sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham sources - Nottingham eTheses - The University of Nottingham
texts, has received. The complete edition of Janáček’s works, started in 1978, has to a large extent generated as many problems as it set out to answer (certainly in terms of presentation). 1 At the same time, Universal Edition, in collaboration with Sir Charles Mackerras, John Tyrrell, Paul Wingfield and (most recently) Jiří Zahrádka, launched a drive to ‘clean up’ those scores of Janáček’s (including the majority of his operas) which it published. With the exception of Wingfield’s edition of the Mša glagolskaja, these have been of Janáček’s own final versions before textual intervention and modification by other hands (usually well-meaning pupils, friends and conductors): in German parlance, these are all Fassungen letzter Hand. It is against this background that the following study has been undertaken. In the last three decades or so, public interest in and enthusiasm for Janáček’s music has gone hand-in-hand with movements towards a fundamental textual reappraisal of his work, of the sort that has to some extent revivified a ‘classical music’ industry often characterised or caricatured as being under cultural threat. And this renewed appetite, from performers and audiences alike, seems as good a reason as any to attempt the present contribution, however old-fashioned and positivistic such an evidence-based exercise might seem in the current musicological climate. It also attempts to fill a gap in our knowledge of Janáček’s development at a time crucial (in the fullest sense) in his progress from provincial folk music collector and pedagogue to internationally acclaimed opera composer. For, more than a century on from Jenůfa’s first performance, it still seems extraordinary that, with the wealth of information available concerning the composer’s life and the various events, trends and impulses that informed his musical output, his most frequently staged opera is still virtually unknown in the version in which it was first performed. And, in addition to enhancing 1 See especially Bärenreiter 1995, Burghauser 1995 and Wingfield 1995. viii
our knowledge of the work’s overall genesis and compositional trajectory, this study might also help to further relativise the idea that any operatic work can be thought to exist in just a ‘single’ text or version. The principal aim of what follows (and indeed its main substance) is the presentation of a performable reconstruction of the score of the 1904 Jenůfa that reflects as accurately and verifiably as possible the form in which it was heard at its première, whilst addressing and correcting obvious presentational and practical errors and incorporating editorial completions where necessary. Although detailed consideration is given to the lengthy revision process, this is emphatically not a study of the ‘compositional process’, above all because two crucial links in the chain — the initial detailed draft sketch and the original autograph score — are, with one small exception, apparently forever lost. Instead, the focus is on the reconstruction of the 1904 score itself and on some of the observations that can be drawn from it within broader contexts. The reconstructed score is presented in VOLUMES II/1, II/2 and II/3, and this represents the core of the study, rather than an annexe to the present volume (which would make it the world’s bulkiest musical example). Rather, it is VOLUME I that is the ‘companion’ volume, and it falls essentially into four complementary parts. Reflecting this study’s roots in my own involvement with the Mackerras-Tyrrell edition of Jenůfa, they build on and develop out of the work of John Tyrrell and, before him, Bohumír Štědroň on the opera’s genesis, as will be evident in the frequent references in the first two chapters in particular (Bernard of Chartres’s metaphor concerning dwarves, shoulders and giants comes to mind). CHAPTER 1 outlines the compositional and revision history of the opera itself, as known from existing literature and documents, expanded with further information where relevant. CHAPTER 2 gives a detailed description of the principal sources used ix
- 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: Jenůfa. Thanks in part to a certai
- 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 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
texts, has received. <strong>The</strong> complete edition <strong>of</strong> Janáček’s works, started in 1978, has to a<br />
large extent generated as many problems as it set out to answer (certainly in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
presentation). 1 At the same time, Universal Edition, in collaboration with Sir<br />
Charles Mackerras, John Tyrrell, Paul Wingfield and (most recently) Jiří Zahrádka,<br />
launched a drive to ‘clean up’ those scores <strong>of</strong> Janáček’s (including the majority <strong>of</strong> his<br />
operas) which it published. With the exception <strong>of</strong> Wingfield’s edition <strong>of</strong> the Mša<br />
glagolskaja, these have been <strong>of</strong> Janáček’s own final versions before textual<br />
intervention and modification by other hands (usually well-meaning pupils, friends<br />
and conductors): in German parlance, these are all Fassungen letzter Hand.<br />
It is against this background that the following study has been undertaken. In<br />
the last three decades or so, public interest in and enthusiasm for Janáček’s music has<br />
gone hand-in-hand with movements towards a fundamental textual reappraisal <strong>of</strong> his<br />
work, <strong>of</strong> the sort that has to some extent revivified a ‘classical music’ industry <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
characterised or caricatured as being under cultural threat. And this renewed appetite,<br />
from performers and audiences alike, seems as good a reason as any to attempt the<br />
present contribution, however old-fashioned and positivistic such an evidence-based<br />
exercise might seem in the current musicological climate. It also attempts to fill a gap<br />
in our knowledge <strong>of</strong> Janáček’s development at a time crucial (in the fullest sense) in<br />
his progress from provincial folk music collector and pedagogue to internationally<br />
acclaimed opera composer. For, more than a century on from Jenůfa’s first<br />
performance, it still seems extraordinary that, with the wealth <strong>of</strong> information available<br />
concerning the composer’s life and the various events, trends and impulses that<br />
informed his musical output, his most frequently staged opera is still virtually<br />
unknown in the version in which it was first performed. And, in addition to enhancing<br />
1 See especially Bärenreiter 1995, Burghauser 1995 and Wingfield 1995.<br />
viii
Change language