(Ebook PDF) Canadian Criminal Justice Policy Instant Download
(Ebook PDF) Canadian Criminal Justice Policy Instant Download
download
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-canadian-criminal-
justice-policy/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-canadian-criminal-
justice-a-primer-5th-canadian-edition/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-canadian-criminal-
justice-a-primer-6th-edition-by-curt-griffiths/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-criminal-investigation-
justice-series-the-justice-series-3rd-edition/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-criminal-procedure-
justice-series-the-justice-series-3rd-edition/
(eBook PDF) Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice
Professional 12th Edition
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-criminal-procedure-for-
the-criminal-justice-professional-12th-edition/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-career-guide-in-
criminal-justice/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-multiculturalism-crime-
and-criminal-justice/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/introduction-to-criminal-
justice-9th-edition-ebook-pdf/
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-criminal-justice-the-
essentials-4th-edition/
CANADIAN CRIMINAL
Justice Policy
Contemporary Perspectives
emergent or recast in a manner that poses unique challenges for policy-makers, for
the criminal justice system, and for society (e.g., terrorism, immigration, organized
crime, welfare, drugs, and technology). The contributors were each asked to scru-
tinize their topic through a policy lens and were guided to consider the following
sorts of questions along the way:
How did the issue come to the attention of policy-makers? Were special
interest groups advancing agendas? Was there some spectacular event? Did
bureaucrats or government officials perceive the issue as a problem? How
were policy issues defined and framed? What characterizations were domi-
nant? Was there a struggle over ideas?
What was the reform process? Who was involved? How were reforms
presented to the public? Or did the issue not even make it into the public
debate? Did the reforms succeed or fail to make it through the legislative
process?
What effect did the policy have? Did it change anything? Why or why not?
What does the future hold?
Is there a symbolic dimension to the policy?
What was the impact on those who were affected by this policy?
How did this policy affect other policies or legislation already in place? For
example, did addressing one area cause a spillover into other areas?
Were there implementation challenges?
Has the policy been evaluated? What were the findings?
How does the policy balance security, equity, liberty, and efficiency? What
does the analysis reveal about crime policy in Canada? What does it reveal
about the Canadian political system? What does it reveal about Canada’s
connection to the world?
We contend that if we explore topics through a policy lens and consider ques-
tions such as those presented above, our understanding of crime and criminal
justice in Canada can be enhanced. Through the various contributions in this
book, readers will come to appreciate some of the distinctive features of Canadian
criminal justice policy, along with other features that are shared with nations such
as Australia, Great Britain, and the United States. Highlighting these differences
and similarities is only one of the myriad reasons this book was developed. An
equally compelling rationale relates to the observation that while the study of
crime policy in Canada has matured significantly in recent years, evidence of that
maturity is not as visible as it could be. Part of the reason for this is simply because
the work of scholars and practitioners is dispersed across a wide range of academic,
governmental, and popular publication venues. Added to that is the reality that
localism and regionalism remain enduring features of Canada. As will become
clear, local and regional contexts matter: the lessons learned from policies pursued
in Ontario,Vancouver, or Winnipeg, for example, often resonate beyond provincial
borders, providing ample opportunity for others to learn from their experience.
This book can thus be viewed as an attempt to bring coherence and visibility to
the study of Canadian criminal justice policy via the work of experts located
across the country. Our goal is to provide a foundation from which policy-makers,
practitioners, scholars, students, and members of the public can discuss and debate
important ideas, trends, and controversies, and do so in an informed manner.
Before outlining some of the unique aspects of Canadian criminal justice
policy, we will first discuss of some key concepts and distinctive features of crim-
inal justice policy. We will provide a brief overview of the factors that have con-
tributed to the recent interest in this policy area. When these are viewed together,
it will become clear that the time has come for Canadian criminal justice policy
to establish itself as a focus of research and analysis and as an applied field of study.
a process that unfolds over a period of time (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984, pp. 12–19).
Such descriptions provide insight into the sheer range of activities that constitute
policy, and serve to highlight why it is important to consider the specific context
in which the term is used.
Public policy is a decision or action of government that addresses a public problem
or issue. It is widely accepted that for a policy to be considered public policy,‘it must
to some degree have been generated or at least processed within the framework of
governmental procedures, influences and organizations’ (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984,
p. 24). Unlike the vast majority of private sector policies, public policies are funded
through public resources and backed up by the legal system. This latter feature is
particularly important to criminal justice policy, since it is the threat of sanctions—
including the loss of liberty—that is a defining characteristic in this policy area.
All public policy—including criminal justice policy—is the outcome of a pro-
cess that is important to uncover and explore. That process has been conceptual-
ized in a number of ways, with the most popular images emphasizing a series of
stages and/or a series of steps. The former might include the identification of a
problem, agenda setting, the formulation of policy proposals, policy adoption,
policy implementation, and evaluation. Deborah Stone (1988, p. 5) summarizes
the steps commonly associated with the policy process in the following manner:
‘identify objectives; identify alternative courses of action for achieving objectives;
predict and evaluate the possible consequences of each alternative; select the
alternative that maximizes the attainment of objectives.’
While useful, both conceptualizations have been criticized for not capturing
the reality of the policy process. For example, policy-making rarely proceeds in a
linear and wholly rational manner.This observation has prompted the development
of alternative models that highlight the ‘somewhat anarchic’ nature of policy-
making (Jones & Newburn, 2005, p. 61). One such model—the structured inter-
action perspective—‘does not assume a single decision-maker, addressing a clear
policy problem: it focuses on the range of participants in the game, the diversity of
their understandings of the situation and the problem, the ways in which they
interact with one another, and the outcomes of this interaction. It does not assume
that this pattern of activity is a collective effort to achieve known and shared goals’
(Colebatch, 1998, p. 102). Far from policy-making being a rational enterprise, these
models point to the volatility that is characteristic of the everyday policy-making
process. Value differences, the role of interest groups, shifts in public mood, and
decisions based on political ambitions and institutional constraints are only a few of
the many challenges encountered in contemporary policy environments. Such
forces, critics contend, make rational policy action unlikely, especially in fields like
criminal justice.The reality is more dynamic, volatile, and even chaotic.This debate
among policy researchers should not, however, diminish the importance of exam-
ining the policy process. As the political scientist Peter Solomon has noted (1981,
p. 5), such an examination can facilitate our understanding of how the political
process negotiates change, helps us identify the constraints the process places upon
the translation of ideas and analysis into action, describes the degree to which vari-
ous actors influence the movement of criminal justice proposals through the policy
process, and provides insight into how politics determines what is and can be
implemented. While dominated by governments and their duly constituted public
agencies, the policy-making process is not restricted to state actors. A diverse array
of stakeholders, including those from civil society and the private sector, take an
active role in attempting to shape the substance and direction of policy (see, for
example, Hyshka, 2009).
Finally, it is important to note that crime policies have multiple purposes: they
identify and define those behaviours deemed unacceptable to society and thus
punishable by law; they nurture and support the informal social controls that
reduce the incidence of crime in society; they provide a framework through which
the formal apparatus of social control—the criminal justice system—operates; they
both authorize and constrain the behaviour of criminal justice officials; and they
trigger a course of action that can lead to the deprivation of individual liberty, the
ultimate punishment provided for in Canadian criminal law. While the criminal
justice system functions to provide safety and security where other informal social
controls have weakened or otherwise broken down, its authority must be exercised
within the rule of law and, ideally, be implemented free of favour or bias.
It will become apparent when reading the various contributions to this book
that the authors ascribe different meanings to policy, identify a range of purposes
to the policies they examine, employ different methods to study policy, and bring
a variety of theoretical perspectives to bear when examining and evaluating poli-
cies and the processes that created them. Although some may view this lack of
agreement as an impediment to sound and systematic criminal justice policy
analysis, we contend that it is an important starting point from which to build a
comprehensive understanding of the challenges and dilemmas confronting those
thinking about and working within this policy area.
environment, the development of coherent criminal justice policy that reflects the
needs and expectations of each component of the ‘system’ becomes a significant
challenge. And in situations where a degree of consensus on policy is secured, dif-
ferences can often arise at the implementation phase.
A further explanation for institutional fragmentation is advanced by Nagel and
his associates, who contend that fragmentation is the result of differences in train-
ing, status, and ideology among police, courts, and corrections personnel. These
differences reflect ‘the kinds of authority relationships that exist in the sub-system
organizations. Positive sanction and normative power are more prevalent among
legally trained professionals in the system. Negative sanctions and coercive power
tend to be stressed in law enforcement and, at least in relation to custodial work,
in correctional organizations. All of these factors lead to diverse organizational
climates that surround the different components of the system’ (1983, p. 9). It is
worth noting that institutional fragmentation can also exist within subsystem
organizations. For example, it is not uncommon to find police leaders and rank-
and-file officers, or Crown counsel and defence lawyers, holding contrasting views
on important policy issues.
Because criminal law and criminal justice policy are expected to embody
fundamental principles of society, a further distinctive characteristic of the field is
the symbolic quality of the content involved (Gusfield, 1963; Hagan, 1983; New-
burn & Jones, 2007). Crime and criminal justice are also symbols that have the
potential to arouse, widen, and deepen public interest by appealing to ideological
or moral concerns (Edelman, 1988; Scheingold, 1984, 1991). They condense a
number of stresses that people experience in their day-to-day lives, and are
powerful because they relate to the moral, ethical, and cultural concerns of the
social order (Nagel et al., 1983, p. 11). Their potential to evoke strong and often
emotional responses suggests that crime and criminal justice symbols are espe-
cially vulnerable to transformation for strategic purposes: ‘The symbolic implica-
tions of the criminal law and of law and order politics are particularly interesting
because the emotional issues involved easily lend themselves to demagogic
excesses. This is especially true in light of the fact that the workings of the crim-
inal justice system are quite complex and not well understood by the public,
which tends to oversimplify the issues that are involved’ (Nagel et al., 1983, pp.
11–12). The symbolic dimension of crime and criminal justice can also be used
strategically. Newburn and Jones recently made this point in their examination of
the international popularity of zero tolerance in contemporary criminal justice.
Zero tolerance, they argue, is now widely used by politicians, policy-makers, and
criminal justice officials ‘when there is a need to indicate strong measures and
clear resolve’ (2007, p. 222). In this sense, the term has been deployed to ‘convey
a mood and to impress an audience rather than in any concrete way to describe
a set of policies or to frame particular objectives’ (2007, p. 236). The variability of
both the meaning of criminal justice and the symbols underlying that meaning
compels an analysis of the evolving material basis of the symbol, as well as the
(see Hatt et al., 1992). While this makes for lively interchanges between political
candidates and may indeed be consequential to the public in terms of election
outcomes, the story of Canadian criminal justice is one of general resistance to the
volatility that is so often associated with ideological and partisan preferences.
Whether this will remain the case is difficult to say, and there are indications
that the resistance (or insulating factors) is weakening. This can be a source of
frustration for criminologists, who find that it is increasingly the case that empir-
ical research about crime has an uneasy relationship with the values and needs that
often dominate the world of politics and policy (Hawkesworth, 1988, ch. 3).
Indeed, the belief that scholarly knowledge alone determines policy outcomes is
naive (Laub, 2004, p. 18). If there is one lesson to be learned from the decline of
criminological influence in the contemporary period, it is that pure reason com-
petes with politics in shaping state responses to the crime ‘problem’ (Zajac, 2002,
p. 252). As Henry Ruth and Kevin Reitz have said:
There is no doubt that data and empirical evidence supply only some of
the inputs that influence the making of policy, and that they can be over-
ridden by contrary moral sentiments, the tides of cultural change, the
vagaries of politics, emotionalism, sensationalism, residual ignorance, and
the inertial forces of laziness, habit, and vested interests. All of the messiness
of real-world decision-making, even when fully acknowledged and experi-
enced, does not diminish the importance of striving for an improved
knowledge base. (2003, pp. 39–40)
The desire for crime policy to be rational and based on the best possible evi-
dence remains a basic—albeit elusive—goal for many criminologists and policy-
makers. While the increasingly complex policy environment suggests that this
goal may not be attainable, it has not deterred an influential group of criminolo-
gists to argue that ‘rational and evidence-based crime policy’ is the only way to
counter the various forces described above (see Welsh & Farrington, 2005; Mears,
2007). Those who identify with this perspective point to a variety of problems
that can be found in many criminal justice policies. Mears (2007) has noted sev-
eral such problems: the lack of an empirically justified need for the policy in the
first place; problematic design issues, such as gaps between the theory guiding the
policy and the policy ultimately pursued; implementation problems of various
sorts; the lack of evaluation, or an undue emphasis on the results of evaluations
conducted; and, finally, the lack of effective cost-benefit analyses that might serve
to guide investment decisions.Whether an evidence-based crime policy can fulfill
its ambition of using the ‘highest quality scientific evidence in the development
of public policy’ remains to be seen (Welsh & Farrington, 2005, p. 350). Neverthe-
less, we see this ambition as a further indication of how the study of criminal
justice policy can contribute to improving an underdeveloped knowledge base
and help begin to reverse the decline in influence experienced by criminologists
in recent years (Beckett, 1997; Garland, 2001; Gest, 2001; Ruth & Reitz, 2003;
Currie, 2007; Clear, 2010).
The argument accepted by the United States and Australia that criminal
law should reflect local conditions and sentiments was rejected by the fath-
ers of confederation in favor of a national body of law. However . . . for the
most part, the Criminal Code is enforced by the provinces; and the deci-
sions to investigate, charge and prosecute offenses are therefore matters of
provincial policy which will no doubt be framed in response to local
conditions and sentiments. In this way, the criminal law is not as centralized
as other fields of federal legislative competence, where federal administra-
tion normally follows federal enactment. (1985, p. 398)
While the constitutional and legal authority for federal and provincial involve-
ment in criminal justice policy is entrenched in the Constitution, it would be
inaccurate to suggest that the two levels of government hold a monopoly in this
area. In practice, much of the actual development, administration, and implemen-
tation of justice policy remain in the hands of local officials and professionals, in
institutions that are effectively beyond the reach of both levels of government
(Solomon, 1981, p. 7). This can be traced back to the tradition, prominent in the
United Kingdom and Canada, of keeping the administration of justice free from
political interference. The result is judicial and law enforcement policy that is set
locally, often with unique features that can only be understood in reference to
what Solomon calls the ‘local legal culture’. Indeed, it is the local legal culture,
rather than centrally determined policy, that is often cited as the dominant ‘source
of judicial and policy practice’ (Solomon, 1981, p. 7).
Since 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has functioned as part of
Canada’s supreme law, guaranteeing ‘a set of civil liberties that are regarded as so
important that they should receive immunity, or at least special protection, from
state action’ (Hogg, 1985, p. 651). These include freedoms such as the freedom of
expression, the right to vote, mobility rights, various minority rights, and rights
guaranteeing fairness during legal proceedings. Protection of these fundamental
rights and freedoms is accomplished through the courts. If a law is challenged and
found to violate Charter rights, it is voided, thus guaranteeing that civil liberties
are protected from the actions of legislators, state agencies, and state officials. The
entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dramatically expanded the
courts’ scope of judicial review, as well as their policy-making function (the chap-
ter by Roach in this volume discusses the interplay between the courts and Parlia-
ment in the shaping of recent national security policy).
The expanded policy-making role of the courts has had a significant impact on
the administration of justice and, by extension, on the content of criminal justice
policy in Canada. Generally, cases are pursued to determine whether state action
and/or legislation violates one or more of the legal rights guaranteed in sections
7–14 of the Charter (e.g., the right to counsel, the right to be secure from unreason-
able search and seizure, the right to a speedy trial, the right to be presumed inno-
cent, and the right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment). If it is
determined that violations have occurred, either through the actions of state offi-
cials or through the laws themselves, the courts can impose a remedy for those so
aggrieved (via s. 24(1) of the Charter).This provision has dramatically increased the
use of litigation as a form of interest-group activity, deeply embedding in Canada
the expression of political demands in the language of rights. Whereas traditional
interest-group activity emphasized interactions with bureaucrats, legislators,
political parties, and, to a lesser extent, the courts, section 24(1) offers a path of
judicial review considerably more powerful and more accessible than was previ-
ously available to citizens. This not only provides a concrete example of how the
Charter has been transformative for individuals and groups, but also highlights the
significant impact it has had on all policy, including criminal justice policy.
Policy Networks
When analyzing criminal justice policy, it is important to consider the relationships
that develop among the various actors in the policy community. Governments, for
example, can ill afford to develop policy that will be met with criticism from pro-
fessionals. Close ties with professional groups are cultivated to preclude such occur-
rences.Views are solicited and perspectives shared.The opinions of professionals are
considered vital, and their support essential (Pross, 1986, p. 98). Similarly, profes-
sional organizations seek to ensure that their positions on issues are represented at
various stages of the policy process. Their involvement goes a long way toward
ensuring that that objective is met. It is this close and privileged access to the policy
development process that often distinguishes the influence of professionally ori-
ented groups from other interests in the criminal justice policy community.
In cases where a crime or criminal justice issue is in the public spotlight,
elected officials are particularly responsive to public concerns and pay correspond-
ingly less attention to the views of policy professionals, including criminologists. It
is therefore inaccurate to state that non-professional interest groups are completely
shut out from the sub-government in the criminal justice policy community. The
views of a number of reform-oriented interest groups are considered vital and
essential to the policy process, particularly those with an established presence in
the policy community. Indeed, if there is one trend that has characterized the
policy community over the past three decades, it is the increasing number of
maturing interests that have developed around issues of criminal justice. Institu-
tionalized victims’ groups, groups working toward the elimination of violence
against women, and others focused on the needs of minorities are proliferating. All
are seeking to influence the shape and direction of public policy.
The attentive public in the criminal justice policy community is also expanding.
As Fairchild has noted, ‘Matters of criminal law go to the heart of questions about
governmental legitimacy, state authority, and other popular conceptions of right
and wrong, and are thus of closer concern to many individuals than are most other
legislative issues’ (1981, p. 189). This explains, in large part, the increase in the
number of ad hoc and single-issue reform interests that have recently been created
around various criminal justice issues. The attentive public obtains much of its
information about crime and the criminal justice system from the media. Because
the coverage of crime is so prominent in ‘all means of mass communications,
including daily and weekly newspapers, television, radio, news magazines, and so
on’ (Marion, 2002, p. 39), both the quantity and nature of media imagery can have
a significant influence on how crime is perceived and, ultimately, on which crim-
inal justice policies are pursued. Viewed in this light, the manner in which crime
and criminal justice issues are framed by the mainstream media becomes a signifi-
cant contextual feature of the policy community. As Marion has stated:
The media is important because it educates the public about crime. Unfortu-
nately, the media’s coverage of crime events does not reflect reality. The
media tend to cover crimes that occur less frequently such as mass shootings
and extremely violent offenses. Although they make for good media ratings,
these types of crimes are rare. In addition to misrepresenting the types of
crimes committed, television shows tend to depict stereotypes of criminals,
prisoners, and victims that are usually not accurate. (2002, p. 40)
crime and knowledge about crime (Roberts, 1994, p. 1). It is difficult to narrow
this gulf in a policy sector where political reaction to the public’s anxiety over
crime is commonplace. This is especially troubling because it is these very reac-
tions that often serve to reinforce and perpetuate the inaccurate perceptions held
by a large segment of the population.
References
Atkinson, M., & Coleman, W. D. (1992). Clear, T. (2010). Policy and evidence: The
Policy networks, policy communities challenge to the American Society of
and problems of governance. Governance: Criminology. Criminology, 48(1), 1–25.
An International Journal of Policy and ———, & Frost, N. (2007). Informing public
Administration, 5, 155–80. policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 6(4),
Beckett, K. (1997). Making crime pay: Law and 633–40.
order in contemporary American politics. Colebatch, H. (1998). Policy. Buckingham,
New York: Oxford University Press. UK: Open University Press.
Canada. Constitutional Documents. Ottawa: Coleman, W. D., & Skogstad, G. (Eds.).
Department of Justice. Retrieved 7 June (1990). Policy communities and public policy
2011 from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/ in Canada. Mississauga: Copp Clark
Const/ Pitman.
Chancer, L., & McLaughlin, E. (2007). Public Currie, E. (2007). Against marginality:
criminologies: Diverse perspectives on Arguments for a public criminology.
academia and policy. Theoretical Criminol- Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 175–90.
ogy, 11(2), 155–73. Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political
Christie, N. (1993). Crime control as industry: spectacle. Chicago: University of
Towards gulags,Western style? London: Chicago Press.
Routledge. Fairchild, E. S. (1981). Interest groups in the
———. (2004). A suitable amount of crime. criminal justice process. Journal of
London: Routledge. Criminal Justice, 9, 181–94.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime justice policy: A contemporary reader
and social order in contemporary society. (pp. 1–18). Sudbury, MA: Jones and
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bartlett Publishers.
Gest, T. (2001). Crime and politics: Big Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). Policy
government’s erratic campaign for law and convergence and crime control in the
order. New York: Oxford University Press. USA and UK: Streams of influence and
Griffiths, C. T., & Verdun-Jones, S. N. (1994). levels of impact. Criminal Justice, 2(2),
Canadian criminal justice. Toronto: 173–203.
Harcourt, Brace and Company. ———. (2005). Comparative criminal justice
Gusfield, J. (1963). Symbolic Crusade. Urbana: policy-making in the United States and
University of Illinois Press. the United Kingdom: The case of private
prisons. British Journal of Criminology,
Hagan, J. (1983). The symbolic politics of
45(1), 58–80.
criminal sanctions. In S. Nagel et al.
(Eds.), The political science of criminal justice ———. (2007). Policy transfer and criminal
(pp. 27–39). Illinois: Thomas Books. justice. Maidenhead, UK: Open Univer-
sity Press.
Haggerty, K. (2004). Displaced expertise:
Three constraints on the policy relevance Laub, J. H. (2004). The life course of
of criminological thought. Theoretical criminology in the United States.
Criminology, 8(2), 211–31. Criminology, 42(1), 1–26.
Ham, C., & Hill, M. (1984). The policy process Majchrzak, A. (1984). Methods for Policy
in the modern capitalist state. Sussex: Research. London: Sage Publications.
Harvestor Press. Marion, N. E. (2002). Criminal justice in
Hatt, K., Caputo, T., & Perry, B. (1992). America:The politics behind the system.
Criminal justice policy under Mulroney, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
1984–1990: Neo-conservatism, eh? Mears, D. P. (2007). Towards rational and
Canadian Public Policy, 18(3), 245–60. evidence-based crime policy. Journal of
Hawkesworth, M. E. (1988). Theoretical issues Criminal Justice, 35, 667–82.
in policy analysis. Albany: SUNY Press. Miller, W. B. (1973). Ideology and criminal
Hogg, P. (1985). Constitutional Law of Canada. justice policy: Some current issues.
Toronto: Carswell. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
64(2), 141–62.
Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy
analysis for the real world. New York: Nagel, S., et al. (1983). Introduction: General
Oxford University Press. relations between political science and
Hyshka, E. (2009). The saga continues: criminal justice. In S. Nagel et al. (Eds.),
Canadian attempts to reform cannabis The political science of criminal justice (pp.
law in the twenty-first century. Canadian ix–xii). Illinois: Thomas Books.
Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, ———. (1983). Introduction. In S. Nagel et
51(1), 73–91. al. (Eds.), The political science of criminal
Ismaili, K. (2006). Contextualizing the justice (pp. 5–13). Illinois: Thomas Books.
criminal justice policy-making process. Newburn, T., & Jones, T. (2007). Symbolizing
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(3), crime control: Reflections on zero
255–69. tolerance. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2),
———. (2011). Thinking about criminal 221–43.
justice policy: Process, players, and Pross, A. P. (1986). Group politics and public
politics. In K. Ismaili (Ed.), U.S. criminal policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
String Quartets
The great series of string quartets begins with the six of opus 18,
published in 1801, and concludes, officially speaking, with the
masterpiece in F major, opus 135, completed only in 1826, but not
printed till something like half a year after his death. The half-dozen
works constituting the earlier opus had been ripening in the form of
sketches and experiments of one sort or another for several years.
They were finally issued in two numbers, each consisting of three
scores. It is not possible to determine precisely the order in which
they were written, but that fact is unimportant because the lot do not
exhibit any definite line of development. It seems that one version of
the first quartet, in F, was completed in 1799. Beethoven gave 48
it to his friend, the young ecclesiastical student Carl Amenda,
but asked him to show it to nobody because “I have altered it
considerably, having just learned to compose quartets aright.” Bekker
finds that the revision “tends to a freer, more soloistic treatment of
the accompanying parts, a clearer individualization of the cello part
and a greater tonal delicacy in the ensemble effects.... The main idea
of the composition, however, remained unchanged. This is no
disadvantage, for the fresh naiveté of the content and the
unassuming clarity of structure are great charms, and more would
have been lost than gained by overmeticulous revision. As the work
stands it is gratifying to the performer and offers pleasant, not over
difficult problems to the listener.”
The fourth work of the opus 18 set, in C minor, is more or less a work
distinct from its companions. “A mood of deep seriousness is
common to it and the C major Quintet, opus 29,” believes Bekker,
“but the Quartet is full of passionate excitement,” and he alludes to
its “mournful earnestness ... and restless dissatisfaction, the very
opposite of the cheerful sense of concord with the world and
mankind expressed in the other five.” The Quartet in A major has
been termed Mozartean by some, operatic by others. Certainly it is
fluent and lilting music, of which the Minuet is in some respects the
most winning portion even if the final Allegro excels it in
expressiveness.
There are two E-flat quartets in Beethoven’s output: the first, opus
74, is known as the “Harp” Quartet by reason of the numerous
passages of plucked strings in the first movement; the second is the
tremendous opus 127. The former is the dreamier, less challenging of
the two; it is rich not only in a sort of romanticism that looks forward
to the age of Schumann, but also in unexpected effects bearing the
unmistakable stamp of the Beethoven of the “Emperor” Concerto
period, though in its way it is rather less venturesome than the
“Rasoumovsky” trilogy. But the quartet that was written down in
1810—the F minor, opus 95—is in another category. It is the product
of a new period of emotional ferment and a disquiet pervades the
score with the irascible pertinacity of a gadfly. There is, indeed, a
new quality of storm and stress in this Quartetto Serioso, as the
composer himself designated it. Here he is in no mood for trifling. “At
the moment when Beethoven had fought out his battle, when he
could look back on all stages of the contest and taste the fruits of
victory, he became most intensely aware of what it had cost him,”
writes Paul Bekker, adding that “the autographed title shows that the
composer sought no happy solution of his problem”—in spite of
which the F minor Quartet does, surprisingly enough, end on a note
of laughter.
It must suffice here to point out that the E-flat Quartet places the
listener at once in a world of unimagined wonders. The very opening
measures of the first movement with their powerful chords sound like
a heraldic annunciation. The second movement, (“Adagio ma non
troppo e molto cantabile”) is a series of variations of deepest
earnestness. It is as if the composer endeavored to bring to his
hearers revelations newly unfolded to his searching vision. The
“Scherzando vivace” that follows is wildly and even uncannily
humorous—and, incidentally, the longest of Beethoven’s scherzos.
The Finale is a sort of triumphal march in which “some adventurer
from the heavens seems to visit the earth ... with tidings of gladness,
to return to his home in the heavens once more.”
Portrait of Beethoven in later life.
Etching of Beethoven’s study.
The sixteenth quartet, last of the series, is rather different from the
philosophical quartets that immediately preceded it. It is, on the
whole, of lighter weight, though its brief “Lento assai” movement
touches hands with the ineffable Cavatina of the B-flat Quartet. It is
the shortest, though one of the most moving, of Beethoven’s 55
slow movements. The last movement opens with a three-note
motto under which the composer wrote the words “Must it be?” and
followed it with another three-note theme (Allegro) inscribed with the
words “It must be!” Explanations have been numerous and often far-
fetched. There is reason to believe that this formula and the musical
embodiments of this interrogation and answer must be construed in
the light of the master’s philosophy, with its cheerful acceptance of
the inevitable. It looks almost like a purposeful reversion to the mood
of “La malinconia” episode in the B-flat Quartet of opus 18.
56
COLUMBIA RECORDS
Chopin—Les Sylphides—LP
Glinka—Mazurka—“Life of the Czar”—LP 7″
Grieg—Concerto in A minor for Piano and Orchestra, Op. 16 (with
Oscar Levant, piano)—LP
Herold—Zampa—Overture
Kabalevsky—“The Comedians,” Op. 26—LP
Khachaturian—Gayne—Ballet Suite No. 1—LP
Khachaturian—Gayne—Ballet Suite No. 2—LP
Lecoq—Mme. Angot Suite—LP
Prokofieff—March, Op. 99—LP
Rimsky-Korsakov—The Flight of the Bumble Bee—LP 7″
Shostakovich—Polka No. 3, “The Age of Gold”—LP 7″
Shostakovich—Symphony No. 9—LP
Shostakovich—Valse from “Les Monts D’Or”—LP
Villa-Lobos—Uirapuru—LP
Wieniawski—Concerto No, 2 in D minor for Violin and Orchestra, Op.
22 (with Isaac Stern, violin)—LP
Stravinsky—Firebird Suite—LP
Stravinsky—Fireworks (Feu d’Artifice)—LP
Stravinsky—Four Norwegian Moods
Stravinsky—Le Sacre du Printemps (The Consecration of the Spring)—
LP
Stravinsky—Scènes de Ballet—LP
Stravinsky—Suite from “Petrouchka”—LP
Stravinsky—Symphony in Three Movements—LP
59
Under the Direction of Dimitri Mitropoulos
Bernstein—“Age of Anxiety”
Gould—“Quick Step”—LP
Under the Direction of Darius Milhaud
Milhaud—Suite Française—LP
VICTOR RECORDS
60
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.F.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
ebooksecure.com