sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
TABLE 2.2: Layers and sources The OP parts were in use as a complete set up until 1906, after which they were steadily replaced by recopied parts (OPx), although the harp part remained in continuous use throughout. For the purposes of this table, OPx is divided into two sets, OPx1 and OPx2, the latter being those parts newly copied in 1916 from the Kovařovic version of the score (see above, 2.1). As a ‘fixed’ printed source, KPU embodies just a single ‘layer’ of text, although it must have been used in slightly adapted form as performance material for revivals in Brno between 1911 and 1916 (for the latter date, in conjunction with the errata slip, ER). Date Layer ŠFS ŠVS OP OPx1 OPx2 LB KPU Version 1903 FS1.1 Urfassung FS1.2 1904 FS2 1904 (première version) 1905 1906 FS3.1 (‘1906’ version) 1907/8 FS3.2 1908 1911 FS4 1913 1916 FS5–6 1916 (Kovařovic version) With their relatively few changes, the OP string parts offer the clearest clue to the 1904 version of Jenůfa. They were used throughout the first run of performances in 1904, as dates entered in the cello part show, whilst the viola part contains dates from the first two of three performances given in 1906 in Moravská Ostrava (25 September) and Brno (6 and 9 October) (see APPENDIX III). All four surviving string parts contain cuts and other alterations, concentrated for the most part in the first two Acts; the alterations in the viola and, particularly, violin 1 are more extensive than those in the cello and double bass (see below). Of most help in dating the changes to the OP string parts is the letter written to Janáček by Hrazdira on 11 July 1906 (APPENDIX II). Hrazdira proposes cuts to the 49
two ensembles in Act 1, ‘A vy, muzikanti, jděte dom’ and ‘Každý párek si musí svoje trápení přestát’, and further suggests two short cuts, one of two bars, the other of three, in Act 1 Scene 7. Earlier in the letter, Hrazdira indicates that, as he is still waiting for the copy of the full score from the composer, he is making do in his preparations with the piano reduction (‘Prozatím mi stačí kl. výtah.’): by this he must have meant ŠVS, for it is in this that his suggestions appear to have been entered. 41 As described above (§2.1), ŠVS contains many extensive cuts, mostly indicated in bold red pencil. 42 However, an examination of the passages specified in Hrazdira’s letter shows that his more limited cuts were suggested by lightly pencilled ‘vi-de’ markings (using a normal lead pencil) which were then reinforced in bolder pencil (likewise lead); these cuts were evidently made at some time before the more numerous and extensive red pencil excisions. In fact, the ‘red’ cuts must have been made between late 1906 and December 1907, when Janáček handed over the vocal score for publication by the Klub přátel umění. 43 Closer examination of ŠVS suggests that, as well as those passages specifically mentioned in his letter of 11 July, Hrazdira may have proposed further cuts (perhaps feeling emboldened by a positive response to his written suggestions), including some in Act 2, since these too are indicated in the same neat, light pencil. Most of Hrazdira’s suggestions were accepted by Janáček, although traces of rubbed-out pencil marks indicate that a few were rejected — some permanently, others only to be made again at a later stage (see APPENDIX IV, cuts (i)– (v)). 41 Whether or not there was other vocal material for the early performances of Jenůfa (i.e. before the publication in 1908 of KPU), it is clear from the many alterations, corrections and annotations that ŠVS served as the main vocal material in the years 1904–6. 42 These are the cuts listed by Štědroň in ZGJ, 85. 43 These ‘red’ cuts include changes corresponding to those made to ŠFS by January 1907: Janáček made a note at the end of Act 2 of ŠFS, ‘Opraveno 10/1 1907’ (see §2.1, ŠFS). 50
- 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 and 66: Jenůfa in 1913, providing a ‘sna
- Page 67 and 68: 2.2 Determining the 1904 version fr
- Page 69: Štědroň 1968b Tyrrell 1996 / Tyr
- 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’ —
- Page 117 and 118: Other extensive cuts made at this s
- Page 119 and 120: Ex. 3.12 3.3.2 Textural alterations
TABLE 2.2: Layers and <strong>sources</strong><br />
<strong>The</strong> OP parts were in use as a complete set up until 1906, after which they were steadily<br />
replaced by recopied parts (OPx), although the harp part remained in continuous use<br />
throughout. For the purposes <strong>of</strong> this table, OPx is divided into two sets, OPx1 and OPx2, the<br />
latter being those parts newly copied in 1916 from the Kovařovic version <strong>of</strong> the score (see<br />
above, 2.1). As a ‘fixed’ printed source, KPU embodies just a single ‘layer’ <strong>of</strong> text, although<br />
it must have been used in slightly adapted form as performance material for revivals in Brno<br />
between 1911 and 1916 (for the latter date, in conjunction with the errata slip, ER).<br />
Date Layer ŠFS ŠVS OP OPx1 OPx2 LB KPU Version<br />
1903 FS1.1 Urfassung<br />
FS1.2<br />
1904 FS2 1904 (première version)<br />
1905<br />
1906 FS3.1 (‘1906’ version)<br />
1907/8 FS3.2 1908<br />
1911 FS4<br />
1913<br />
1916 FS5–6 1916 (Kovařovic version)<br />
With their relatively few changes, the OP string parts <strong>of</strong>fer the clearest clue to<br />
the 1904 version <strong>of</strong> Jenůfa. <strong>The</strong>y were used throughout the first run <strong>of</strong> performances<br />
in 1904, as dates entered in the cello part show, whilst the viola part contains dates<br />
from the first two <strong>of</strong> three performances given in 1906 in Moravská Ostrava (25<br />
September) and Brno (6 and 9 October) (see APPENDIX III). All four surviving string<br />
parts contain cuts and other alterations, concentrated for the most part in the first two<br />
Acts; the alterations in the viola and, particularly, violin 1 are more extensive than<br />
those in the cello and double bass (see below).<br />
Of most help in dating the changes to the OP string parts is the letter written to<br />
Janáček by Hrazdira on 11 July 1906 (APPENDIX II). Hrazdira proposes cuts to the<br />
49