentering)only with the onset of the main march materials.

66

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

The protracted drive for closure that has pre-occupied the work for nearly 150 measuresreaches what Adorno might call its negativefulllment in the tonal and thematic chaosimmediately following the hammer blow (mm.33863).56 But it is not long before elements ofS return unexpectedly, in a new guise and witha revised strategy. Gradually recollecting itself,the nale eventually settles on a passage ofhigh-Wagnerian transcendence in the tonic Amajor (m. 364), featuring transgured motivesfrom S1. Since the modal outcome of the Sym-phony hangs in the balanceand because thatoutcome hinges on the fate of the troubled S-themesthis idyllic enclave ought to strike usas especially provocative, as it offers a vision (ifonly eeting) of the best of all possible resolu-tions, a blissful A-major emancipation fromthe oppressive tonic minor.57 Yet through itsvery placement here, rather than in the reca-pitulation, we know it to be premature, and inthat respect untrustworthy. Just as S2 had forc-ibly rewound symphonic time, here S1 attemptsto fast-forward to a hypothetical Utopian fu-ture, beyond the troubled expanses of a sonatastill underway. This idealized expression of the

tonic major will return twice in the nalealways broader and more urgent, and (critically)always reworking materials from S-space. Buthere the Utopian vision proves scarcely morestable than the surrounding music and quicklydissipates.

Now stretched too thin and growing increas-ingly frantic in the search for stability, the sec-ond anticipation phase simply snaps in m. 385,unleashing pandemonium. And as had been thecase in the expositional block, ultimately theP-theme materials impose order and marshalsymphonic impetus (m. 397). On the heels ofthe previous sections instability and volatil-ity, the P-based marchcommitted over its longarc to the diligent working-out of a few selectmotivesseems a particularly well-behaved andearnest symphonic development. After so muchstalling, the sonata seems back on track. But asthis lengthy episode begins to unravel, the te-nacious S-materials burst into the discoursewith a second, varied sounding of the A-majorUtopian vision (m. 458), precipitating anothercaustic response from the hammer (m. 479) andtriggering the nal, troubled leg of the develop-ment. Culminating in a perversely corruptedcadence on D minor (m. 520), the developmentconcludes by bringing the narrative thread thatopened itthe never-successful search for D-major fulllmentto a harrowing and un-equivocal close in its modal opposite.58

The third anticipation phase, that beginningwith the recapitulatory block, warrants specialattention, since it has been a source of analyti-cal confusion for nearly a century. At rstglance, it seems hard to defend this music as azone of instability, disarray, or postponementlike its predecessors. It appears grounded, di-rected, and utterly condent. After some ini-tial meandering, the now-problematic S1 stepsforth to seize on a stable B tonality (m. 575),where it makes its own nal bid for transcen-dence, without the support of the defeated S2.Encountering the rst coherent, tonally stable

56Like the breakthrough, fulllment (Erfllung) is aformal category Adorno used to distinguish Mahlers loose-knit forms from rigidly economic Classical precedent. Thefulllment-eld delivers from within the form the kind ofrhetorical excess that the Durchbruch introduces fromwithout, denoting certain watershed moments where themusical stream eddies temporarily, to broaden and un-leash afrmational energy accumulated in the course ofits dense and incessant narrative ramication (Adorno,Mahler, pp. 4243). Adorno devised its opposite, the nega-tive fulllment, as a means of refashioning Mahlers col-lapsing passages not merely as the unraveling of the whatis present, a failing of the symphonic voice, but as havinga genuine negative immanence, a force of negation thatallows them to extend through the form as something intheir own right, an enactment of what the musical pro-cess fears (ibid., p. 45). Arguably, the negative fulll-ment is a more perfect inverse of the Durchbruch; in thelatter an afrmative presence enters from without, whilein the former a negating presence, like a black hole, eruptsfrom within.57This outcome hinges on the fate of S if only for thesimple fact that a modally recongured P-theme is all butunthinkable. Thus the question looms throughout as towhether the recapitulated S will be able both to retain itsmajor tonality and secure it with an EEC. (For more on thegeneric modal dramas entailed in minor-key sonatas, seeHepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, chap.14: Sonata Form in Minor Keys.)

58Mahler corrupts the cadence by dovetailing it with theonset of the recapitulatory block. At the moment thecadential bass nally (after nearly 450 measures!) attains aresounding low D, the upper voices sound the movementsbrittle opening sonority (C, E, F, A). See p. 86.

67

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

appearance of S1 since the exposition, manycommentators have been led to view mm. 575611 as the rst leg of a reversed recapitula-tion.59 But this is surely a misreading for sev-eral reasons. In the rst place, the very conceptof the reversed recapitulation is founded on amisunderstanding of earlier Classical prac-tices.60 And if the principle has no purchase inregard to Classical models, it seems wholly outof place in Mahlers most overt dialogue withthat traditionespecially since his more for-mally adventurous symphonies set no prece-dent for reordering a sonatas basic components.Second, there is (unusually for Mahler) no dis-cernible motivation for why any such putativerecapitulation would be not only in the wrongkey, but in a key with no back story in theSymphonythat alone is reason to be suspi-cious of S1s immodest extroversion here. Butnally, and most importantly, there is no needto resort to this reversed interpretation, sinceimmediately following the recapitulation of theprimary theme (m. 642), there is still anotherstatement of S1 to come, in the tonic minor (m.670), making the reversal claim all the moreinaccurate. This later appearance of S1 mayhave escaped attention because it occurs withinTR-space, literally superimposed onto the lat-ter. At that point the TR-theme itself is dis-placed to the bass voices and S1 appears, in itsentirety, in the trumpet.61 This kind of the-matic conation is, unmistakably, a radical de-formation. But it is surely the preferred read-ing, both because it comes closer to fulllingthe secondary themes generic tonal and rota-tional requirementsit bends these imperativesfor narrative effect but does not break themand because Mahler had used exactly this

deformational strategy in his previous Sym-phony.62

In sum, the stronger interpretation reads thepremature B -major apotheosis of S1 (m. 575)against the outward grain of the musicas asite of slippage, of procedural strain, rather thanthe unproblematic fulllment of some formalrequirement. From a narrative perspective thepoint is that this S1 does not belong here. Likeits more capricious outbursts earlier in thework, this appearance is further evidence of itsintransigent resistance to any well-ordered for-mal scheme. By preserving the image of S1 as asubversive (wrongly placed) element even thislate in the drama, we also lay a more satisfyinghermeneutic foundation for its extraordinarynal appearance: its simultaneous return withTR (m. 670). As if in retaliation to its demon-strative deance in m. 575, the sonata does notmerely recapitulate S1, it subjugates it. Strippedof its original texture and accompaniment, thenale denies S1 even the full honors of a dedi-cated minor-mode reprise. It is pressed sum-marily into the tonic minor as if by force, sideby side with the similarly vanquished TR.

After a brief liquidation (m. 708) the TR/S1complex unravels (m. 720), and the recapitula-tion now enters its most expectant moment: anal version of the A-major Utopian visionbegins to bloom (m. 728), mounting graduallyto unprecedented heights of breathless excite-ment. Mahlers hope here is surely that we willtake this S-based music for a nal, redemptivebreakthroughits lofty triumphalism is not outof proportion to a goal sought since the rstmeasures of the Symphony. And unlike theearlier Utopian visions, this one appears in aplausible location within the unfolding sonata,as the rotational correlate of S2 (see g. 1).63

59Ratz, Adorno, Sponheuer, Floros, de la Grange, and DelMar use this explicit terminology. Redlich is more sensi-tive on the point. His custom categories of ante- and post-recapitulation capture the erratic and formally unpredict-able aspects of S1, but he still believes in the actual reca-pitulation only to treat P and TR. For a recent take on thistraditional reading, see Timothy L. Jackson, The Finaleof Bruckners Seventh Symphony and Tragic Reversed So-nata Form, in Bruckner Studies, ed. Timothy L. Jacksonand Paul Hackshaw (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1997), pp. 199201.60See Hepokoski and Darcy, Elements of Sonata Theory,pp. 35355, 36869, and esp. 38286.61This passage appears as ex. 11.

62The recapitulation of Symphony No.5/II also conatestwo rotationally adjacent thematic zones. Several mea-sures into the reprise of the second subject (m. 356), thehighly recognizable P2 themeoriginating in mm. 35ff.and previously omitted from the recapitulationappearsin counterpoint with the ongoing S-theme. These two in-stances are but extreme examples of Mahlers middle-pe-riod tendency to superimpose themes late in an unfoldingsonata process.63On pp. 8486 I explain how this Utopian vision is areembodiment of the defeated S2 theme, hybridized withelements of the introductory complex.

68

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

But when this last ecstatic drive to tonic-majorfulllment is shattered by the corrupted ca-dence of the coda block (m. 773), it becomesclear that the major-mode ending will remainunattainable.64 The last introductory complexresounds, announcing the nal and total defeatof the S-themes resistance and leading into agrim, enervated epilogue that unfolds underthe long shadow of tonic-minor hegemony.

Expositional Block/Dramatis Personae

With the help of Sonata Theorys plot and char-acter archetypes, our rst pass through the -nale modeled its peculiar form in terms of theactions of, and reactions to, a single pair ofthemes, S1 and S2. In so doing, it appealed tothe novel-symphonys foundational conceit:that themes, as anthropomorphized dramaticcharacters (and driven by idiosyncratic im-pulses), could impact the unfolding of themusical whole, as a function of an Adornianbottom-up construction.65 That these themesultimately wage a losing battle also offers anearly validation of the master-trope that thisstudy aims to realize: the image of the naleturning against its own rebellious elements, ofthe totality that sanctions for its own glorythe destruction of the individual.66

But so far I have said little about the agentsreacting to S1 and S2 and have offered only askeletal account of a few crucial passages. Inthis section I begin a second pass through thework with a closer look at the expositionalblock, which introduces the dramas charactersand poses the problems whose working-out pro-vides the narrative substance for the remainingtwo acts. The main concern here will be howthe exposition, particularly in its long genera-

tion phase, articulates the semantically chargedoppositionstonal, thematic, processive, evenmetaphysicalthat will be vital to the inter-pretation of the whole.

As indicated above, it was only in the after-math of the expositions failure (the criticalrst-act plot point) that the S-themes form-subverting drama really gets underway. Thenales other main plot strand commences themoment the curtain rises. Example 1 showsthe opening introductory complex in its en-tirety. The gesture divides into two eight-mea-sure units: the rst spins out the anxious I-theme over an augmented-sixth chord at leastnotionally (judging by the key signature) in Cminor; the second shifts abruptly to A major-minor and continues the upper-voice melodyover the so-called motto of the Sixth Sym-phonya major block-chord sinking to minor(mm. 911), accompanied by a pounding, fune-real drum gure. The antithetical status of thetwo tonal planes could hardly be more em-phatic. Framed by timbral and dynamicdiscontinuities, honoring no logic of harmonic/contrapuntal succession, and harnessing thebrash outburst of the motto, A doesnt simplyfollow Cit expels it, annihilates it. Thischarged antipathy resounds through the entiredrama: not only do these two keys repeatedlyassert themselves at one anothers expense, butthey reenact with tragic regularity the plot func-tion encapsulated herethat of A minor vio-lently usurping a musical process set into mo-tion by C.

The rst large-scale projection of this plotfunction begins immediately, playing out acrossthe entirety of pre-expositional space. Figure 2shows the expositional block in more detail:the upper brackets divide the generative antici-pation phase from the exposition proper, whilethe lower set traces the rhetorical character ofits internal sections. Binding the nales tonalendpoints like supercompressed matter, thetense singularity of the I-complex unleashessuch dispersive force that only moments laterwe nd ourselves oating in an infant uni-verse, a vacuum clouded only with elementaryparticles. It is the purpose of the long introduc-tion to fuse these particles into durable musi-cal matter, to collect and focus the energies ofthe I-complex into a state sufcient to launch

64Elided with the nal introductory complex, this would-be A-major arrival is the structural analog to the cadencethat closed the developmental block (see n. 58 above). Atthe moment the bass secures its low A, the upper voicessound a dominant-seventh chord on F. Thus each of thenal two I-complexes closes a tonal thread opened by S-materials: rst, the one centered on D, then the one fo-cused on A major.65See the rst section, on Adorno.66Adorno, Mahler, p. 97; see this articles introductionabove.

69

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

the nales sonata proper. A glance at the ar-rayed tonal centers in g. 2, however, revealsthat the tonic A minor plays very little part inthe generative process. Despite its imperiousdisplay of dominance in m. 9, it proves toounstable to launch the sonata on its own. Bythe time of the lead-in to the exposition (m.98), it is the ousted key of C that has proventhe galvanizing force capable of moving thenale forward. Until the last moment, all signspoint toward a C-minor sonata. But at the in-stant of the exposition-launch (m. 114), A mi-nor bursts in, hijacking the accumulated en-ergy and momentum and reenacting the propri-etary tonal conict of the movements open-ing. For a second time it appears out of no-where to claim what seems rightfully to belongto C. From the broadest vantage, then, the storyof the anticipation phase is one of the competi-tion between two prospective tonics, and of the

44 44

(Winds)

(Strings)

(Vn. I)

(Winds)

(Strings)

II.1 II.2

II.2 (cont.)II.2

II.2 (truncated)Motto rhythm (Timp.)

6

11

Example 1: Introductory complex (C minor), with motto (A minor).

repeated ascendance of A minor over its rival.But this tonal drama plays itself out in con-crete musical gures, and the picture remainsincomplete until one accounts for the narra-tives thematic dimension. This requires goinginto further detail.

Though our rst sense of pre-expositionalspace is likely to be one of bewildering chaos,with sufcient altitude we can perceive a con-structive logic that belies any impression ofrandomly dispersed motives and keys. Figure 3has pre-expositional space organized into twolarge subrotational cycles, each commencingwith a self-contained formal marker (enclosedin brackets) and proceeding to a series of rhe-torically differentiated episodes treating P- andS1-modules in succession. The formal markerof the rst subrotation is of course the I-com-plex. The music that follows traces a rhetoricalarc that elevates gradually toward coherence

70

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

11

63

43

94

96

96

77

88

2

Dis

solu

tion

Ch

aos

&D

isin

tegr

atio

n(s

tati

c)(d

ynam

ic)

(FU

LL

)Su

spen

sion

98 E

xpos

itio

nL

ead-

in

Mob

iliz

atio

nM

obil

izat

ion

Impe

tus

lost

:ro

tati

on fa

ils

Impe

tus

sust

aine

d . .

.R

otat

ions

eli

ded

Gen

erat

ive

rota

tion

al s

truc

ture

quic

kly

erod

es: P

mer

ges

wit

h m

ain

expo

siti

onal

rot

atio

n

Ch

oral

e(S

egm

ent)

Ch

oral

e

cg

gC

mA

ma

dro

vin

gro

vin

g[n

/a]

[n/a

]C

min

or

P1.

3 , P

1.2 ,

P1.

4P

1.3 ,

P1.

2 , P

1.4

P1.

5P

1.5 ,

P1.

6(P

1.1 )

S1.2

, S1.

3 , S

1.4

S1.1

S1.4

S1.4

, S1.

3

P-m

odu

les:

S-m

odu

les:

I-C

ompl

ex

Mea

sure

:

(Su

bsti

tute

s fo

r o

r w

rite

s ov

er

I-c

ompl

ex)

= m

otto

elid

ed w

ith

S1

Th

emat

ic/R

otat

ion

alSt

ruct

ure

:

Dyn

amic

s:

Ton

alit

y:

COLLAPSE

COLLAPSE

D I S S O L U T I O N

MM

M

SUB

RO

TA

TIO

N 1

SUB

RO

TA

TIO

N 2

PI-

Com

plex

SC

hor

ale

Ch

oral

eP

P(S

)S

Succ

ess!

M

otto

in

Cm

48 m

m.

32 m

m.

M

c: I

AC

g: I

AC

Pre-

expo

siti

onal

(gen

erat

ive)

spa

ceEx

posi

tion

pro

per

Intr

o.

16

116 D

isso

luti

on

eld

(P/S

1)

65 Dis

solu

tion

el

d (P

/S1)

191

S1

205

S2 (Erf

ll

un

g:1s

t at

tem

pt)

Fai

led

E

xpos

itio

n:

No

EE

C

49 Ch

oral

e

82 Ch

oral

e(f

ragm

ent)

139

(Ton

alC

onfl

ict)

180

Cor

rupt

ion

P r

etu

rns!

98 Lea

d-in

to

Exp

osit

ion

(P)

Sect

ion

:

Mea

sure

:

Subs

ecti

on:

Key

:

Ton

al

dram

a:

ca

ad

??a

aa/

CD

D

220

Cor

rupt

ion

P r

etu

rns!

Dc

cg

E?

114

P

114

TR

(ch

oral

e-ba

sed)

S(C

hao

s)(C

hao

s)(O

rder

)(O

rder

)

COLLAPSE !

g

A m

inor

dis

plac

es

C m

inor

1.3.

Mom

entu

mb

uil

ds

tow

ard

appa

ren

t C

-min

or

expo

siti

on

4.N

o! A

min

orse

izes

con

trol

.C

min

or r

etu

rns,

impo

ses

ord

er2.

Figu

re 3

: Th

e st

ruct

ure

of

pre-

expo

siti

onal

spa

ce.

Figu

re 2

: Str

uct

ure

of

the

expo

siti

onal

blo

ck.

71

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

P1.1 P1.2 P1.3

P1.4 P1.5 P1.6

a. The expositions P-theme (mm. 11421).

!

!

S1.1

S1.2 S1.3 S1.4

S1.5

b. The expositions S1-theme (mm. 191201).

Example 2

and then collapses into chaos at m. 39. Forreference, ex. 2 shows P and S1 as they appearin the exposition, and ex. 3 illustrates howtheir motives, not yet coalesced into themes,are dispersed through this rst dissolution eld.The progress toward coherence is particularlyevident in Mahlers treatment of the twothemes. Example 3 shows that while the mo-tives of S1 appear in the proper order (mm. 3139)many of them underscored by the ener-getic (if aimless) functional harmonies of therst mobilizationthe P-motives mainly serveas gestural and textural elements, indicating ifanything the absence of a discernible theme. Itis no coincidence that the rst motives en-countered in this newly born universe are infact the elementary particles of the Sixth Sym-phony itself: the octave leap and the ^3^2^1 mi-nor-third cell (mm. 1617). These cells are gen-erative units for much of the Symphonys main

themes (excluding those of the Andante).67 Theirpresence here, in the ether beyond the veil ofsymphonic edice, suggests a primordial state,prior to the formulation of more complex me-lodic structureseven prior to the Symphonysarticulation into discrete movements. Yet thisprimordial A minor does not turn out to be thepromising starting-point one might expect. Af-ter several chaotic outbursts the rst subro-tation sinks, enervated, back into dissolution(mm. 4748).

Advocating an essentially Freudian grammarof emplotment, Peter Brooks argues that just ashuman subjects repeat actions as a means ofmastering the pastof overcoming it to reclaimthe futuretransformed repetitions in texts,retracing ground already traversed, represent a

67Sponheuer, Logik des Zerfalls, pp. 30003.

72

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

" " " "

! !

" " " "" "

""

"

"" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

"

" " " " " " "

P1.3

16

22

28

34 """

"""

"""

""

"""""

""""""

(Tuba)

(Vc.)

(Cl.)(Hn.)

(Cl.)

(Hn.)

(Vc.)

(Cb.)

(Bsn.)

(Ww.)

cresc.

(Vla.)

(Tuba)

(Vla., Cl., Harp)

(Hn.) ! (Vn. I, II)

(Hn.)

(Celesta)

(Bsn.)

(Vla., Vc.)

(Hn.)

pizz. (Celesta)

(Harp)

P1.2

P1.4

S1.1

S1.3

S1.2

S1.4S1.3 (cont.)

MOBILIZATION COLLAPSE

P1.5

Example 3: First dissolution eld, mm. 1640.

73

SETHMONAHANThe Finale ofMahlers Sixth

search for an ideal narrative ending.68 Onecould scarcely nd a more apt frame forsubrotation two: in this transformed repetitionC minor returns as the chorale in m. 49 toreclaim the symphonic generation, but is onlyable to move forward to its ideal endinga C-minor exposition-launchonce it has symboli-cally mastered the trauma of the I-complex.69This occurs in two stages: the suppression ofthe I-complex and the coopting of the intrudingA-minor motto.

Initially, it is far from evident that subro-tation 2 is anything like a transformation ofwhat precedes. As g. 3 indicates, the primarycorrespondence elements (thematic and rhetori-cal) only begin with the dissolution eld in m.67. The opening wind chorale (mm. 4964)seems the farthest thing imaginable from the I-complex, its apparent subrotational correlate.But retrospectively this contrast is surely thepoint: with its symmetrical phrasing, harmonicclarity, and uniform orchestration the choraleis the antithesis of all the music that has pre-ceded. It is not a new stage in the generativeprocess, but something already formed, aboveand outside that process altogethermore sug-gestive of a rebeginning, a new start of the sortnecessary to nd the ideal ending.70 As Brooks

might say, the subrotational structure bindsthese otherwise antipodal events, forcing us toconsider them in terms of similarity or substi-tution rather than mere contiguitythat is,as parallel beginnings.71 We might imagine thenthat the success of the second subrotationhinges on the C-minor chorale negating orwriting over the I-complex that set the rstrotation on its ill-fated A-minor course.72 Thissuccess is evident rst of all in that this sectiondoes not, like its predecessor, degenerate intochaos and lose impetus. After only a brief sus-pension of forward motion (mm. 7882) themusic elides into an even more dynamic re-prise of the chorale theme, which triggers thenal push to stabilize C minor and begin theexposition lead-in. Yet it is equally critical thatthe I-complex is not entirely suppressed insubrotation 2. In g. 3 the chorale retains themajor-minor motto (M)the primary traumaitselfto master it through reenactment. Press-ing it into functional-harmonic service, as theculmination of a grand authentic cadence onthe dominant G minor (m. 65), the choraledecisively curtails the mottos intrusive force.The second chorale segment goes further, us-ing the motto in a similar fashion to conrm Cminor itself (m. 98), the key it originally aimedto displace. It is only then, the tables fullyturned and the trauma mastered, that the gen-erative phase can draw to a close and the C-minor sonata (or so we would believe) can pre-pare to embark.

But we know already that the C-minor so-nata is not to be, that A minor displaces its

68Brooks, Reading for the Plot, chap. 4 (Freuds Masterplot:A Model for Narrative), esp. pp. 98101. (See alsoNewcomb, Narrative Archetypes, pp. 13234.)69Obviously, any ending the chorale precipitates is onlyideal in terms of the immediate tonal narrative.Affectively it is unremittingly dark.70Strictly speaking, the chorale is a voice from beyond theSixth Symphony entirely. The theme stated in mm. 4952originates in the fth movement of Mahlers Third (ArmerKinder Betterlied), where it underscores Peters guilt-rid-den lament, And should I not weep, you gracious God?(I have broken the Ten Commandments, and go and weepmost bitterly.) The implications of this ominous musicalepigraph are far-reaching, beginning with the need to con-sider why the naleif it allegedly documents fate gorg-ing itself on the valiant Mahlerian Everymanbegins withso explicit a reference to a personage emblematic not ofmartyrdom but of fallibility, regret, and contrition. Canwe justify linking the three hammer blows of the rstedition to Peters three denials (or the three nails ham-mered (!) into the cross, for that matter)? We know thatMahler planned as many as ve blows in the original draft,so the symbolic import of there being three (or not three,if we believe that superstition moved him to remove thelast) could not have been part of the original conception(de La Grange, Mahler: Vol.III, pp. 81314). But this is notto say a symbolic element did not enter the picture lateronespecially considering that it is this chorale that be-

comes the hammer-blow theme. Could this be among theriddles Mahler posed here? Agonizing lapses of faithseemed to have been part of Mahlers spiritual makeup,and a deeply troubling one at that (Bruno Walter, MahlersWeg: Ein Erinnerungsblatt, Der Merker 3 [1912], 16671;cited in de La Grange, Mahler: Volume III, p. 461; see alsoConstantin Floros, Gustav Mahler: Visionr und Despot[Zurich: Arche, 1998], pp. 20102). Might this be enoughto justify the search for an alternative biographical master-trope, one grounded not in victimhood but in guilt, relat-ing to the transgression of lapsed faith and a perceivedbetrayal of God?71Brooks, Reading for the Plot, p. 101.72I borrow this concept from Hepokoski and Darcy, whosometimes advocate understanding (apparently) non-rotational elements as writing over or blanking outan element of the referential arrangement (Hepokoski andDarcy, Elements of Sonata Theory, p. 613).

74

19THCENTURY

MUSIC

rival to assume control of the expositions pri-mary theme (m. 114). Now storming ahead withunchecked expositional vigor, the P-theme willexert dominion over the remainder of the expo-sition. Returning now to g. 2, we see that thetransitional theme (m. 139), a vaulting deriva-tive of the chorale melody, opens in A minorbut swiftly resumes the tonal struggle of theintroduction. A and C (both primarily in themajor mode) now ght under the open air, formere measures of territory. By m. 157 the mu-sic lurches between provisional tonics everyfew measures, until the entire texture implodesin m. 176.73 There is little doubt as to thevictor. When the music stabilizes, it is not onlyrmly planted in A major (purging even thetone C!), it has brazenly reinstated motivesfrom P (P1.5). It has been a transition to no-where; the primary theme, in the tonic key,has the last word. Even into S-space, we con-tinue to feel the gravity of the newly empow-ered P-theme. Seconds before S2 collapses (m.228), the closing events of TR-space replay infull: the