sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
his letter to Nebuška, that his work with František Bartoš on the monumental Národní písně moravské v nově nasbírané [Moravian folksongs newly collected] (XIII/3), published in 1901, had taken up most of his time between the composition of Acts 1 and 2 of Jenůfa. 25 Tyrrell argues that another factor may have been Janáček’s exposure in January 1896 to Tchaikovsky’s Пиковая дама [The Queen of Spades]. Janáček’s review of the event (Piková dáma, XV/149) shows the extent to which he was taken with this opera, 26 and Tyrrell suggests that it was Tchaikovsky’s approach to musical dramaturgy, radically different from that of the relatively untested Janáček, that gave the latter pause for thought before he set out to tackle the dramatic and expressive demands of Acts 2 and 3 of Jenůfa, very different from those of Act 1. 27 By late 1901 Janáček had resumed work on the opera, 28 with the composition of Act 2 finished by the following summer (this Act in ŠVS was completed by Štross on 8 July 1902, one of the few helpful dates in either of the two surviving scores; see CHAPTER 2, §2.1). As is well known, the later stages of composition were bound up with the illness and subsequent death, on 26 February 1903, of Janáček’s daughter Olga. 29 Just a month earlier, on 25 January, Štross had finished copying ŠVS, and on 18 March 1903 Janáček put a completion date in his copy of Preissová’s play and in ŠVS (presumably after a final check through of both ŠFS and ŠVS). 30 Some time in the following weeks, Janáček submitted Jenůfa to the Prague National Theatre. Whatever faith he had in the opera that had cost him so much time 25 JODA, JP9. 26 LD I/1 -1 , 225–7; Eng. trans. Zemanová 1989, 176–9. 27 Tyrrell 1998, 14–15, and JYL i, 423–4 and 438–43. 28 JODA, 48. The possibility of an earlier resumption of work on the full score (or at least the copying of Act 1 by Štross) is raised by an erased date at the end of Act 1 in ŠFS: see CHAPTER 2, §2.1. 29 See for example Vogel 1963, 139–41 (Eng. trans. 144–7) and Přibáňová 1984b, 57–9. 30 JODA, 48; Tyrrell 1996, iv/Tyrrell 2000, ii–iii. 7
and effort, both physical and emotional, must have been offset by a well-founded sense of trepidation. For the music director in Prague was none other than the conductor, composer and sometime harpist Karel Kovařovic (1862–1920), whose own opera Ženichové [The bridegrooms, 1882; first performed Prague 1884] had been sent up by Janáček in a satirical review (XV/70) in the journal Hudební listy in January 1887. 31 Sure enough, at the end of April the scores of Jenůfa were returned to Janáček with a curt rejection from the National Theatre’s administrative director. 32 Janáček’s wife Zdenka then persuaded him, at first with difficulty, to allow the Brno National Theatre — a much smaller and less august institution than its Prague counterpart, based in a converted dance hall and with only a tiny chorus and orchestra — to stage the work. Well aware of the limitations of the Brno theatre, the composer nevertheless eventually agreed. A letter Janáček wrote on 3 October 1903 to Camilla Urválková 33 gives the first surviving indication of any pre-première revisions to Jenůfa: 31 Hudební listy, iii (1886–7), 54; reprinted in Štědroň 1946, 111–12 and LD I/1 -1 , 122; Eng. trans. in JODA, JP12. The attack on Ženichové must have seemed all the more personal given that Hudební listy was, in effect, Janáček’s ‘own’ journal, founded and edited by him; see JYL i, 287–96. Seven years later, when Janáček submitted Jenůfa to the Prague National Theatre, Kovařovic might well have reflected that Janáček’s earlier sarcastic suggestion of stage action more suitable for the music of Ženichové — ‘full of horrible gloom, desperate screams, bodies stabbed by daggers’ — pretty well summed up aspects of the action in Jenůfa. 32 Gustav Schmoranz to Janáček, 28 April 1903, JA vii, 17; Eng. trans. JODA, JP15. 33 Janáček had met Mrs Camilla Urválková (1875–1956) whilst holidaying at the Moravian spa of Luhačovice in August 1903; she was to provide the inspiration (together with Luhačovice itself) for his next opera, Osud [Fate] (I/5). See JODA, 109 and 366. 8
- Page 1 and 2: THE 1904 VERSION OF LEOŠ JANÁČEK
- Page 3 and 4: FOR MY FRIENDS, WITHOUT WHOSE NEVER
- Page 5 and 6: APPENDICES 145 APPENDIX I Programme
- Page 7 and 8: Jenůfa. Thanks in part to a certai
- Page 9 and 10: our knowledge of the work’s overa
- Page 11 and 12: Acknowledgements That the project o
- Page 13 and 14: using it. However long this project
- Page 15 and 16: people who have helped me through v
- Page 17 and 18: NOTES Copyright The reconstruction
- Page 19 and 20: UE 1996 Cz./Ger./Eng. full score, e
- Page 21 and 22: 1903 version (Urfassung/original ve
- Page 23 and 24: Of Janáček’s nine completed ope
- Page 25 and 26: manuscript sources. There are never
- Page 27: surviving sketch-leaf (SK) is anyth
- Page 31 and 32: performed in January 1904. In addit
- Page 33 and 34: most of the critics there were form
- Page 35 and 36: 1.5 Later revisions and publication
- Page 37 and 38: Jenůfa for Prague towards the end
- Page 39 and 40: That situation changed, however, wh
- Page 41 and 42: CHAPTER 2: SOURCES AND RECONSTRUCTI
- Page 43 and 44: folio suggests that this brief sket
- Page 45 and 46: ŠFS into line with the Kovařovic
- Page 47 and 48: Fig. 2.2 ŠFS I 203v, detail, rotat
- Page 49 and 50: or other details (erased or otherwi
- Page 51 and 52: Fig. 2.5 ŠVS II 53r (II/vi/126-43)
- Page 53 and 54: list is amended by Janáček, with
- Page 55 and 56: Fig. 2.6 OP violin 1: detail from A
- 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
his letter to Nebuška, that his work with František Bartoš on the monumental Národní<br />
písně moravské v nově nasbírané [Moravian folksongs newly collected] (XIII/3),<br />
published in 1901, had taken up most <strong>of</strong> his time between the composition <strong>of</strong> Acts 1<br />
and 2 <strong>of</strong> Jenůfa. 25 Tyrrell argues that another factor may have been Janáček’s<br />
exposure in January 1896 to Tchaikovsky’s Пиковая дама [<strong>The</strong> Queen <strong>of</strong> Spades].<br />
Janáček’s review <strong>of</strong> the event (Piková dáma, XV/149) shows the extent to which he<br />
was taken with this opera, 26 and Tyrrell suggests that it was Tchaikovsky’s approach<br />
to musical dramaturgy, radically different from that <strong>of</strong> the relatively untested Janáček,<br />
that gave the latter pause for thought before he set out to tackle the dramatic and<br />
expressive demands <strong>of</strong> Acts 2 and 3 <strong>of</strong> Jenůfa, very different from those <strong>of</strong> Act 1. 27<br />
By late 1901 Janáček had resumed work on the opera, 28 with the composition<br />
<strong>of</strong> Act 2 finished by the following summer (this Act in ŠVS was completed by Štross<br />
on 8 July 1902, one <strong>of</strong> the few helpful dates in either <strong>of</strong> the two surviving scores; see<br />
CHAPTER 2, §2.1). As is well known, the later stages <strong>of</strong> composition were bound up<br />
with the illness and subsequent death, on 26 February 1903, <strong>of</strong> Janáček’s daughter<br />
Olga. 29 Just a month earlier, on 25 January, Štross had finished copying ŠVS, and on<br />
18 March 1903 Janáček put a completion date in his copy <strong>of</strong> Preissová’s play and in<br />
ŠVS (presumably after a final check through <strong>of</strong> both ŠFS and ŠVS). 30<br />
Some time in the following weeks, Janáček submitted Jenůfa to the Prague<br />
National <strong>The</strong>atre. Whatever faith he had in the opera that had cost him so much time<br />
25 JODA, JP9.<br />
26 LD I/1 -1 , 225–7; Eng. trans. Zemanová 1989, 176–9.<br />
27 Tyrrell 1998, 14–15, and JYL i, 423–4 and 438–43.<br />
28 JODA, 48. <strong>The</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> an earlier resumption <strong>of</strong> work on the full score (or at least the copying<br />
<strong>of</strong> Act 1 by Štross) is raised by an erased date at the end <strong>of</strong> Act 1 in ŠFS: see CHAPTER 2, §2.1.<br />
29 See for example Vogel 1963, 139–41 (Eng. trans. 144–7) and Přibáňová 1984b, 57–9.<br />
30 JODA, 48; Tyrrell 1996, iv/Tyrrell 2000, ii–iii.<br />
7