sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
3.2 From 1904 to 1906 As mentioned in CHAPTER 1, it was suggested by Bohumír Štědroň on the basis of a letter from Janáček to Kovařovic that the first layer of post-première revisions to Jenůfa may have been made as early February 1904. 7 On the whole, however, this seems unlikely. Firstly, Janáček may well have been referring in that letter to revisions made before the première, i.e. those made by October 1903. 8 Furthermore, all the available performance material would still have been at the Brno theatre (the autograph manuscript, still in Janáček’s possession at this stage, had already been rendered effectively redundant as performance material because of the pre-première revisions made to both ŠFS and ŠVS, as outlined above). Whilst ŠVS may possibly have been available to Janáček, enabling him to make changes to the voice parts, the singers would already have learnt their parts, making any significant alterations to their lines unlikely from a practical point of view. Furthermore, the evidence of the orchestral parts suggests that, with minor exceptions (most notably the removal of an harmonically awkward anticipatory motif for cello and bassoon before the beginning of the Kostelnička’s Act 3 confession), 9 the first substantive changes (a) occurred largely in the form of cuts and (b) appear not to have been made until 1906, in preparation for the three performances given by the Brno company that autumn. Hrazdira’s letter to Janáček of 11 July 1906 (see APPENDIX II) mentions relatively few changes compared with the number of cuts that were eventually made by that September (listed in full in APPENDIX IV). He suggests making cuts to the two Act 1 ensembles, ‘A vy, muzikanti’ and ‘Každý párek’, without giving details (‘I would copy out those passages and send them to you for you to inspect’), and two 7 CHAPTER 1, fn. 48. 8 Ibid. 9 III/x/32–3; see vol. II/3, p. 736, footnote. 87
more specific cuts, the first of two bars and the second of three, in Act 1 Scene 7. Presumably with Janáček’s approval, or even participation, these suggestions were greatly expanded upon in ŠVS (where the cuts seem first to have been made), and then transferred to ŠFS and OP. If the evidence of OP and LB is reliable (see CHAPTER 2), these cuts included the Kostelnička’s Act 1 aria, ‘Aji on byl zlatohřivý’ (cut no. 2 in APPENDIX IV), together with its introductory orchestral paragraph (Ex. 3.8; cut no. 1): 10 Ex. 3.8 The cutting of the Kostelnička’s aria at this stage is a significant one in the light of the criticisms in 1904 of the opera’s self-proclaimed but only imperfectly achieved ‘realism’. 11 For although this passage is not referred to in any of the contemporary 10 See CHAPTER 2, fn. 47. 11 See APPENDIX I and CHAPTER 1, §1.3. 88
- Page 57 and 58: 1904 bn 2 [OP] OPx title page and
- Page 59 and 60: On the facing page (the recto of th
- Page 61 and 62: Fig. 2.9 LB, 55: end of Act 3, show
- Page 63 and 64: issues of practical, pre-revision u
- Page 65 and 66: Jenůfa in 1913, providing a ‘sna
- Page 67 and 68: 2.2 Determining the 1904 version fr
- Page 69 and 70: Štědroň 1968b Tyrrell 1996 / Tyr
- Page 71 and 72: two ensembles in Act 1, ‘A vy, mu
- Page 73 and 74: een cut before the première. 46 Th
- Page 75 and 76: and 2 in unison (in the context of
- Page 77 and 78: nature of the changes, which can th
- Page 79 and 80: anomalous status there. 50 A furthe
- Page 81 and 82: Ex. 2.4b However much more practica
- Page 83 and 84: score. Playing standards have impro
- Page 85 and 86: Such instances have been tacitly co
- Page 87 and 88: Ex. 2.7 Articulation and phrasing E
- Page 89 and 90: Instrumentation In line with Univer
- Page 91 and 92: trombone 3 part, and in both ŠFS a
- Page 93 and 94: Act 1. On the basis of all availabl
- Page 95 and 96: development of twentieth-century op
- Page 97 and 98: 3.1 The Urfassung and the pre-premi
- Page 99 and 100: seems also to reflect an original c
- Page 101 and 102: could speculate that the change of
- Page 103 and 104: accompaniment evaporates completely
- Page 105 and 106: This radical pre-première revision
- Page 107: corresponds to the present figs 122
- Page 111 and 112: with the same words, but also agree
- Page 113 and 114: and 16b in APPENDIX IV) to Laca’s
- Page 115 and 116: y Laca’s ‘Chci, Jenůfka’ —
- Page 117 and 118: Other extensive cuts made at this s
- Page 119 and 120: Ex. 3.12 3.3.2 Textural alterations
- Page 121 and 122: Ex. 3.13b This revision is similar
- Page 123 and 124: Ex. 3.16 Sinfonietta VI/18 (1926),
- Page 125 and 126: Ex. 3.19 Other instances of motivic
- Page 127 and 128: In 1908 Janáček delays the appear
- Page 129 and 130: Whilst a general trend at this stag
- Page 131 and 132: Ex. 3.25b 3.3.3 Folk passages and t
- Page 133 and 134: Fig. 3.2 BJ III, 900. The use by et
- Page 135 and 136: sketch for the oboe melody of the p
- Page 137 and 138: Ex. 3.27c In his 1907 changes to th
- Page 139 and 140: Janáček added ‘Maestoso con mot
- Page 141 and 142: Jenůfa’s cheek is slashed, but a
- Page 143 and 144: Ex. 3.33a Ex. 3.33b 122
- Page 145 and 146: so that the stress fell on the firs
- Page 147 and 148: the controversy surrounding Josef C
- Page 149 and 150: Although numerous instances of smal
- Page 151 and 152: Ex. 3.42a Ex. 3.42b This example al
- Page 153 and 154: ‘vertical’ dimensions: the harm
- Page 155 and 156: most pages of the score; unlike Jan
- Page 157 and 158: establishment of the 1904 score, pu
3.2 From 1904 to 1906<br />
As mentioned in CHAPTER 1, it was suggested by Bohumír Štědroň on the basis <strong>of</strong> a<br />
letter from Janáček to Kovařovic that the first layer <strong>of</strong> post-première revisions to<br />
Jenůfa may have been made as early February 1904. 7 On the whole, however, this<br />
seems unlikely. Firstly, Janáček may well have been referring in that letter to<br />
revisions made before the première, i.e. those made by October 1903. 8 Furthermore,<br />
all the available performance material would still have been at the Brno theatre (the<br />
autograph manuscript, still in Janáček’s possession at this stage, had already been<br />
rendered effectively redundant as performance material because <strong>of</strong> the pre-première<br />
revisions made to both ŠFS and ŠVS, as outlined above). Whilst ŠVS may possibly<br />
have been available to Janáček, enabling him to make changes to the voice parts, the<br />
singers would already have learnt their parts, making any significant alterations to<br />
their lines unlikely from a practical point <strong>of</strong> view. Furthermore, the evidence <strong>of</strong> the<br />
orchestral parts suggests that, with minor exceptions (most notably the removal <strong>of</strong> an<br />
harmonically awkward anticipatory motif for cello and bassoon before the beginning<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Kostelnička’s Act 3 confession), 9 the first substantive changes (a) occurred<br />
largely in the form <strong>of</strong> cuts and (b) appear not to have been made until 1906, in<br />
preparation for the three performances given by the Brno company that autumn.<br />
Hrazdira’s letter to Janáček <strong>of</strong> 11 July 1906 (see APPENDIX II) mentions<br />
relatively few changes compared with the number <strong>of</strong> cuts that were eventually made<br />
by that September (listed in full in APPENDIX IV). He suggests making cuts to the two<br />
Act 1 ensembles, ‘A vy, muzikanti’ and ‘Každý párek’, without giving details (‘I<br />
would copy out those passages and send them to you for you to inspect’), and two<br />
7 CHAPTER 1, fn. 48.<br />
8 Ibid.<br />
9 III/x/32–3; see vol. II/3, p. 736, footnote.<br />
87