sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham

most pages of the score; unlike Janáček’s they are for the most part a combination of
practical changes concerning dynamic markings (necessary for performing an opera
such as Jenůfa in a larger metropolitan theatre) and cosmetic ones concerning finer
details of phrasing and orchestral retouching: the sort of changes that were customary
for conductors of the period to make. Even Kovařovic’s most celebrated alteration —
the ‘canonic’ reworking of the horn parts in the opera’s closing orchestral tutti — is
little more than a realisation (albeit a highly effective one) of an idea already latent in
Janáček’s ending.
3.5 Summary of revision trends
It should be clear from the foregoing that, despite some significant areas of overlap in
the revisions to Jenůfa as they went through their various stages, there were several
distinct phases to its gradual emergence and socialisation, between its initial
composition and its eventual acceptance in Prague in 1916. The first phase, represented
in the revisions finished by Janáček in October 1903, was essentially one of
rationalisation, with notational recasting, clarification and metrical reordering to the
fore: all important aspects for conveying the composer’s initial vision of the work to its
performers. Already, however, some significant changes to the musical substance
(notably the Act 1 finale) and even to declamation (as evident in the Kostelnička’s Act 1
aria) are evident.
The next phase, in the summer of 1906, can be seen as a direct response to the
experience of the first run of performances which, no doubt both because and in spite of
evident local shortcomings, will have highlighted both practical and expressive issues.
At this stage, for what was in the event only a very brief revival, that most tried and
tested weapon in the arsenal of operatic revision was brought into play: the cut. Yet,
134