sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham

the publication of Jenůfa in vocal score (see CHAPTER 1, §1.5), as well as the possibility
— however remote it must have seemed as time dragged on — of having the opera
accepted in Prague, appear to have prompted a fundamental reappraisal of the opera’s
musical dramaturgy which led in turn to the most far-reaching series of revisions in the
opera’s lengthy genesis.
3.3.1 Cuts
The extent of the resulting revisions is hinted at in APPENDIX VII, which presents bar-
counts for the opera at four different points in its post-compositional development:
1904, 1906, 1908 and 1916. A comparison of the columns gives some idea — albeit a
rather crude one — both of the scale of the differences between these distinct and
verifiable versions of the opera and of the scale of the changes made to the length of
the work over a period of a dozen years. In particular, it should be noted that the scale
of the cuts introduced by Janáček himself between 1906 and 1908 dwarfs those made
in 1915/16 by Kovařovic. And although this tabular summary does not address the
just as extensive alterations made to the remaining musical substance — by way of
changes to motivic content, orchestration, texture, vocal lines, etc. — it does suggest
the larger perspective in which Kovařovic’s much-discussed but essentially cosmetic
alterations should be viewed.
As with the earlier 1906 cuts, Janáček’s 1907/8 excisions range from one-,
two- or three-bar abridgements — removing repetitions and instrumental interjections,
and moving away from some of the more regular periodic structures of the 1904
version — to much larger-scale alterations. Among the latter are the further
abridgement of the Act 1 ensemble ‘A vy, muzikanti’ (see TABLE 3.2), and the even
more radical shortening of the solo/trio for Laca, Jenůfa and the Kostelnička launched
93