sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
KPU Její pastorkyňa … Klavírní výtah ze zpěvy [vocal score] (Brno: Klub přátel umění, 1908). Published by 18 March 1908; engraved by Engelmann & Mühlberg, Leipzig. No plate number, vi + 281 pp. In Tyrrell’s words, ‘As the only published material of the opera supervised directly and exclusively by Janáček, this source carries particular authority, especially since it was subjected to more rigorous proofreading […] than was the case in later works. 600 copies were printed, 300 of them as free gifts for the members of the Klub přátel umění.’ 37 Although not of direct relevance to the 1904 version of the opera, it has been referred to during preparation of the present reconstruction since, particularly in those cases where the music was left largely unaltered, it is of help in resolving many (though not all) of the anomalies in the manuscript sources. ER Zkratky a změny. [Cuts and changes.] Errata slip issued as a supplement to KPU. Printed by the Benediktinská knihtiskárna [Benedictine book printing press], Brno, undated. 2 pp (single leaf, printed on both sides). This was probably printed around the time of the Prague première in May 1916. 38 It includes, in addition to a list of possible cuts, the late revised version of passages from Števa’s response to the Kostelnička in Act 2 Scene 3 (see above, ŠFS, OPx and fn. 35). 37 Tyrrell 1996, xiii / Tyrrell 2000, vii. 38 Ibid. 45
2.2 Determining the 1904 version from the sources Given the complex state of the surviving manuscript sources, it is hardly surprising that determining what was heard at the 1904 première of Jenůfa has long been regarded as impossible. This was the view of Bohumír Štědroň, whose detailed studies of the main sources made him well equipped to judge, even though he regarded the work as existing in essentially just three different versions: 1903, 1904–8 and 1916. 39 Alena Němcová, who shared his opinion of the difficulty, declared in 1980: To distinguish between the individual stages of Janáček’s revisions is today already quite impossible, as it is to reconstruct the version heard at the première, since many places which were corrected by erasing are now illegible, and moreover it is not possible to date individual cuts carried out before 1908. 40 Notwithstanding this pessimistic assessment, the documentary clues for establishing a rather more nuanced view of the opera’s layers of revision enabled John Tyrrell to refine Štědroň’s view of a work that existed in essentially just three discrete versions. Tyrrell’s work in preparing UE 1996 had the benefit of access to sources not available to (or simply not studied by) Štědroň, namely the two sets of Brno orchestral parts (OP and OPx). As a result, Tyrrell was able to determine, from the surviving performance material in conjunction with corroborating correspondence and other 39 For many years it was assumed that the première version of the opera was identical with the first version, i.e. that what Janáček originally wrote (as copied out by Štross in ŠFS and ŠVS) is what was heard at the first performance in 1904. This was certainly Štědroň’s belief, as articulated in ZGJ and (in summary version) in Štědroň 1968b. See CHAPTER 1, fn. 48. 40 Němcová 1980, 161. See also Němcová 1984, 25: ‘From both the sources mentioned [ŠVS and ŠFS] and from the set of orchestral parts (now incomplete) used at the première [OP], it is not possible to distinguish reliably between the first, première version and the second, which was established with the publication of the [KPU] vocal score.’ 46
- 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 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: Jenůfa in 1913, providing a ‘sna
- 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 and 108: corresponds to the present figs 122
- Page 109 and 110: more specific cuts, the first of tw
- 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’ —
2.2 Determining the 1904 version from the <strong>sources</strong><br />
Given the complex state <strong>of</strong> the surviving manuscript <strong>sources</strong>, it is hardly surprising<br />
that determining what was heard at the 1904 première <strong>of</strong> Jenůfa has long been<br />
regarded as impossible. This was the view <strong>of</strong> Bohumír Štědroň, whose detailed<br />
studies <strong>of</strong> the main <strong>sources</strong> made him well equipped to judge, even though he<br />
regarded the work as existing in essentially just three different versions: 1903, 1904–8<br />
and 1916. 39 Alena Němcová, who shared his opinion <strong>of</strong> the difficulty, declared in 1980:<br />
To distinguish between the individual stages <strong>of</strong> Janáček’s revisions is today already<br />
quite impossible, as it is to reconstruct the version heard at the première, since many<br />
places which were corrected by erasing are now illegible, and moreover it is not<br />
possible to date individual cuts carried out before 1908. 40<br />
Notwithstanding this pessimistic assessment, the documentary clues for establishing a<br />
rather more nuanced view <strong>of</strong> the opera’s layers <strong>of</strong> revision enabled John Tyrrell to<br />
refine Štědroň’s view <strong>of</strong> a work that existed in essentially just three discrete versions.<br />
Tyrrell’s work in preparing UE 1996 had the benefit <strong>of</strong> access to <strong>sources</strong> not available<br />
to (or simply not studied by) Štědroň, namely the two sets <strong>of</strong> Brno orchestral parts<br />
(OP and OPx). As a result, Tyrrell was able to determine, from the surviving<br />
performance material in conjunction with corroborating correspondence and other<br />
39 For many years it was assumed that the première version <strong>of</strong> the opera was identical with the first<br />
version, i.e. that what Janáček originally wrote (as copied out by Štross in ŠFS and ŠVS) is what was<br />
heard at the first performance in 1904. This was certainly Štědroň’s belief, as articulated in ZGJ and (in<br />
summary version) in Štědroň 1968b. See CHAPTER 1, fn. 48.<br />
40 Němcová 1980, 161. See also Němcová 1984, 25: ‘From both the <strong>sources</strong> mentioned [ŠVS and ŠFS]<br />
and from the set <strong>of</strong> orchestral parts (now incomplete) used at the première [OP], it is not possible to<br />
distinguish reliably between the first, première version and the second, which was established with the<br />
publication <strong>of</strong> the [KPU] vocal score.’<br />
46
Change language