From the 1850s, Saint-Saëns regularly employed cyclic form: the practice of establishing large-scale relationships (especially in symphonies, chamber works, etc.) by reintroducing materials from earlier movements in later ones. Nonetheless, he became weary of such procedures following the Third Symphony (1886) for cultural-political reasons: Franck's most important cyclic works date from the 1880s, d'Indy declared la forme cyclique a historically determined canon, and period writers considered cyclic form a franckiste hallmark – all while Saint-Saëns's relationship with Franck's followers deteriorated.In this essay, I argue that Saint-Saëns's First String Quartet (1899) ‘misreads’ his rivals’ approaches to cyclic form as exemplified by d'Indy's Second Quartet of 1897 (in which a four-note cell suffuses most themes) and Franck's Quartet (in which themes from previous movements climactically accumulate in the final coda). Saint-Saëns's themes abound with miniscule motivic connections, which catch listeners’ ears but seem too fleeting and insubstantial to register as binding elements comparable to d'Indy's pellucid cell. Such relationships straddle the threshold of apprehensibility, and they produce a distinctive affective quality: where d'Indy fosters perceptions of genetic relationships, Saint-Saëns elicits a sensation of déjà entendu. The final coda similarly teases by reintroducing fragments from the slow introduction, encouraging anticipation of a Franck-like apotheosis. What follows is a mirage of one: timbres and textures of previous movements return, but incipient citations of themes dissolve. Where Franck delivers a full-blooded synthesis, Saint-Saëns follows through with trompe l'oreille.Saint-Saëns's misreadings of franckiste technique point to broader aesthetic conflicts. D'Indy enlisted cyclic form as a means to monumentality, which served the enseignement he esteemed as art's purpose. Déjà entendu and trompe l'oreille, on the other hand, register as classicising attributes which diverge from d'Indy's didactic objectives and which Saint-Saëns grouped under the rubric of ‘charm’, a conduit to what he considered an ideologically neutral ‘aesthetic sense’.

中文翻译：

---

圣桑的第一弦乐四重奏、循环形式和魅力美学

从 1850 年代开始，圣桑经常采用循环形式：通过在后期乐章中重新引入早期乐章的材料来建立大规模关系（尤其是在交响乐、室内乐作品等中）的做法。尽管如此，由于文化和政治原因，他在《第三交响曲》（1886 年）之后厌倦了这样的程序：弗兰克最重要的循环作品可以追溯到 1880 年代，d'Indy 宣称循环往复历史上确定的经典，而时期作家被认为是循环形式弗兰克斯特标志——尽管圣桑与弗兰克的追随者的关系恶化。在这篇文章中，我认为圣桑的第一弦乐四重奏（1899）“误读”了他的竞争对手对循环形式的方法，例如 d'Indy 的 1897 年第二四重奏（其中一个四音符单元充满了大多数主题）和弗兰克的四重奏（其中来自先前乐章的主题在最后的尾声中高潮迭起）。Saint-Saëns 的主题充满了微不足道的动机联系，这些联系吸引了听众的耳朵，但似乎太短暂和虚无缥缈，无法将其注册为可与 d'Indy 的透明细胞相媲美的结合元素。这种关系跨越了可理解性的门槛，它们产生了独特的情感品质：d'Indy 促进了对遗传关系的感知，Saint-Saëns 引起了一种似曾相识的感觉。最后的结尾同样通过重新引入缓慢引入的片段来取笑，鼓励人们期待弗兰克式的神化。接下来是海市蜃楼：先前乐章的音色和纹理回归，但最初的主题引用消失了。Franck 提供了全面的合成，而 Saint-Saëns 则继续错视画法.Saint-Saëns 的误读弗兰克斯特技术指向更广泛的审美冲突。D'Indy 将循环形式作为纪念性的一种手段，这服务于他视为艺术目的的 enseignement。Déjà entendu 和错视画法另一方面，将与 d'Indy 的说教目标背道而驰的经典属性注册为圣桑，将其归为“魅力”的标题，这是他认为意识形态中立的“审美意识”的管道。