SEVEN Brahms and the Neapolitan Complex: [b flat]II, [b flat]VI, and Their Multiple Functions in the First Movement of the F-Minor Clarinet Sonata.

I

Several recent studies have drawn attention to the importance of Neapolitan relations in Brahms's instrumental works. James Webster's seminal article on Schubert and Brahms refers to the "essential role" of Neapolitan relationships.(1) Among the Brahms sonata forms that Webster analyzes, the first movement of the F-Minor Piano Quintet places greatest emphasis on Neapolitan and Neapolitan-related chords. Christopher Wintle goes a step further and traces a "Neapolitan complex" (or N-complex) in movements from the E-Minor Cello Sonata and the A-Major Piano Quartet.(2) He explores Schubert's influence on Brahms's Neapolitan procedures and provides insight into the historical relationship suggested by Tovey and elaborated by Webster. More recently, Margaret Notley has described an "inverse" Neapolitan layout in the Adagio of the F-major Cello Sonata.(3) Her main thesis -- that the movement is a revised version of a discarded movement from the E-Minor Cello Sonata -- throws light on the central role the Neapolitan plays throughout the multimovement cycle.

A common feature of these studies is their tendency to associate Neapolitan relations with the works of Brahms's first maturity. There is at least a suggestion that the composer turned away from the N-complex in later phases of his career.(4) Even Notley speculates that the prominence of the Neapolitan throughout the F-Major Sonata of 1887 is a consequence of relationships that Brahms probably composed into the Adagio when it was part of the E-Minor Sonata of 1866. Musical evidence supports the view that the N-complex was an important resource for Brahms during the 1860s. Not enough attention has been paid, however, to the composer's interest in the schema in later years. Though Brahms was perhaps never again to focus on the N-complex as intensely as in the early works, it continued to exert its influence in such diverse masterpieces as the C-Minor String Quartet, the Violin Concerto (mvt. 2), the Fourth Symphony, and the D-Minor Violin Sonata (mvt. 3, inverse). Indeed, he saves his most thoroughgoing essay in Neapolitan relations for his penultimate instrumental work, the F-Minor Clarinet Sonata, op. 120, no.1.

The first movement of the sonata provides an opportunity both to explore further Brahms's preoccupation with the N-complex and to revise the view that, "save for [the F-major Cello Sonata] and possibly [the second movement of the Fourth Symphony], Brahms indeed abandons this schema after 1870."(5) Before we turn to op.120, it is first necessary to outline some basic characteristics of the N-complex. Ex. 7.1 reproduces Wintle's representation of Neapolitan relationships.(6) Central to the schema is the role of [natural]VI, which links the tonic and Neapolitan keys via the familiar [V.sup.7]/German-sixth equivalence. [natural]VI can also function as Neapolitan in the dominant key. Wintle uses this relationship to expand the N-complex to two additional levels. The equivalence of [natural]VI and [natural]II/V becomes a means to pivot between the tonic and dominant regions (ex. 7.1, system 2), and emphasis on [natural]II/V replicates, in the dominant, the original set of Neapolitan relations (ex. 7.1, system 3).

The representation of constituents as chords in ex. 7.1 is a matter of convenience. In a musical context, the network usually resonates in the motivic as well as the harmonic dimension. There is a tendency in analyses of N-complex works to focus on key relations and melodic semitone figures. Webster and Wintle both treat large-scale tonal relationships as expanded chord progressions and relate key schemes to foreground motives. This strategy reflects the influence of Schenker, as does their use of voice-leading graphs. Webster's and Wintle's approach, however, partly diverges from Schenker's, without a reformulation of theoretical premises. Their methodology sometimes leads to imprecise analytic results, which in turn cause them to overlook distinctions among works they see as closely related.

An example will help to define some of the issues. Wintle quotes, with approval, Webster's assertion that "when the first part of the second group appears in [b flat]VI or [b flat]vi, the subsequent move to the dominant mimics a move from the Neapolitan ([b flat]II) to a major tonic."(7) This is the progression notated on system 2 of Wintle's schema. The observation is sound as a description of interval relationships among key centers. Indeed, a sonata form can articulate the parallelism, if some or all of the submediant material is recapitulated in the Neapolitan. Ex. 7.2 shows Webster's representation of this tonal plan in the Piano Quintet; ex. 7.3 shows Wintle's graph of the similar situation in the E-Minor Cello Sonata. Keys, however, are relational networks, not sounding entities; though it is appropriate to speak of chords moving to chords, the metaphor does not work as well for keys.(8) Part of the problem stems from Webster's and Wintle's tendency to equate key areas and tonics; they underestimate the potential for a tonicization to prolong a chord other than its local tonic. They are also too quick to assign tonicized chords middleground status. Even if successive key areas do prolong their own tonics, the chords might not form a structural harmonic progression. As ex. 7.4 shows, a large-scale IV intervenes between VI and V in the Piano Quintet. Similarly, a structural dominant in m.208 forms the bridge back to the tonic, following the Neapolitan recapitulation of the second theme. In neither case does a half-step root progression connect either VI to V or [b flat]II to I.(9)

Webster's and Wintle's desire for direct VI-V and [b flat]II-I connections reflects their association of Neapolitan relations with melodic semitone motion. One justification for this view is the prominence that foreground Neapolitan progressions frequently place on the [b flat]2-1 melodic half step. Another is the root relation between the tonic and Neapolitan chords; the latter is a somewhat more abstract rationale in that it depends on a liberal application of inversion theory.(10) A focus on semitone motion as the basis for Neapolitan relationships often leads Webster and Wintle to bypass transitional dominants as potential structural harmonies. An advantage of this approach is that it allows them to relate Neapolitan progressions to foreground motives, usually 5-6-5 neighbor figures; Wintle's graph of the Cello Sonata is especially clear in highlighting the influence of motivic considerations on his choice of structural harmonies. But the Neapolitan does not normally form a direct harmonic connection with its tonic; it characteristically functions as a dominant preparation. This pre-dominant function provides a source for an additional N-complex relationship: the potential for VI to function as a Neapolitan in terms of middleground harmonic progression, rather than simply in terms of interval relationships among keys. Schenker's willingness to grant structural status to transitional dominants responds to the potential for the C tonicization, in m.34 of the Cello Sonata, to be heard retrospectively as a large-scale preparation for the F# dominant. Ex. 7.5 shows this alternate interpretation.(11) A more stringent application of Schenkerian techniques leads to an important distinction: the tonicization of VI in the sonata functions as a Neapolitan within the motion to V, while the D[b flat] material in the Piano Quintet does not.