So, that bridge takes us to the second theme, in the relative major of E flat. While the left hand keeps this theme quite active (MUSIC), it really does provide a contrast with the opening, in all of the traditional ways: it’s in the relative major, it’s lyrical where the first theme was hyper-dramatic, and it has that open-and-shut symmetry which the first theme lacked. (MUSIC) This is a point in the piece where a comparison with the Pathetique is instructive. When the Pathetique’s second theme arrives, it’s still in minor, and its character really doesn’t provide much relief from the nervousness of the opening one. (MUSIC) It takes a while longer before the major, and the contrast in character that comes with it, arrives. In op. 10 no. 1, however, it arrives exactly on cue, with the first note of the second theme. (MUSIC) If the lack of a slow, drawn-out introduction didn’t already make it clear, the way the second theme functions really drives home the fact that despite the turmoil in its character, from a structural point of view, this piece is far more orderly than the Pathetique, its neighbor and relative. So orderly, in fact, that I have little more to say about the exposition! The second theme area is slightly more extensive than the first, but not much: after those initial mirror-image 8 bars, it quickly builds in excitement, and heads for a conclusion – the entire exposition takes less than a minute and a half to play. One thing I do want to take note of is the closing theme. Its presence here is not a surprise – sonata form movements often have closing themes – but it is very beautiful. The second theme may be lyrical in comparison with the first, but this closing theme is really the only moment in the movement where the nervous energy abates, where the character becomes tender, loving. (MUSIC) The exposition began with a bang, but it ends with a sigh.