ver, with all the tension we’ve seen, this half a beat is hardly convincing of a strong tonicization of I. It is a weak tonicization though, and that is elaborated on in the next two bars. There is a C in the bass mimicking the treble triplet figure earlier. Measure 21 begins with a I (C) chord. The third beat is a viio which returns to I in bar 22. The third beat of bar 22 is an Italian 6th which moves back to I in bar 23 (the resolution in the chord from tritone to 6th is delayed one beat in the treble with a pedal C in the bass). Tonal analysis is not the only important thing in these two bars. The figure that moves from 6-5 and 4-3 in the first beat of measure 21 is repeated with variation in the first beats of 22 and 23. The variations borrow from the parallel minor scales. This contributes to the ambiguity of C as I. The tonic is still not clearly established. The fact that the bass moved from V to I from 20 to 21 but that VI was sustained in the treble implies that IV is not really gone. These things make the tonality vague, it’s the Italian 6th that defines the tonality. An Italian 6th is supposed to resolve to V and then to I. Since the Italian 6th here resolves to C, then C must be V, which means what we thought was IV is actually I (F). This is why when the tritone in beat one of bar 23 resolves to C, we are not completely satisfied. When theme one returns in F the entire developement has been resolved. The first theme reenters in its original key and the piece continues without much dilineation from the original exposition. The first theme’s antecedant and consequent phrases occur twice, the second time with variation. The bridge, however, is quite different. The first bar of the bridge has similar rythymic and directional figures as the the begginning of the bridge in the exposition. The tonality, though, has changed. Also the ambitus of the treble figures in the two first bars is oppo...
