In 1790, the year before Haydn's triumph in London and Mozart's death in Vienna, Ernst Gerber proclaimed that Leopold Kozeluch was Europe's favorite composer:
Leopold Kozeluch is without question with young and old the generally most loved among our living composers, and this with justification.1
Two years later, the Bohemian composer's rising fortunes culminated in his appointment as Kammerkapellmeister and Hofkompositor for Franz II. The popularity of Kozeluch during the early 1790s was enhanced by the publication of his only string quartets, the six works of Opera 32 and 33 (1790-91). According to Thayer, these compositions were "known throughout Europe."2 Much of Kozeluch's success can be attributed to his ability to combine features of the popular musical style of Paris and of the more serious style of Vienna. Blending these elements together, the Opera 32 and 33 quartets typify Kozeluch's compositional style at the height of his career. In addition, these works represent, perhaps better than any other quartets at the time, a significant style that might well be termed the Viennese quatuor concertant.
The string quartet of the early 1790s was, as described by Koch, "the favorite piece of small musical societies."3 The genre was not primarily intended for use by professional musicians or for public performances, but rather it belonged properly to the amateur, in the domain of his own home. Performances at social gatherings are reported throughout Western Europe in the late eighteenth century. Charles Burney, visiting Vienna in the early 1770s, describes one such occasion:
[After dinner] . . . we had some exquisite quartets, by Haydn, executed in the utmost perfection; the first violin by M. Startzler, who played the Adagios with uncommon feeling and expression; the second violin by M. Ordonetz; Count Bruhl played the tenor, and M. Weigel, an excellent performer on the violoncello, the base.4
The ensemble of four solo string players was ideal entertainment at such events, providing pleasures for listeners and performers alike. The dominance of the first violin part allowed musicians of unequal caliber to exhibit their respective talents while performing compositions by the most eminent masters. Moreover, the repertory on these occasions was not limited to original compositions for string quartet, but often included arrangements of popular opera arias, folk songs, oratorios, and symphonies (even the Eroica!).
The subtle, intimate qualities of the quartet were also enjoyed by family quartets. According to Eduard Hanslick, string quartets were frequently played in noble Viennese houses:
Almost every music-loving family assembled their amateur quartet, generally on a determined day of the week. In view of this indispensable pleasure, the musically talented sons were encouraged to learn the violin or cello, whereas today domestic musical study is exclusively absorbed with the piano. . . . At that time in Vienna, one could find with certainty a string quartet in every close family.5
The family string quartet played a significant role in the early musical training of Franz Schubert, and the young Viennese composer wrote many of his earliest instrumental works for these gatherings. Schubert's brother Ferdinand later recalled those happy occasions when the family assembled to play quartets:
For his father and his elder brothers it was an uncommon pleasure to play quartets with him: This happened chiefly in the holiday months. . . . In these quartets Franz always played the viola [like Mozart], his brother Ignaz second violin, Ferdinand (whom Franz favoured most among his brothers) first, and Papa the violoncello.6
Although public performances of string quartets had occurred since the 1780s, the genre of the early 1790s still centered to the skills, tastes, and needs of the amateur. But far from appearing as a unified body, amateur musicians exhibited a wide range of skills and understanding, differences that were readily acknowledged by contemporary writers and composers. In an article for the Encyclopedie methodique (1791), Ginguendivides amateurs into three classes:
The first is composed of such as are born with delicate organs and much sensibility to the beauties of music, and who, not having had leisure, inclination or the means of cultivating their natural propensity, continue through life to cherish their passion for art; eagerly attending all concerts and musical dramas. . . .
The second class comprehends those who have had the means of developing, and confirming by study, the gifts of nature, and who have sublimed their dispositions into talents. . . .
The third class is the most numerous and the most distinguished, though they are less ambitious of shining than the second; it is composed of amateurs, who, not content with learning to read and execute music, have tried to penetrate into the secrets of the art, and enable themselves to account for the pleasure they receive, by analysing their sensations and studying the theory of music, to enable themselves to judge more accurately of the practice, and to unite intellectual pleasure with that of sense and the heart.7
The distinction between a member of the last group, generally known as a "connoisseur" or Kenner, and a member of the other groups, the "amateur," Liebhaber, or "dilettante," was widely accepted. Koch, in his Musikalisches Lexikon, makes a similar division.
Kenner one calls those people who not only correctly discover good and bad in art, but can also state the specific reasons why these or those pieces are good or bad. One can often set the Kenner apart from the Liebhaber of art because although the latter experience the effect of good or bad, they have no knowledge of the reasons for it.8
Composers were well aware of this distinction and tailored their chamber pieces to the audience that would receive them. Since most amateur musicians in London and, in particular, Paris were not connoisseurs (Ginguené's comments to the contrary), string quartets composed for these centers were light, facile, and pleasing to the ear. Some composers, such as Davaux, Vachon, and Johann Christian Bach, excelled in this style and sustained a continuous production of simple yet delightful works. Because of the leading role of Paris in the development of this style, the large body of literature embodying these qualities has been termed "quatuor concertant," the common title of Parisian publishers.9 The most prominent feature of the quatuor concertant is the two- or three-movement format: the first a clearly defined sonata structure in a fast tempo; the last usually a rondo, although variations and minuets are frequent; and the middle slow movement a binary, ABA, rondo, minuet, or aria form. Other defining characteristics of the quatuor concertant are described by Janet Levy: "Brilliance, grace, elegant song, ease of performance and, especially, color and effect represented principal values and taste in this literature."10
These qualities differ sharply from those presented in the finely-worked, four-movement quartets from Vienna, where the patronage of a well-educated nobility encouraged the composition of quartets directed toward the connoisseur. In addition to the two- or three-movement format, the Parisian quartet differs from its Viennese counterpart by the more frequent use of lyrical themes and simple structures (rarely monothematic) and by the avoidance of thematic manipulation, harmonic shocks, and "learned" counterpoint. Momigny recognized the different appeal of the quartets of Vienna's two greatest masters and the Parisian quartets of Pleyel:
The quartets of Haydn and Mozart are the admiration and delight of connoisseurs. Those of Pleyel, less profound but full of naturalness and grace, are the charm of all sensible and delicate hearts.11
Momigny's distinction reinforces the modern view of two opposing poles of quartet composition: Vienna, where the masterworks of Haydn and Mozart appealed to an elite group of Kenner, and Paris, where the lighter style of Pleyel was favored by the general public. This interpretation, though essentially correct, requires some modification. It first must be recognized that some Parisian composers struggled against over-simplicity. Even Boccherini, who is credited with founding the quatuor concertant, reveals his disdain for the easy style in a letter to Pleyel:
It is now nearly forty years since I have been writing music, and I should not be Boccherini if I had written as you advise me to do, any more than you would be Pleyel, that Pleyel who you are, who you are proved to be by your quartets dedicated to the King of Naples, which I always hear with the greatest pleasure, as well as by the various other works of yours which are truly masterly and beautiful in the highest degree. It is impossible in such works to follow your advice, that is to say, to be simple and brief, without saying good-bye to modulation; to the interweaving of the ideas that one proposes to oneself. In a short space little can be said and still less thought. On the other hand, I am resigned to the fact that the unfortunate amateur can rarely succeed with studied compositions owing to the difficulty of the tempo and the variations in the tone and for other reasons, and this being so I give you my word to oblige you on this point too, since it is necessary in the interests of commercial speculation. But as I do not want to lose the reputation which I have or the name which it has cost me so much labour to acquire in the world, let us agree as follows, that in this set of quartets, and in any other which I shall write, two quartets shall be in my style and manner and four as you wish them to be.12
Thus the solution of Boccherini to the conflict of personal integrity and "commercial speculation" was to separate the two styles; some of his quartets would be written for the amateur and others for the connoisseur.
In Vienna, composers faced a similar dilemma. For the most part, the patronage system failed to provide adequate support for Viennese composers; many were forced increasingly to depend on public tastes. Moreover, not all of the patrons were consummate connoisseurs, as evidenced by the complaint of Joseph II that Mozart's music had "too many notes." It is therefore not surprising to find that a large number of Viennese quartets were written in the quatuor concertant style of Paris. Judging only by the catalogs of Viennese publishing houses, the most popular quartet composers in Vienna from 1785 to 1800 were Pleyel, Hoffmeister, Gyrowetz, Haydn, and Anton Wranizky. Of these, only the works of Haydn remain steadfastly in the four-movement format.
Rather than separating the two styles, as was suggested by Boccherini, many Viennese composers attempted to combine qualities of the Parisian and Viennese quartets within a single work. Mozart, who was one of the first composers to work without a patron in Vienna, recognized the need to synthesize the two styles early in his career. Writing to his father in 1782 about his latest piano concertos, Mozart notes,
There are passages here and there from which connoisseurs alone can derive satisfaction; but these passages are written in such a way that the less learned cannot fail to be pleased though without knowing why.13
In his quartets, Mozart comes closest to the Parisian tastes with his last four works, which, although containing four movements, reflect an easy, lyric character reminiscent of the quatuor concertant.14
The fusion of the two styles is even clearer in Opera 32 and 33 of Kozeluch. All of Kozeluch's works contain two or three movements (see Table 1).
Table 1. Structures of Kozeluch's Opera 32 and 33.
First Movement Middle Movement Finale Opus 32 No. 1 sonata form sonata form sonata rondo Opus 32 No. 2 sonata form sonata form rondo Opus 32 No. 3 sonata form sonata form sonata rondo Opus 33 No. 1 sonata form ABA variations Opus 33 No. 2 sonata form ABAB _______ Opus 33 No. 3 sonata form sonata form sonata rondo
The first movements avoid extensive motivic manipulation or points of "learned" counterpoint. Thematic materials, like those in the late quartets of Mozart, are either lyric tunes or motives spun out in a smooth, relaxed manner, often in parallel thirds and over a simple accompaniment. As a result, Kozeluch's style is smooth and flowing, characteristics that are praised by Charles Burney:
His style is more easy than that of Emanuel Bach, Haydn, or Mozart, it is natural, graceful, and flowing, without imitating any great model, as almost all his contemporaries have done. His modulation is natural and pleasing, and what critics of the old school would allow to be warrantable. His rhythm is well phrased, his accents well placed, and harmony pure.15
The descriptions of Kozeluch by Burney and by Gerber agree not only on the popularity of Kozeluch, but also on his fine craftsmanship. Kozeluch's evident concern with economy of material, continuity, and balance distinguishes him from most Parisian quartet composers and suggests that he understood well some of the principles of construction found in the quartets of Haydn and Mozart. This blend of Parisian and Viennese traits can be seen in the first movement of Opus 33 No. 1.16 At the beginning of the movement, Kozeluch introduces a relaxed theme, set mostly in parallel thirds. The theme is based on varied four-note motives, each of which contains a step-wise ascent or descent of a third (see Example 1a). A passage beginning in m. 11 (Example 1b) separates the opening motives; the viola and cello present the first four notes, and the first violin answers with the next four in a decorated version that serves as a rhythmic transition to sixteenth-note activity.
Example 1. Opus 33 No. 1, I.
The stability of the tonic in this opening passage requires a convincing modulation to the dominant. Kozeluch's favorite technique for establishing a new key is by moving first to the minor dominant. This effective means of achieving a modulation not only reinforces the strength of the fifth degree, but also cancels the most important note of the tonic scale (the leading tone) at a structurally decisive moment. A similar procedure can be found in four of the opening movements of Haydn's Opus 64 quartets (1791). In this movement, though, Kozeluch follows a different procedure, one that is also commonly found in the works of Haydn. Kozeluch provides two different arrival points in the new key. The first, following a brief diversion to E-flat, is articulated by the return of an altered version of the first theme in contrary motion (m. 33). Eighteen measures later, a contrasting theme (like the opening theme, it is based on rising and falling thirds) reaffirms the dominant key, and the remaining thirty measures of dominant effectively balance the weight of the opening key.
The developments and recapitulations of Kozeluch are simpler than those of Haydn. The recapitulations, like those of Mozart, usually follow the material of the expositions closely. The development sections, which encompass the same proportional length as those of Haydn and Mozart (generally slightly larger than three-fourths the size of the exposition), tend to avoid extensive modulation and thematic manipulation. In Opus 33 No. 1, the development centers around the relative minor. All of the important arrival points in the section—m. 90, which initiates a contrapuntal passage; m. 103, which closes that passage; m. 111, which marks the entrance of the "second" theme; and m. 127, which reintroduces the closing theme—appear in A minor.
The second and third movements of Kozeluch's quartets also contain formal elements of both Parisian and Viennese quartets. The slow movements are predominantly set in the "slow-movement sonata form"17 favored by Mozart. They avoid the florid style of Haydn's quartets before 1791 and feature simple, lyric melodies and well-placed harmonies. Kozeluch's last movements also differ substantially from those of Haydn, who, after Opus 33, chose sonata forms over rondos in his finales by a three to one ratio. Most of Kozeluch's finales are rondos or sonata rondos. All of the movements reflect a pervasive lightness and a deceptive simplicity, which can veil some of his most effective harmonic progressions and finely-worked contrapuntal passages.
An excellent example of Kozeluch's finales appears in Opus 33 No. 3. The structure, a variant of sonata rondo, is diagrammed in Table 2.
Table 2. Outline of Opus 33 No. 3, third movement.
A(mm. 1-50) B(50-77) C(77-96) D(96-114) E(114-128) I V A(128-151) I
C(218-237) D(237-253) B(253-265) A(266-296) D(297-315) IV IV V I A(315-323) D(324-351) I
Although each section presents a distinct character—A a sprightly, disjunct tune, B a strong, quick-moving modulating passage, C a lyric melody, D a fugato, and E a mysterious transition—all are derived from the outline of the first two measures (which is filled in at m. 16; see Example 2a). The most obvious association with the opening figure is provided by the motive introduced at m. 106 in section D (Example 2b). The material of B also contains the same outline (Example 2c), except that the third interval of the motive continues to ascend rather than going down a sixth, as in its original presentation. The melody of C also contains the rise of a third followed by a descent that is characteristic of the other motives (Example 2d). A similar gesture is the basis of the fugato subject. Although taken directly from m. 85 in section C, its similarity to the other material is clear (Example 2e). Even the transition passage of E presents the general shape of the motive in its barest form (Example 2f).
Example 2. Opus 33 No. 3, III.
The ease with which one section passes to another is largely due to the basic similarity of melodic material. This also allows Kozeluch to unite two of the most diverse sections, B and D. They are first juxtaposed in the development, where D incorporates a line from the accompaniment of B (m. 173). At m. 203 the D motive assumes the rhythm of the B head theme, and at m. 253 the two passages merge, as the B theme is stated with the accompaniment of D.
One of the most prominent features of this movement and of the first movement of Opus 33 No. 1 is the frequent appearance of third relations. A preference for such shifts by Kozeluch can be detected in the other quartets as well. Third relations, in themselves, are not a discovery of Kozeluch or even of the 1790s. In minor-key movements, the closeness of the tonic and relative major was essential to the structure, a relationship Haydn dramatizes in mm. 15-17 of Opus 9 No. 4 (1770), and which he later exploits in order to create ambiguity in the opening of Opus 33 No. 1 and Opus 64 No. 2. Sudden harmonic shifts of a third also appear in several major-key compositions of the 1770s. The first movement of Haydn's Opus 20 No. 4 (1772) employs such moves to mark the beginning of the transition (m. 31) and to prepare for the return of the tonic before the recapitulation (m. 206). During the 1780s, the tonal relation of a third was fully explored in the quartets of Haydn and Mozart. By 1790, though, it was still only one of a variety of harmonic tools and was subordinate to fifth relations. In the quartets of Kozeluch these harmonic shifts, serving a variety of functions, can be found more consistently than in the earlier quartets of Haydn and Mozart.18
One common use of third relations by Kozeluch is for modulation, either replacing or in conjunction with the circle of fifths. In the development of the first movement of Opus 33 No. 1, A minor is approached by thirds, d-F-a (mm. 82-89), and before the recapitulation, that direction is reversed, a-F-d (mm. 127-132). In the exposition shifts of thirds, C-a in mm. 40-42 and G-e-C-a in mm. 46-49, help to create harmonic tension prior to the rearticulation of the dominant key. The first actual move away from the tonic in the finale of Opus 33 No. 3 is a sudden drop from F to d at m. 36. In the development, this descent of a third is extended with the B material passing through f-D-flat-b-flat and then with the D material through f-d-B-flat-g-E-flat.
Tonal relationships of a third achieve structural significance in the development sections of Kozeluch's first movements. In the quartets of Haydn and Mozart, the relationship between stable key areas in the development and the original tonic varies considerably. For example, the development of Mozart's K. 575 in D centers mostly around G, the subdominant, and K. 550 in F contains a substantial passage in E-flat. In Kozeluch's developments, key areas a third away from the tonic are always prominent (see Table 3).
Table 3. Key areas in Kozeluch's first-movement development sections.
|tonic||main key area in the development|
|Opus 32 No. 1||B-flat||D|
|Opus 32 No. 2||G||e|
|Opus 32 No. 3||E-flat||G/A-flat|
|Opus 33 No. 1||C||a|
|Opus 33 No. 2||A||c|
|Opus 33 No. 3||F||C/E-flat/d|
Shifts of a third are also frequently employed to articulate important structural points. The transition passage in Opus 33 No. 1 begins with a shift from C to a. A similar move can be seen in Opus 32 No. 2. Perhaps the most dramatic drop of a third in all of Kozeluch's first movements is in Opus 32 No. 3 (see Example 3), where a sudden descent from B-flat to G (through an A-flat trill) marks the beginning of the development section.
Example 3. Opus 32 No. 3, I.
In three of Kozeluch's first movements, the recapitulations are prepared by sudden harmonic changes. In Opus 33 No. 1 this entails a quick move from d to C. The other two movements, Opus 32 No. 2 and Opus 33 No. 2, employ a sudden shift of a third to return to the tonic. (Similar moves can be seen in the first movements of Haydn's Opus 64 No. 4 and No. 6.) In most of these instances, the tonal shifts of a third maintain a proper diatonic relation to the main key area. Occasionally, though, a drop of a major third either prepares for the arrival of a new key or reinforces the strength of a recently-established key. During the transition of the quartet in C, the drop to E-flat at m. 21 functions as the lowered sixth degree of the dominant, thereby weakening the pull of the original tonic and clearly suggesting the move to the new key. A more prominent fall of a major third occurs in Opus 33 No. 2 in A major, where the shift from A to F initiates the coda.
The publication of these quartets in the early 1790s coincides with a marked change in Kozeluch's compositional style. Turning primarily to chamber music in the 1790s, Kozeluch developed a more daring character that Potolka describes as "pre-Romantic."19 Evidence of this change in the quartets can be seen in the frequent appearance of third relations and the occasional bold harmonic treatment. An excellent example of the latter can be found in the transition passage of the Opus 33 No. 3 finale (see Example 4).
Example 4. Opus 33 No. 3, III.
A sudden halt in the furious rhythmic drive sets the scene for several special harmonic effects; almost every measure has a new and unsuspected harmonic twist, culminating in the parallel diminished-seventh chords in mm. 124-25. The simplicity yet power of this passage best reflects Kozeluch's ability to incorporate features of the new musical idiom into his own established style.
The ease and naturalness of this assimilation in Kozeluch's late works must have been noted by the young Schubert. According to Spaun, Schubert championed the works of Kozeluch while in school:
Once when they were playing a symphony by Kozeluch and a lot of people were grumbling about the old-fashioned music he got really excited and cried out in his childish voice: "There is more rhyme and reason in this symphony than in the whole of Krommer, which you are so fond of playing."20
Whether the music of Kozeluch left any significant or lasting impressions on Schubert cannot be determined. Most likely, Kozeluch and his quartets did not continue to exert any direct influence on composers after 1800. But for the study of the string quartet, these six works offer several insights into the genre of the early 1790s. They are the prototype of the Viennese quatuor concertant, a style which sought to blend the popular elements of Paris with the intellectual traditions of Vienna. Kozeluch was ably endowed to effect the fusion; he was unsurpassed in the smooth, even-flowing style which was the essence of the Parisian style, yet he also understood many of the concepts which formed the basis of the style of Haydn and Mozart. That he avoided some of the complications of the Viennese style is clear, but his works were successful for their purpose—to please the great mass of amateurs as well as the select-few connoisseurs.
1Ernst Gerber, Historisch-biographisches Lexikon der Tonkünstler, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1790-92), 1:749, s.v. "Kozeluch, (Leopold)." "Leopold Kozeluch ist ohne Wiederrede, bey jung und alt, der allgemein beliebteste, unter unsern itzt lebenden Komponisten und das mit allem Rechte."
2Alexander Wheelock Thayer, Ludwig van Beethoven's Leben, 3 vols. (Berlin: Schneider, 1866), 1:281; Thayer's Life of Beethoven, trans. and rev. Elliot Forbes, 2 vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 1:158.
3Heinrich Christoph Koch, Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Böhme, 1793), 3:325. ". . . das Lieblingsstück kleiner musikalischen Gesellschaften . . ."
4Charles Burney, The Present State of Music in Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Provinces, 2 vols. (London: Becket, 1773), 1:290.
5Eduard Hanslick, Geschichte des Concertwesens in Wien (Vienna: Braumüller, 1869), 202. "Fast jede musikliebende Familie versammelte, meist an einem bestimmten Tage der Woche, ihr Liebhaberquartett. Mit Rücksicht auf diesen unentbehrlichen Genuss liess man die musikalisch talentirten Söhne gerne Violine oder Violoncello lernen, während heutzutage der häusliche Musikunterricht ausschliesslich vom Clavier absorbirt ist. . . . Man fand damals in Wien ein Streichquartett mit Sicherheit in befreundeten Familien."
6Ferdinand Schubert, "Franz Schubert's Life," Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, 23 April-3 May 1839, trans. Erich Blom, in The Schubert Reader, ed. Otto Erich Deutsch (New York: Norton, 1947), 913.
7Encyclopedie methodique, ed. Nicolas Framery and P.L. Ginguené, 2 vols. (Paris: Panckoucke, 1791), 1:78, s.v. "Amateur"; trans. Charles Burney, Cyclopaedia; or Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature, 39 vols. (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orne & Brown, 1810-24), vol. 9 (unpaginated), s.v. "Connoisseur."
8Heinrich Christoph Koch, Musikalisches Lexikon (Frankfort: Hermann, 1802), 828, s.v. "Kenner." "Kenner, nennet man diejenigen Personen, die das Schöne oder Schlechte in den Produkten der Kunst nicht allein richtig empfinden, sondern auch die besondern Ursachen angeben können, warum dieses oder jenes in denselben schön oder schlecht sey. Man setzt die Kenner oft den Liebhabern der Kunst entgegen, weil die letztern zwar die Wirkung des Schönen oder Schlechten empfinden, aber keine Kenntnisse von den Ursachen desselben haben."
9Originally this term carried no specific connotations other than that the piece was to be performed by four solo instruments. It appeared on a wide range of works, encompassing the natural simplicity of Davaux and the brilliant virtuosity of Viotti. Even quartets composed in the Viennese tradition bore the title Quatuor concertant when published in the Parisian sphere of influence. The most notable of these is Hummel's publication of Haydn's Opus 20, a set that must be considered the antithesis of the Parisian style.
10Janet Levy, "The Quatuor Concertant in Paris in the Latter Half of the Eighteenth Century" (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1971), 324.
11Ignaz Pleyel, Cours complet d'harmonie et de composition, 3 vols. (Paris: Chez l'auteur, 1806), 2:695. "Les quatuors d'Haydn et ceux de Mozart font l'admiration et les délices des connoisseurs. Ceux de Pleyel, moins profonds, mais pleins de naturel et de grace, font le charme de toutes les ames sensibles et délicates."
12Germaine de Rothschild, Luigi Boccherini: His Life and Works, trans. Andreas Mayor (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 132-33. The letter is dated 18 March 1799.
13Mozart Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, ed. Wilhelm Bauer and Otto Erich Deutsch, 7 vols. (Cassel: Bärenreiter, 1963), 3:245-46; Letters of Mozart, trans. Emily Anderson, 3 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1938), 1242.
14In an advertisement for Mozart's last three quartets (Wiener Zeitung, 18 May 1793, p. 1462), Artaria describes them as konzertante Quartetten, undoubtedly a reference to the virtuoso-like treatment of individual members of the quartet, a procedure that was becoming a vogue in Paris.
15Burney, Cyclopaedia, 20:1771, s.v. "Kozeluch, Leopold."
16For a score of this movement and for the finale to Opus 33 No, 3, see Roger Hickman, "Six Bohemian Masters of the String Quartet in the Late Eighteenth Century" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1979).
17Described by Charles Rosen, The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven (New York: Viking, 1971), 100.
18H.C. Robbins Landon, Haydn: The Years of "The Creation," 1796-1800, vol. 4 of his Haydn: Chronicle and Works (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977), 507, suggests that Haydn's works from the 1780s were the origins of "third-related keys." But it appears that a preference for third relations was shared by several Viennese composers, and for some, such as for Kozeluch, third-relations played a much more prominent role at an earlier time than they did for Haydn.
19Milan Potolka, Leopold Koeluh: ivot á Dilo (Prague: Státní Hudební Vydavatelství, 1964), 94-96.
20Josef von Spaun, "Notes on my Association with Franz Schubert" (1858), trans. Rosamond Ley and John Nowell, in Schubert: Memoirs by his Friends, ed. Otto Erich Deutsch (London: Macmillan, 1958), 126.