sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
in the form simply of cuts; see CHAPTER 2, §2.2, and CHAPTER 3, §3.2). However that may be, both Janáček’s revisions and the publication by the Klub přátel umění can be seen as part of a wider campaign for the opera’s performance in Prague stemming from the sense of injustice felt by Janáček’s many supporters in Brno that Jenůfa had still not been taken up by the National Theatre there. As discussed in some detail by Štědroň, Janáček’s 1906/7 changes resulting in KPU were substantial, 56 and the Brno audience must have been keen to hear the result. This much seems clear from an often overlooked notice by the critic Hubert Doležil in the journal Hudební revue of 1909, complaining that plans to perform Jenůfa in Brno that season had been dropped: A composer of so rare a type and such great originality as Janáček surely has the right to be performed, especially when it is known that he has made considerable alterations to his work which he deserves to hear and which the public, quite rightly, want to know and judge. 57 A period of upheaval at the Brno National Theatre, which included the departure of Hrazdira in 1907, meant that the revised Jenůfa in the end had to wait until 1911 for a series of five further performances in Brno (the conducting shared by Rudolf Pavlata and Josef Winkler); 58 one more isolated performance was given there two years later, on 25 March 1913. Only after a concerted effort by Janáček’s friends, Dr František Veselý and his wife Marie Calma-Veselá, did Kovařovic eventually relent, accepting 56 ZGJ, 84–110. 57 Hudební revue, ii (1909), 71; partial Eng. trans. in Štědroň 1955, 109. 58 According to a note in the trumpet 1 part. Josef Winkler (1885–1942) was conductor at the Brno Theatre in 1907–8, 1909–11 and 1912–1919 (JODA, 105, fn. 2); however the première of the new production on 31 January was conducted by Rudolf Pavlata (1873–1939), cello teacher at the Brno Organ School, who conducted at the Brno Theatre in 1908–11 (JODA, 149, fn. 1). 15
Jenůfa for Prague towards the end of 1915 on condition that he be allowed to make cuts of his own, a condition Janáček gladly accepted at the time. 59 The story of the Prague production, of Janáček’s initial enthusiasm for and later repudiation of the ‘Kovařovic’ version is well rehearsed in the Janáček literature. 60 It was this Prague version of the opera that was published by Universal Edition (UE 1917 and UE 1918), and performed increasingly widely thereafter, particularly in the many opera houses of Germany. 1.6 Restoration of ‘Janáček’s’ Jenůfa It was the Brno-based scholar Hynek Kašlík who first attempted — with a fair degree of success — to identify and unpick Kovařovic’s orchestral retouchings. 61 His pioneering doctoral thesis (Brno, 1934, now apparently lost) was based on the conducting score made for Kovařovic’s Prague performances by J. Košťálek and now housed in the Janáček Archive in Brno. 62 Kašlík’s work led in turn to a 1941 radio broadcast of excerpts under the conductor Břetislav Bakala (yet another Organ School pupil of Janáček’s) using the manuscript Brno parts. This was, however, a performance of Janáček’s final version, the result of his own revisions of 1906/7 (i.e. the ‘1908’ version), plus the further changes he had made between 1911 and 1915, prompted by the Brno revivals of 1911 and 1913 and the growing prospect of a Prague 59 Janáček to Kovařovic, 10 December 1915; JODA, JP79. 60 See especially JODA, 64–77, JA vii and Maria Calma[-Veselá]: ‘Z boje pro Janáčkovou Pastorkyni’ [From the battle for Janáček’s Jenůfa] , Listy Hudební matice, iv (1924–5), 137–47. Janáček’s changing attitude to Kovařovic’s revisions — from his initial enthusiastic acceptance and delight at the resulting successful productions in Prague, Vienna and Berlin, to his later bitterness at the damage these retouchings had done to his own reputation as a composer — is documented in JODA, JP79, JODA 77–91 and 100–7; see also Tyrrell 1996, vii–x / Tyrrell 2000, iv–v. 61 See Kašlík 1938. 62 BmJA, A33.744 a–c. See Tyrrell 1996, xiv / Tyrrell 2000, vii. 16
- 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 and 28: surviving sketch-leaf (SK) is anyth
- Page 29 and 30: and effort, both physical and emoti
- Page 31 and 32: performed in January 1904. In addit
- Page 33 and 34: most of the critics there were form
- Page 35: 1.5 Later revisions and publication
- 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
- 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
in the form simply <strong>of</strong> cuts; see CHAPTER 2, §2.2, and CHAPTER 3, §3.2). However that<br />
may be, both Janáček’s revisions and the publication by the Klub přátel umění can be<br />
seen as part <strong>of</strong> a wider campaign for the opera’s performance in Prague stemming<br />
from the sense <strong>of</strong> injustice felt by Janáček’s many supporters in Brno that Jenůfa had<br />
still not been taken up by the National <strong>The</strong>atre there. As discussed in some detail by<br />
Štědroň, Janáček’s 1906/7 changes resulting in KPU were substantial, 56 and the Brno<br />
audience must have been keen to hear the result. This much seems clear from an <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
overlooked notice by the critic Hubert Doležil in the journal Hudební revue <strong>of</strong> 1909,<br />
complaining that plans to perform Jenůfa in Brno that season had been dropped:<br />
A composer <strong>of</strong> so rare a type and such great originality as Janáček surely has the right<br />
to be performed, especially when it is known that he has made considerable<br />
alterations to his work which he deserves to hear and which the public, quite rightly,<br />
want to know and judge. 57<br />
A period <strong>of</strong> upheaval at the Brno National <strong>The</strong>atre, which included the departure <strong>of</strong><br />
Hrazdira in 1907, meant that the revised Jenůfa in the end had to wait until 1911 for a<br />
series <strong>of</strong> five further performances in Brno (the conducting shared by Rudolf Pavlata<br />
and Josef Winkler); 58 one more isolated performance was given there two years later,<br />
on 25 March 1913. Only after a concerted effort by Janáček’s friends, Dr František<br />
Veselý and his wife Marie Calma-Veselá, did Kovařovic eventually relent, accepting<br />
56 ZGJ, 84–110.<br />
57 Hudební revue, ii (1909), 71; partial Eng. trans. in Štědroň 1955, 109.<br />
58 According to a note in the trumpet 1 part. Josef Winkler (1885–1942) was conductor at the Brno<br />
<strong>The</strong>atre in 1907–8, 1909–11 and 1912–1919 (JODA, 105, fn. 2); however the première <strong>of</strong> the new<br />
production on 31 January was conducted by Rudolf Pavlata (1873–1939), cello teacher at the Brno<br />
Organ School, who conducted at the Brno <strong>The</strong>atre in 1908–11 (JODA, 149, fn. 1).<br />
15
Change language