1987, Wingfield - Janaček's 'Lost' KS

Janaek's 'Lost' Kreutzer Sonata
Author(s): Paul Wingfield

Source: Journal of the Royal Musical Association, Vol. 112, No. 2 (1986 - 1987), pp. 229-256
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Musical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/797940
Accessed: 29/01/2009 11:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press and Royal Musical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of the Royal Musical Association.
http://www.jstor.org
Janacek's
'Lost' Kreutzer Sonata
Janacek's
Janacek's
Janacek's
Janacek's
PAUL WINGFIELD
INTRODUCTION
ON 18
July
1896 the
41-year-old
Leos
Janacek
left his native
village
of
Hukvaldy
in north-eastern Moravia to visit Russia. At the end of the
first
day
of
travelling
he noted in his
copy
of Frantisek
Vymazal's
Rusky
v deviti ulohdch
(Russian
in Nine
Lessons;
TelE, 1896):1
12. hod. v noci Granica. Konecne citim stat
slovansky!
...
Jaci
sohaji,
cisti,
uihledni,
usluzni, zpufsobni pri
draze. S
uzkosti
jel jsem
Halici. A ted' mi
tak veselo:
probuzeni, vykriseni!
Otroctvi setrasam.
Vyjizdime
- Rusko!
(12
o'clock at
night
Granitsa. At last I can sense what it feels like to be in a
Slav state! ... These
railwaymen
are such fine lads:
clean, tidy, obliging,
polite.
As I travelled across Galicia I was full of
anxiety.
Now I am
light-hearted: awakening,
resurrection! I shake off
slavery.
Off we
go
-
Russia!)
Janacek's
obvious excitement here at the
prospect
of
arriving
in
Russia evidences his
espousal
of
pan-Slavic
ideals in the
years
preceding
the First World War. The
pan-Slavic
movement had
grown
up
in Czechoslovakia as a reaction
against
three centuries of Austrian
oppression,
and it had
propagated
the
concept
of a union of all the
Slav
peoples
under the benevolent
guidance
of Mother Russia to such
an extent that this idea had suffused the national consciousness
by
the end of the nineteenth
century.
It is thus
hardly surprising
that a
person
as
patriotic
as
Janacek
seems to have viewed his first
journey
to
Russia as a
pilgrimage
to the
spiritual
centre of the Slavic world to
which he
belonged.2
In
fact,
the
composer's
fascination with Russia
can be traced back as far as his twentieth
year,
when he
bought
his
first Russian
grammar
book and embarked on a
study
of the Russian
language
that was to
occupy
him for the remainder of his life.3
The concrete results
ofJanacek's pan-Slavic sympathies
can be seen
in his
promotion
of Russian culture in
Brno,
the south-Moravian town
'
Janacek's copy
of this book is now
kept
in the
Janiaek
Archive
(hereafter
the
JA),
which is
housed in the Music
History
Division of the Moravian Museum in Brno. It has the classmark III
-
55. The
English
translation of its title and all
subsequent English
translations of Czech in this
article are
my
own.
2 A detailed account of
Janiaek's
initial visit to Russia can be found in
Piemysl Vrba,
'Janackova prvni
cesta do Ruska roku 1896'
('Janacek's
First
Journey
to Russia in the Year
1896'), Slezsky sbornik,
57
(1959),
464-72
(p. 494).
3
This book was
Josef
Kolir's Mluvnice ruskiho
jazyka
v
prikladech
a rozmluvdch
(A
Practical and
Conversational Grammar
of
the Russian
Language; Prague, 1873). Janacek's copy
is in the
JA
under the
classmark 111-53.
PAUL WINGFIELD
INTRODUCTION
ON 18
July
1896 the
41-year-old
Leos
Janacek
left his native
village
of
Hukvaldy
first
day
of
travelling
he noted in his
copy
of Frantisek
Vymazal's
Rusky
v deviti ulohdch
(Russian
in Nine
Lessons;
TelE, 1896):1
slovansky!
...
Jaci
sohaji,
cisti,
uihledni,
draze. S
uzkosti
jel jsem
Halici. A ted' mi
tak veselo:
Otroctvi setrasam.
Vyjizdime
- Rusko!
(12
o'clock at
night
railwaymen
are such fine lads:
polite.
anxiety.
Now I am
slavery.
Off we
go
-
Russia!)
Janacek's
prospect
of
arriving
in
espousal
of
pan-Slavic
ideals in the
years
preceding
pan-Slavic
movement had
grown
up
against
oppression,
and it had
propagated
the
concept
Slav
peoples
guidance
by
century.
It is thus
hardly surprising
that a
person
as
patriotic
as
Janacek
journey
to
Russia as a
pilgrimage
to the
spiritual
which he
belonged.2
In
fact,
the
composer's
year,
when he
bought
his
first Russian
grammar
study
of the Russian
language
that was to
occupy
can be seen
in his
promotion
Brno,
'
Janacek's copy
of this book is now
kept
in the
Janiaek
Archive
(hereafter
the
JA),
which is
housed in the Music
History
-
55. The
English
subsequent English
article are
my
own.
Janiaek's
Piemysl Vrba,
'Janackova prvni
('Janacek's
First
Journey
57
(1959),
464-72
(p. 494).
3
This book was
Josef
jazyka
v
prikladech
a rozmluvdch
(A
Practical and
of
the Russian
is in the
JA
under the
classmark 111-53.
PAUL WINGFIELD
INTRODUCTION
ON 18
July
1896 the
41-year-old
Leos
Janacek
left his native
village
of
Hukvaldy
first
day
of
travelling
he noted in his
copy
of Frantisek
Vymazal's
Rusky
v deviti ulohdch
(Russian
in Nine
Lessons;
TelE, 1896):1
slovansky!
...
Jaci
sohaji,
cisti,
uihledni,
draze. S
uzkosti
jel jsem
Halici. A ted' mi
tak veselo:
Otroctvi setrasam.
Vyjizdime
- Rusko!
(12
o'clock at
night
railwaymen
are such fine lads:
polite.
anxiety.
Now I am
slavery.
Off we
go
-
Russia!)
Janacek's
prospect
of
arriving
in
espousal
of
pan-Slavic
ideals in the
years
preceding
pan-Slavic
movement had
grown
up
against
oppression,
and it had
propagated
the
concept
Slav
peoples
guidance
by
century.
It is thus
hardly surprising
that a
person
as
patriotic
as
Janacek
journey
to
Russia as a
pilgrimage
to the
spiritual
which he
belonged.2
In
fact,
the
composer's
year,
when he
bought
his
first Russian
grammar
study
of the Russian
language
that was to
occupy
can be seen
in his
promotion
Brno,
'
Janacek's copy
of this book is now
kept
in the
Janiaek
Archive
(hereafter
the
JA),
which is
housed in the Music
History
-
55. The
English
subsequent English
article are
my
own.
Janiaek's
Piemysl Vrba,
'Janackova prvni
('Janacek's
First
Journey
57
(1959),
464-72
(p. 494).
3
This book was
Josef
jazyka
v
prikladech
a rozmluvdch
(A
Practical and
of
the Russian
is in the
JA
under the
classmark 111-53.
PAUL WINGFIELD
INTRODUCTION
ON 18
July
1896 the
41-year-old
Leos
Janacek
left his native
village
of
Hukvaldy
first
day
of
travelling
he noted in his
copy
of Frantisek
Vymazal's
Rusky
v deviti ulohdch
(Russian
in Nine
Lessons;
TelE, 1896):1
slovansky!
...
Jaci
sohaji,
cisti,
uihledni,
draze. S
uzkosti
jel jsem
Halici. A ted' mi
tak veselo:
Otroctvi setrasam.
Vyjizdime
- Rusko!
(12
o'clock at
night
railwaymen
are such fine lads:
polite.
anxiety.
Now I am
slavery.
Off we
go
-
Russia!)
Janacek's
prospect
of
arriving
in
espousal
of
pan-Slavic
ideals in the
years
preceding
pan-Slavic
movement had
grown
up
against
oppression,
and it had
propagated
the
concept
Slav
peoples
guidance
by
century.
It is thus
hardly surprising
that a
person
as
patriotic
as
Janacek
journey
to
Russia as a
pilgrimage
to the
spiritual
which he
belonged.2
In
fact,
the
composer's
year,
when he
bought
his
first Russian
grammar
study
of the Russian
language
that was to
occupy
can be seen
in his
promotion
Brno,
'
Janacek's copy
of this book is now
kept
in the
Janiaek
Archive
(hereafter
the
JA),
which is
housed in the Music
History
-
55. The
English
subsequent English
article are
my
own.
Janiaek's
Piemysl Vrba,
'Janackova prvni
('Janacek's
First
Journey
57
(1959),
464-72
(p. 494).
3
This book was
Josef
jazyka
v
prikladech
a rozmluvdch
(A
Practical and
of
the Russian
is in the
JA
under the
classmark 111-53.
PAUL WINGFIELD
INTRODUCTION
ON 18
July
1896 the
41-year-old
Leos
Janacek
left his native
village
of
Hukvaldy
first
day
of
travelling
he noted in his
copy
of Frantisek
Vymazal's
Rusky
v deviti ulohdch
(Russian
in Nine
Lessons;
TelE, 1896):1
slovansky!
...
Jaci
sohaji,
cisti,
uihledni,
draze. S
uzkosti
jel jsem
Halici. A ted' mi
tak veselo:
Otroctvi setrasam.
Vyjizdime
- Rusko!
(12
o'clock at
night
railwaymen
are such fine lads:
polite.
anxiety.
Now I am
slavery.
Off we
go
-
Russia!)
Janacek's
prospect
of
arriving
in
espousal
of
pan-Slavic
ideals in the
years
preceding
pan-Slavic
movement had
grown
up
against
oppression,
and it had
propagated
the
concept
Slav
peoples
guidance
by
century.
It is thus
hardly surprising
that a
person
as
patriotic
as
Janacek
journey
to
Russia as a
pilgrimage
to the
spiritual
which he
belonged.2
In
fact,
the
composer's
year,
when he
bought
his
first Russian
grammar
study
of the Russian
language
that was to
occupy
can be seen
in his
promotion
Brno,
'
Janacek's copy
of this book is now
kept
in the
Janiaek
Archive
(hereafter
the
JA),
which is
housed in the Music
History
-
55. The
English
subsequent English
article are
my
own.
Janiaek's
Piemysl Vrba,
'Janackova prvni
('Janacek's
First
Journey
57
(1959),
464-72
(p. 494).
3
This book was
Josef
jazyka
v
prikladech
a rozmluvdch
(A
Practical and
of
the Russian
is in the
JA
under the
classmark 111-53.
where he lived and worked for most of his
career,
and in his use of
Russian texts and
subject
matter as the basis for vocal and
program-
matic instrumental works. In the
year following
his first Russian visit
he co-founded in Brno a
'Rusky
krouzek'
('Russian Circle'),
of which
he was the
president
from 1909 until 1915
(when
it was forced to
disband
by
the Austrian
administration)
and
again
after the First
World War from 1919 until
1921.4
This club held
regular meetings,
and it owned a collection of books in Russian which could be borrowed
by
members.
Janacek
made full use of the
borrowing facility
and over
the
years
he also built
up
a substantial Russian
library
of his own. A
large part
of his
personal
collection is extant and is now
kept
in the
JA.
It consists of five Russian
grammar books,
a Russian
dictionary
and a
varied selection of
nineteenth-century
Russian
literary
works in their
original language
and/or in translation.5 The
best-represented
Russian author in
Janacek's personal library
is
Tolstoy.
In
fact,
one of
the
composer's
earliest
purchases
seems to have been the 1900 St
Petersburg
edition of
Tolstoy's
short novel The
Kreutzer
Sonata,
a work
which had sent shock waves
through
the
upper
echelons of Russian
society
when it first
appeared
in
1890,
on account of its
strong
condemnation of the institution of
marriage.
This novel was
not,
however,
the first
by Tolstoy
that
Janacek
was to make use of
musically.
In 1907 he wrote a few
pages
of sketches for an
opera
based
on Anna Karenina
but,
like a number of other
operatic projects begun
in
that
year,
this was
quickly
abandoned.6
In 1908
Tolstoy
reached his
eightieth birthday
and
Janacek
was
commissioned to write a
piece
for a concert to be held in honour of the
author
by
the Russian Circle in
conjunction
with the 'Klub
pratel
umeni'
('Friends
of Art
Club'),
another Brno
society
with which the
composer
was
closely
associated.7 He
responded
to this
request by
using Tolstoy's
The
Kreutzer
Sonata as the
programmatic
basis for a
Piano
Trio,
which was
completed
in the autumn of 1908. The work
was then revised before its
premiere,
which was
given
at the Brno
Organ
School on 2
April
1909
by
Pavel Dedecek
(violin),
Ruzena
Fialova
(piano)
and Rudolf Pavlata
(violoncello).8
As was common at
4
The
composer's
connections with the Brno 'Russian Circle' are considered in
Premysl
Vrba,
'Rusky
krouzek v
Brne
a
Leos Janacek'
('The
Russian Circle in Brno and Leos Janacek'),
Slezsky sbornik,
58
(1960),
71-85
(p. 71).
Additional information can be found in Bohumir gtcdroii,
'Leos Janacek
a
Rusky
krouzek v
Brne' ('Leos Janacek
and the Russian Circle in
Brno'), Program
[Stdtniho divadla v Brn],
44
(1972-3)
and 45 (1973-4).
5
For a
useful,
but
by
no means
complete
or
wholly
accurate
inventory
of
Janacek's
Russian
library
see
Piemysl Vrba,
'Janackova ruska
knihovna'
('Janacek's
Russian
Library'), Slezsky
sbornik, 58 (1960), 242-9 (p.
242).
6
Janacek's uncompleted operatic projects
are listed and described in Theodora Strakova,
'Janackovy
operni
namety
a torsa'
('Janacek's Operatic Projects
and
Fragments'), Musikologie,
3
(1955),
417-49
(p. 417).
7
For a detailed account of
Janacek's
connections with this club see Ludvik Kundera, Janacek a
klub pratel umini
(Jand&ek
and the Friends
of
Art Club; Olomouc, 1948).
8
The
genesis
of the Piano Trio and the circumstances of its
premiere
are described briefly
in
Korespondence
Leoie
Janacka
s
Artusem
Rektorysem (Leos Jandaek's Correspondence
with Artus
Rektorys;
Prague, 1934, enlarged
2nd edn
1949),
ed.
Jan Racek,
116. Racek's information is taken from an
career,
and in his use of
Russian texts and
subject
program-
year following
'Rusky
krouzek'
('Russian Circle'),
of which
he was the
president
(when
it was forced to
disband
by
the Austrian
administration)
and
again
after the First
1921.4
This club held
regular meetings,
by
members.
Janacek
borrowing facility
and over
the
years
he also built
up
library
of his own. A
large part
of his
personal
kept
in the
JA.
grammar books,
a Russian
dictionary
and a
varied selection of
nineteenth-century
Russian
literary
works in their
original language
best-represented
Russian author in
is
Tolstoy.
In
fact,
one of
the
composer's
earliest
purchases
Petersburg
edition of
Tolstoy's
short novel The
Kreutzer
Sonata,
a work
through
the
upper
echelons of Russian
society
when it first
appeared
in
1890,
on account of its
strong
marriage.
This novel was
not,
however,
the first
by Tolstoy
that
Janacek
was to make use of
musically.
pages
of sketches for an
opera
based
on Anna Karenina
but,
in
that
year,
this was
quickly
abandoned.6
In 1908
Tolstoy
reached his
eightieth birthday
and
Janacek
was
piece
author
by
conjunction
with the 'Klub
pratel
umeni'
('Friends
of Art
Club'),
another Brno
society
with which the
composer
was
closely
associated.7 He
responded
to this
request by
using Tolstoy's
The
Kreutzer
Sonata as the
programmatic
basis for a
Piano
Trio,
which was
completed
premiere,
which was
given
at the Brno
Organ
School on 2
April
1909
by
Pavel Dedecek
(violin),
Ruzena
Fialova
(piano)
and Rudolf Pavlata
(violoncello).8
As was common at
4
The
composer's
Premysl
Vrba,
'Rusky
krouzek v
Brne
a
Leos Janacek'
('The
Slezsky sbornik,
58
(1960),
71-85
(p. 71).
'Leos Janacek
a
Rusky
krouzek v
Brno'), Program
44
(1972-3)
and 45 (1973-4).
5
For a
useful,
but
by
no means
complete
or
wholly
accurate
inventory
of
Janacek's
Russian
library
see
Piemysl Vrba,
'Janackova ruska
knihovna'
('Janacek's
Russian
Library'), Slezsky
sbornik, 58 (1960), 242-9 (p.
242).
6
'Janackovy
operni
namety
a torsa'
and
3
(1955),
417-49
(p. 417).
7
Janacek's
klub pratel umini
(Jand&ek
and the Friends
of
8
The
genesis
premiere
in
Korespondence
Leoie
Janacka
s
Artusem
with Artus
Rektorys;
2nd edn
1949),
ed.
Jan Racek,
career,
and in his use of
Russian texts and
subject
program-
year following
'Rusky
krouzek'
('Russian Circle'),
of which
he was the
president
(when
it was forced to
disband
by
the Austrian
administration)
and
again
after the First
1921.4
This club held
regular meetings,
by
members.
Janacek
borrowing facility
and over
the
years
he also built
up
library
of his own. A
large part
of his
personal
kept
in the
JA.
grammar books,
a Russian
dictionary
and a
varied selection of
nineteenth-century
Russian
literary
works in their
original language
best-represented
Russian author in
is
Tolstoy.
In
fact,
one of
the
composer's
earliest
purchases
Petersburg
edition of
Tolstoy's
short novel The
Kreutzer
Sonata,
a work
through
the
upper
echelons of Russian
society
when it first
appeared
in
1890,
on account of its
strong
marriage.
This novel was
not,
however,
the first
by Tolstoy
that
Janacek
was to make use of
musically.
pages
of sketches for an
opera
based
on Anna Karenina
but,
in
that
year,
this was
quickly
abandoned.6
In 1908
Tolstoy
reached his
eightieth birthday
and
Janacek
was
piece
author
by
conjunction
with the 'Klub
pratel
umeni'
('Friends
of Art
Club'),
another Brno
society
with which the
composer
was
closely
associated.7 He
responded
to this
request by
using Tolstoy's
The
Kreutzer
Sonata as the
programmatic
basis for a
Piano
Trio,
which was
completed
premiere,
which was
given
at the Brno
Organ
School on 2
April
1909
by
Pavel Dedecek
(violin),
Ruzena
Fialova
(piano)
and Rudolf Pavlata
(violoncello).8
As was common at
4
The
composer's
Premysl
Vrba,
'Rusky
krouzek v
Brne
a
Leos Janacek'
('The
Slezsky sbornik,
58
(1960),
71-85
(p. 71).
'Leos Janacek
a
Rusky
krouzek v
Brno'), Program
44
(1972-3)
and 45 (1973-4).
5
For a
useful,
but
by
no means
complete
or
wholly
accurate
inventory
of
Janacek's
Russian
library
see
Piemysl Vrba,
'Janackova ruska
knihovna'
('Janacek's
Russian
Library'), Slezsky
sbornik, 58 (1960), 242-9 (p.
242).
6
'Janackovy
operni
namety
a torsa'
and
3
(1955),
417-49
(p. 417).
7
Janacek's
klub pratel umini
(Jand&ek
and the Friends
of
8
The
genesis
premiere
in
Korespondence
Leoie
Janacka
s
Artusem
with Artus
Rektorys;
2nd edn
1949),
ed.
Jan Racek,
career,
and in his use of
Russian texts and
subject
program-
year following
'Rusky
krouzek'
('Russian Circle'),
of which
he was the
president
(when
it was forced to
disband
by
the Austrian
administration)
and
again
after the First
1921.4
This club held
regular meetings,
by
members.
Janacek
borrowing facility
and over
the
years
he also built
up
library
of his own. A
large part
of his
personal
kept
in the
JA.
grammar books,
a Russian
dictionary
and a
varied selection of
nineteenth-century
Russian
literary
works in their
original language
best-represented
Russian author in
is
Tolstoy.
In
fact,
one of
the
composer's
earliest
purchases
Petersburg
edition of
Tolstoy's
short novel The
Kreutzer
Sonata,
a work
through
the
upper
echelons of Russian
society
when it first
appeared
in
1890,
on account of its
strong
marriage.
This novel was
not,
however,
the first
by Tolstoy
that
Janacek
was to make use of
musically.
pages
of sketches for an
opera
based
on Anna Karenina
but,
in
that
year,
this was
quickly
abandoned.6
In 1908
Tolstoy
reached his
eightieth birthday
and
Janacek
was
piece
author
by
conjunction
with the 'Klub
pratel
umeni'
('Friends
of Art
Club'),
another Brno
society
with which the
composer
was
closely
associated.7 He
responded
to this
request by
using Tolstoy's
The
Kreutzer
Sonata as the
programmatic
basis for a
Piano
Trio,
which was
completed
premiere,
which was
given
at the Brno
Organ
School on 2
April
1909
by
Pavel Dedecek
(violin),
Ruzena
Fialova
(piano)
and Rudolf Pavlata
(violoncello).8
As was common at
4
The
composer's
Premysl
Vrba,
'Rusky
krouzek v
Brne
a
Leos Janacek'
('The
Slezsky sbornik,
58
(1960),
71-85
(p. 71).
'Leos Janacek
a
Rusky
krouzek v
Brno'), Program
44
(1972-3)
and 45 (1973-4).
5
For a
useful,
but
by
no means
complete
or
wholly
accurate
inventory
of
Janacek's
Russian
library
see
Piemysl Vrba,
'Janackova ruska
knihovna'
('Janacek's
Russian
Library'), Slezsky
sbornik, 58 (1960), 242-9 (p.
242).
6
'Janackovy
operni
namety
a torsa'
and
3
(1955),
417-49
(p. 417).
7
Janacek's
klub pratel umini
(Jand&ek
and the Friends
of
8
The
genesis
premiere
in
Korespondence
Leoie
Janacka
s
Artusem
with Artus
Rektorys;
2nd edn
1949),
ed.
Jan Racek,
career,
and in his use of
Russian texts and
subject
program-
year following
'Rusky
krouzek'
('Russian Circle'),
of which
he was the
president
(when
it was forced to
disband
by
the Austrian
administration)
and
again
after the First
1921.4
This club held
regular meetings,
by
members.
Janacek
borrowing facility
and over
the
years
he also built
up
library
of his own. A
large part
of his
personal
kept
in the
JA.
grammar books,
a Russian
dictionary
and a
varied selection of
nineteenth-century
Russian
literary
works in their
original language
best-represented
Russian author in
is
Tolstoy.
In
fact,
one of
the
composer's
earliest
purchases
Petersburg
edition of
Tolstoy's
short novel The
Kreutzer
Sonata,
a work
through
the
upper
echelons of Russian
society
when it first
appeared
in
1890,
on account of its
strong
marriage.
This novel was
not,
however,
the first
by Tolstoy
that
Janacek
was to make use of
musically.
pages
of sketches for an
opera
based
on Anna Karenina
but,
in
that
year,
this was
quickly
abandoned.6
In 1908
Tolstoy
reached his
eightieth birthday
and
Janacek
was
piece
author
by
conjunction
with the 'Klub
pratel
umeni'
('Friends
of Art
Club'),
another Brno
society
with which the
composer
was
closely
associated.7 He
responded
to this
request by
using Tolstoy's
The
Kreutzer
Sonata as the
programmatic
basis for a
Piano
Trio,
which was
completed
premiere,
which was
given
at the Brno
Organ
School on 2
April
1909
by
Pavel Dedecek
(violin),
Ruzena
Fialova
(piano)
and Rudolf Pavlata
(violoncello).8
As was common at
4
The
composer's
Premysl
Vrba,
'Rusky
krouzek v
Brne
a
Leos Janacek'
('The
Slezsky sbornik,
58
(1960),
71-85
(p. 71).
'Leos Janacek
a
Rusky
krouzek v
Brno'), Program
44
(1972-3)
and 45 (1973-4).
5
For a
useful,
but
by
no means
complete
or
wholly
accurate
inventory
of
Janacek's
Russian
library
see
Piemysl Vrba,
'Janackova ruska
knihovna'
('Janacek's
Russian
Library'), Slezsky
sbornik, 58 (1960), 242-9 (p.
242).
6
'Janackovy
operni
namety
a torsa'
and
3
(1955),
417-49
(p. 417).
7
Janacek's
klub pratel umini
(Jand&ek
and the Friends
of
8
The
genesis
premiere
in
Korespondence
Leoie
Janacka
s
Artusem
with Artus
Rektorys;
2nd edn
1949),
ed.
Jan Racek,
230 230 230 230 230
PAUL WINGFIELD PAUL WINGFIELD PAUL WINGFIELD PAUL WINGFIELD PAUL WINGFIELD
JANACEK'S
'LOST' KREUTZER SONATA
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
this
relatively early stage
of
Janacek's career,
the first
performance
of
the Trio was
given
from
manuscript parts.
More
surprising, however,
is the fact that the
piece
was never
published. Moreover,
the
autograph
material for it has since vanished and the strenuous efforts
of several
musicologists (including myself)
to locate it have
proved
fruitless.
More than 14
years
after the
premiere
of the Trio
Janacek
received a
request
from the Bohemian
Quartet
for a new work.9 On 13 October
1923 he remarked in a letter to his wife:'l
Ceske
kvarteto mne
pozadalo, abych pro
ne neco slozil.
(The
Bohemian
Quartet
have asked me to
compose something
for
them.)
His execution of this commission
appears
to have been swift. As soon
as 7 November he had dated his final
autograph
of the new
piece,
which is now known as his First
String Quartet."
The
Quartet,
like
the
Trio,
is based on
Tolstoy's
The
Kreutzer
Sonata and it also has the
name of
Tolstoy's
book as its subtitle. This work was first
performed
by
the Bohemian
Quartet
in
Prague
on 17 October 1924
and,
unlike
the
Trio,
it was
actually published
(on 22
April 1925).12
Earlier commentators on
Janacek's
First
Quartet
have considered in
detail
only
the
relationship
between
Janacek's
music and
Tolstoy's
novel.'3
Virtually nothing
has been written about
possible
connec-
tions between the
Quartet
and the
Trio,
even
though
these two
compositions
derived from a
single programmatic
source. The
disap-
pearance
of the
autograph
material for the Trio seems to have
discouraged previous musicologists
from
examining
this issue:
they
have been content
simply
to
quote
the
composer's
own recorded
remarks on the
subject.
Nevertheless,
there exist several further sources of evidence about
the
relationship
between the Trio and the
Quartet.
This evidence can
be divided into three main
categories: eye-witness accounts; Janacek's
advertisement for the
premiere printed
the
day
before the concert took
place
in the Brno
daily
newspaper
Lidovi
noviny (1 April 1909)
and from the entries about the Piano Trio in the records of
the music section of the Friends of Art
Club,
which were written
by
one of the
members,
Zdenka
Illnerova.
Janacek's
connections with the Brno
Organ
School are described in detail in Ludvik
Kundera, Jandckova
varhanickd skola
(Jandcek's Organ
School; Olomouc, 1948).
9
The Czech
composer Josef
Suk
(1874-1935)
was the
Quartet's
second violinist at the time.
10
This
letter,
which is in the
JA
under the classmark A
3837,
is also
quoted
on
p.
v of Milan
Skampa's
1975 'Critical Edition' of
Jan6aek's
First
String Quartet (Supraphon,
H
5591).
l The
autograph
of this
Quartet
is in the
JA and has the classmark A.7443. The First
Quartet
was
actually
the second that
Janacek wrote,
but the earlier
piece, composed
in
1880,
has been
lost.
12 The date of
publication given
here for the
Quartet
is based on evidence to be found in a
letter from the
printing
firm Hudebni matice to
Jan6aek,
which was
posted
on 20
April
1925 JA
D
198).
In
it,
the firm informs
Janicek
that the full score of the
Quartet
will be
printed by
the
following Wednesday (22 April)
and that the
parts
will be available
by
the end of the month.
13
Perhaps
the most useful introduction to the work can be found in
Jaroslav Vogel,
Leos
Jandiek:
Leben und Werk
(Prague, 1958; English translation, 1962,
rev. 2nd edn
1981;
Czech
original, 1963),
291-4.
(All
of the references to
Vogel's
book in this article
give page
numbers
from the revised
English translation.)
this
of
Janacek's career,
the first
performance
of
the Trio was
given
from
manuscript parts.
More
piece
was never
the
autograph
of several
to locate it have
proved
fruitless.
More than 14
years
after the
premiere
of the Trio
Janacek
received a
request
from the Bohemian
Quartet
Ceske
kvarteto mne
pozadalo, abych pro
ne neco slozil.
(The
Bohemian
Quartet
have asked me to
compose something
for
them.)
appears
autograph
of the new
piece,
String Quartet."
The
Quartet,
like
the
Trio,
is based on
Tolstoy's
The
Kreutzer
name of
Tolstoy's
performed
by
the Bohemian
Quartet
in
Prague
on 17 October 1924
and,
unlike
the
Trio,
it was
actually published
(on 22
April 1925).12
Janacek's
First
Quartet
have considered in
detail
only
the
relationship
between
Janacek's
music and
Tolstoy's
novel.'3
Virtually nothing
possible
connec-
tions between the
Quartet
and the
Trio,
even
though
these two
compositions
derived from a
single programmatic
source. The
disap-
pearance
of the
autograph
from
examining
this issue:
they
have been content
simply
to
quote
the
composer's
own recorded
remarks on the
subject.
Nevertheless,
the
relationship
Quartet.
This evidence can
premiere printed
the
day
place
in the Brno
daily
newspaper
Lidovi
Club,
which were written
by
one of the
members,
Zdenka
Illnerova.
Janacek's
Organ
Kundera, Jandckova
varhanickd skola
(Jandcek's Organ
9
The Czech
composer Josef
Suk
(1874-1935)
was the
Quartet's
10
This
letter,
which is in the
JA
3837,
is also
quoted
on
p.
v of Milan
Skampa's
Jan6aek's
First
H
5591).
l The
autograph
of this
Quartet
is in the
Quartet
was
actually
the second that
Janacek wrote,
but the earlier
piece, composed
in
1880,
has been
lost.
12 The date of
publication given
here for the
Quartet
letter from the
printing
Jan6aek,
which was
posted
on 20
April
1925 JA
D
198).
In
it,
the firm informs
Janicek
Quartet
will be
printed by
the
and that the
parts
will be available
by
13
Perhaps
Jaroslav Vogel,
Leos
Jandiek:
Leben und Werk
rev. 2nd edn
1981;
Czech
original, 1963),
291-4.
(All
Vogel's
give page
numbers
from the revised
this
of
Janacek's career,
the first
performance
of
the Trio was
given
from
manuscript parts.
More
piece
was never
the
autograph
of several
to locate it have
proved
fruitless.
More than 14
years
after the
premiere
of the Trio
Janacek
received a
request
from the Bohemian
Quartet
Ceske
kvarteto mne
pozadalo, abych pro
ne neco slozil.
(The
Bohemian
Quartet
have asked me to
compose something
for
them.)
appears
autograph
of the new
piece,
String Quartet."
The
Quartet,
like
the
Trio,
is based on
Tolstoy's
The
Kreutzer
name of
Tolstoy's
performed
by
the Bohemian
Quartet
in
Prague
on 17 October 1924
and,
unlike
the
Trio,
it was
actually published
(on 22
April 1925).12
Janacek's
First
Quartet
have considered in
detail
only
the
relationship
between
Janacek's
music and
Tolstoy's
novel.'3
Virtually nothing
possible
connec-
tions between the
Quartet
and the
Trio,
even
though
these two
compositions
derived from a
single programmatic
source. The
disap-
pearance
of the
autograph
from
examining
this issue:
they
have been content
simply
to
quote
the
composer's
own recorded
remarks on the
subject.
Nevertheless,
the
relationship
Quartet.
This evidence can
premiere printed
the
day
place
in the Brno
daily
newspaper
Lidovi
Club,
which were written
by
one of the
members,
Zdenka
Illnerova.
Janacek's
Organ
Kundera, Jandckova
varhanickd skola
(Jandcek's Organ
9
The Czech
composer Josef
Suk
(1874-1935)
was the
Quartet's
10
This
letter,
which is in the
JA
3837,
is also
quoted
on
p.
v of Milan
Skampa's
Jan6aek's
First
H
5591).
l The
autograph
of this
Quartet
is in the
Quartet
was
actually
the second that
Janacek wrote,
but the earlier
piece, composed
in
1880,
has been
lost.
12 The date of
publication given
here for the
Quartet
letter from the
printing
Jan6aek,
which was
posted
on 20
April
1925 JA
D
198).
In
it,
the firm informs
Janicek
Quartet
will be
printed by
the
and that the
parts
will be available
by
13
Perhaps
Jaroslav Vogel,
Leos
Jandiek:
Leben und Werk
rev. 2nd edn
1981;
Czech
original, 1963),
291-4.
(All
Vogel's
give page
numbers
from the revised
this
of
Janacek's career,
the first
performance
of
the Trio was
given
from
manuscript parts.
More
piece
was never
the
autograph
of several
to locate it have
proved
fruitless.
More than 14
years
after the
premiere
of the Trio
Janacek
received a
request
from the Bohemian
Quartet
Ceske
kvarteto mne
pozadalo, abych pro
ne neco slozil.
(The
Bohemian
Quartet
have asked me to
compose something
for
them.)
appears
autograph
of the new
piece,
String Quartet."
The
Quartet,
like
the
Trio,
is based on
Tolstoy's
The
Kreutzer
name of
Tolstoy's
performed
by
the Bohemian
Quartet
in
Prague
on 17 October 1924
and,
unlike
the
Trio,
it was
actually published
(on 22
April 1925).12
Janacek's
First
Quartet
have considered in
detail
only
the
relationship
between
Janacek's
music and
Tolstoy's
novel.'3
Virtually nothing
possible
connec-
tions between the
Quartet
and the
Trio,
even
though
these two
compositions
derived from a
single programmatic
source. The
disap-
pearance
of the
autograph
from
examining
this issue:
they
have been content
simply
to
quote
the
composer's
own recorded
remarks on the
subject.
Nevertheless,
the
relationship
Quartet.
This evidence can
premiere printed
the
day
place
in the Brno
daily
newspaper
Lidovi
Club,
which were written
by
one of the
members,
Zdenka
Illnerova.
Janacek's
Organ
Kundera, Jandckova
varhanickd skola
(Jandcek's Organ
9
The Czech
composer Josef
Suk
(1874-1935)
was the
Quartet's
10
This
letter,
which is in the
JA
3837,
is also
quoted
on
p.
v of Milan
Skampa's
Jan6aek's
First
H
5591).
l The
autograph
of this
Quartet
is in the
Quartet
was
actually
the second that
Janacek wrote,
but the earlier
piece, composed
in
1880,
has been
lost.
12 The date of
publication given
here for the
Quartet
letter from the
printing
Jan6aek,
which was
posted
on 20
April
1925 JA
D
198).
In
it,
the firm informs
Janicek
Quartet
will be
printed by
the
and that the
parts
will be available
by
13
Perhaps
Jaroslav Vogel,
Leos
Jandiek:
Leben und Werk
rev. 2nd edn
1981;
Czech
original, 1963),
291-4.
(All
Vogel's
give page
numbers
from the revised
this
of
Janacek's career,
the first
performance
of
the Trio was
given
from
manuscript parts.
More
piece
was never
the
autograph
of several
to locate it have
proved
fruitless.
More than 14
years
after the
premiere
of the Trio
Janacek
received a
request
from the Bohemian
Quartet
Ceske
kvarteto mne
pozadalo, abych pro
ne neco slozil.
(The
Bohemian
Quartet
have asked me to
compose something
for
them.)
appears
autograph
of the new
piece,
String Quartet."
The
Quartet,
like
the
Trio,
is based on
Tolstoy's
The
Kreutzer
name of
Tolstoy's
performed
by
the Bohemian
Quartet
in
Prague
on 17 October 1924
and,
unlike
the
Trio,
it was
actually published
(on 22
April 1925).12
Janacek's
First
Quartet
have considered in
detail
only
the
relationship
between
Janacek's
music and
Tolstoy's
novel.'3
Virtually nothing
possible
connec-
tions between the
Quartet
and the
Trio,
even
though
these two
compositions
derived from a
single programmatic
source. The
disap-
pearance
of the
autograph
from
examining
this issue:
they
have been content
simply
to
quote
the
composer's
own recorded
remarks on the
subject.
Nevertheless,
the
relationship
Quartet.
This evidence can
premiere printed
the
day
place
in the Brno
daily
newspaper
Lidovi
Club,
which were written
by
one of the
members,
Zdenka
Illnerova.
Janacek's
Organ
Kundera, Jandckova
varhanickd skola
(Jandcek's Organ
9
The Czech
composer Josef
Suk
(1874-1935)
was the
Quartet's
10
This
letter,
which is in the
JA
3837,
is also
quoted
on
p.
v of Milan
Skampa's
Jan6aek's
First
H
5591).
l The
autograph
of this
Quartet
is in the
Quartet
was
actually
the second that
Janacek wrote,
but the earlier
piece, composed
in
1880,
has been
lost.
12 The date of
publication given
here for the
Quartet
letter from the
printing
Jan6aek,
which was
posted
on 20
April
1925 JA
D
198).
In
it,
the firm informs
Janicek
Quartet
will be
printed by
the
and that the
parts
will be available
by
13
Perhaps
Jaroslav Vogel,
Leos
Jandiek:
Leben und Werk
rev. 2nd edn
1981;
Czech
original, 1963),
291-4.
(All
Vogel's
give page
numbers
from the revised
231 231 231 231 231
correspondence
about the
Trio;
and the musical material for both
works. The first
category comprises
a review of the concert in which
the Trio was
premiered
and a
description
of that
piece's
content
written
by
the violinist in the first
performance.
The second
category
is made
up
of 20 letters to and from
Janacek
written in the
period
1909-22. And the third
category
includes no less than five different
sources of evidence: the sole
surviving page
of musical material from
the
Trio;
the extant
page
of sketches for the
Quartet;
several
early
drafts of the
Quartet;
the
autograph
score of that
work;
and certain
stylistic
and formal
aspects
of the
published
version of the same
piece.
The aim of this article will be to examine both
Janacek's
remarks and
all the other
evidence,
and to show that we can ascertain much more
than is
generally
assumed about the content of the 'lost' Trio and the
extent to which that work served as a model for the
Quartet.
In
fact,
as
I shall
demonstrate,
two movements of the first version of the
Quartet
seem to have been transcribed
directly
from the Trio.
JANACEK'S
OWN COMMENTS
Janacek's
remarks about the connections between the Trio and the
Quartet
are recorded in Max Brod's
biography
of the
composer,
which
was written in 1923 and
early
1924 to commemorate
Janacek's
seventieth
birthday
(on
3
July 1924).14 During
1923 Brod asked the
composer
several times to
supply
him with the information for a
complete
list of
works,
but
Janacek (who
was
preoccupied
with
creative
matters) grudgingly gave
him
only
a few essential details.'5
Consequently,
Brod's list of works is not
particularly
informative. The
entry
about the Piano Trio reads as follows:16
KLAVfRNI TRIO.
-
Komp.
1908. - Prov. v hud. odboru Klubu
pratel
umeni 1909. -
Rukopis.
-
Janacek:
'Z nekolika
myslenek
odtud
povstalo
kvarteto.'
(PIANO
TRIO. -
Composed
1908. - Performed in the music section of the
Friends of Art Club 1909. -
Manuscript.
-
Janacek:
'The
Quartet
was
based on a few ideas from
this.')
Janacek's
statement here that he used
only
'a few ideas' from the Trio
in the
Quartet
has been
accepted by
all
subsequent biographers
and
musicologists.17 However,
the
composer's
remarks about the influ-
ences on and the
genesis
of his music were often either
contradictory
or inaccurate.18 As a
result,
we are
justified
in
examining
the
remaining
evidence to see if it corroborates
Janacek's
statement.
14
Max
Brod,
Leos
Janicek:
zivot a dilo
(Leos Janacek: Life
and
Works;
Prague, 1924;
German
original, 1925,
rev. 2nd edn
1956).
15
A fuller account of the
problems
that Brod encountered when
writing
his
biography
is
given
in Charles
Susskind, Jandcek
and Brod
(New Haven, 1985),
78-9.
16
The list is on
pp.
73-6 of Brod's
biography.
The
entry
about the Trio can be found on
p.
75.
17
See,
for
example, Vogel,
Leo
Jandcek,
292.
18
An extreme
example
of
Janacek's
inconsistency
in this
respect
is
pointed
out in
Vogel,
Leos
Jandcek,
351.
correspondence
about the
Trio;
works. The first
category comprises
the Trio was
premiered
and a
description
of that
piece's
content
written
by
performance.
The second
category
is made
up
Janacek
written in the
period
category
surviving page
the
Trio;
the extant
page
of sketches for the
Quartet;
several
early
drafts of the
Quartet;
the
autograph
score of that
work;
and certain
stylistic
and formal
aspects
of the
published
version of the same
piece.
Janacek's
remarks and
all the other
evidence,
than is
generally
Quartet.
In
fact,
as
I shall
demonstrate,
Quartet
directly
from the Trio.
JANACEK'S
OWN COMMENTS
Janacek's
Quartet
biography
of the
composer,
which
early
1924 to commemorate
Janacek's
seventieth
birthday
(on
3
1923 Brod asked the
composer
several times to
supply
complete
list of
works,
but
Janacek (who
was
preoccupied
with
creative
him
only
Consequently,
particularly
informative. The
entry
KLAVfRNI TRIO.
-
Komp.
pratel
umeni 1909. -
Rukopis.
-
Janacek:
'Z nekolika
myslenek
odtud
povstalo
kvarteto.'
(PIANO
TRIO. -
Composed
Manuscript.
-
Janacek:
'The
Quartet
was
this.')
Janacek's
only
in the
Quartet
has been
accepted by
all
and
the
composer's
ences on and the
genesis
contradictory
result,
we are
justified
in
examining
the
remaining
Janacek's
statement.
14
Max
Brod,
Leos
Janicek:
zivot a dilo
(Leos Janacek: Life
and
Works;
Prague, 1924;
German
original, 1925,
rev. 2nd edn
1956).
15
problems
writing
his
biography
is
given
in Charles
Susskind, Jandcek
and Brod
(New Haven, 1985),
78-9.
16
The list is on
pp.
73-6 of Brod's
biography.
The
entry
p.
75.
17
See,
for
example, Vogel,
Leo
Jandcek,
292.
18
An extreme
example
of
Janacek's
inconsistency
in this
respect
is
pointed
out in
Vogel,
Leos
Jandcek,
351.
correspondence
about the
Trio;
works. The first
category comprises
the Trio was
premiered
and a
description
of that
piece's
content
written
by
performance.
The second
category
is made
up
Janacek
written in the
period
category
surviving page
the
Trio;
the extant
page
of sketches for the
Quartet;
several
early
drafts of the
Quartet;
the
autograph
score of that
work;
and certain
stylistic
and formal
aspects
of the
published
version of the same
piece.
Janacek's
remarks and
all the other
evidence,
than is
generally
Quartet.
In
fact,
as
I shall
demonstrate,
Quartet
directly
from the Trio.
JANACEK'S
OWN COMMENTS
Janacek's
Quartet
biography
of the
composer,
which
early
1924 to commemorate
Janacek's
seventieth
birthday
(on
3
1923 Brod asked the
composer
several times to
supply
complete
list of
works,
but
Janacek (who
was
preoccupied
with
creative
him
only
Consequently,
particularly
informative. The
entry
KLAVfRNI TRIO.
-
Komp.
pratel
umeni 1909. -
Rukopis.
-
Janacek:
'Z nekolika
myslenek
odtud
povstalo
kvarteto.'
(PIANO
TRIO. -
Composed
Manuscript.
-
Janacek:
'The
Quartet
was
this.')
Janacek's
only
in the
Quartet
has been
accepted by
all
and
the
composer's
ences on and the
genesis
contradictory
result,
we are
justified
in
examining
the
remaining
Janacek's
statement.
14
Max
Brod,
Leos
Janicek:
zivot a dilo
(Leos Janacek: Life
and
Works;
Prague, 1924;
German
original, 1925,
rev. 2nd edn
1956).
15
problems
writing
his
biography
is
given
in Charles
Susskind, Jandcek
and Brod
(New Haven, 1985),
78-9.
16
The list is on
pp.
73-6 of Brod's
biography.
The
entry
p.
75.
17
See,
for
example, Vogel,
Leo
Jandcek,
292.
18
An extreme
example
of
Janacek's
inconsistency
in this
respect
is
pointed
out in
Vogel,
Leos
Jandcek,
351.
correspondence
about the
Trio;
works. The first
category comprises
the Trio was
premiered
and a
description
of that
piece's
content
written
by
performance.
The second
category
is made
up
Janacek
written in the
period
category
surviving page
the
Trio;
the extant
page
of sketches for the
Quartet;
several
early
drafts of the
Quartet;
the
autograph
score of that
work;
and certain
stylistic
and formal
aspects
of the
published
version of the same
piece.
Janacek's
remarks and
all the other
evidence,
than is
generally
Quartet.
In
fact,
as
I shall
demonstrate,
Quartet
directly
from the Trio.
JANACEK'S
OWN COMMENTS
Janacek's
Quartet
biography
of the
composer,
which
early
1924 to commemorate
Janacek's
seventieth
birthday
(on
3
1923 Brod asked the
composer
several times to
supply
complete
list of
works,
but
Janacek (who
was
preoccupied
with
creative
him
only
Consequently,
particularly
informative. The
entry
KLAVfRNI TRIO.
-
Komp.
pratel
umeni 1909. -
Rukopis.
-
Janacek:
'Z nekolika
myslenek
odtud
povstalo
kvarteto.'
(PIANO
TRIO. -
Composed
Manuscript.
-
Janacek:
'The
Quartet
was
this.')
Janacek's
only
in the
Quartet
has been
accepted by
all
and
the
composer's
ences on and the
genesis
contradictory
result,
we are
justified
in
examining
the
remaining
Janacek's
statement.
14
Max
Brod,
Leos
Janicek:
zivot a dilo
(Leos Janacek: Life
and
Works;
Prague, 1924;
German
original, 1925,
rev. 2nd edn
1956).
15
problems
writing
his
biography
is
given
in Charles
Susskind, Jandcek
and Brod
(New Haven, 1985),
78-9.
16
The list is on
pp.
73-6 of Brod's
biography.
The
entry
p.
75.
17
See,
for
example, Vogel,
Leo
Jandcek,
292.
18
An extreme
example
of
Janacek's
inconsistency
in this
respect
is
pointed
out in
Vogel,
Leos
Jandcek,
351.
correspondence
about the
Trio;
works. The first
category comprises
the Trio was
premiered
and a
description
of that
piece's
content
written
by
performance.
The second
category
is made
up
Janacek
written in the
period
category
surviving page
the
Trio;
the extant
page
of sketches for the
Quartet;
several
early
drafts of the
Quartet;
the
autograph
score of that
work;
and certain
stylistic
and formal
aspects
of the
published
version of the same
piece.
Janacek's
remarks and
all the other
evidence,
than is
generally
Quartet.
In
fact,
as
I shall
demonstrate,
Quartet
directly
from the Trio.
JANACEK'S
OWN COMMENTS
Janacek's
Quartet
biography
of the
composer,
which
early
1924 to commemorate
Janacek's
seventieth
birthday
(on
3
1923 Brod asked the
composer
several times to
supply
complete
list of
works,
but
Janacek (who
was
preoccupied
with
creative
him
only
Consequently,
particularly
informative. The
entry
KLAVfRNI TRIO.
-
Komp.
pratel
umeni 1909. -
Rukopis.
-
Janacek:
'Z nekolika
myslenek
odtud
povstalo
kvarteto.'
(PIANO
TRIO. -
Composed
Manuscript.
-
Janacek:
'The
Quartet
was
this.')
Janacek's
only
in the
Quartet
has been
accepted by
all
and
the
composer's
ences on and the
genesis
contradictory
result,
we are
justified
in
examining
the
remaining
Janacek's
statement.
14
Max
Brod,
Leos
Janicek:
zivot a dilo
(Leos Janacek: Life
and
Works;
Prague, 1924;
German
original, 1925,
rev. 2nd edn
1956).
15
problems
writing
his
biography
is
given
in Charles
Susskind, Jandcek
and Brod
(New Haven, 1985),
78-9.
16
The list is on
pp.
73-6 of Brod's
biography.
The
entry
p.
75.
17
See,
for
example, Vogel,
Leo
Jandcek,
292.
18
An extreme
example
of
Janacek's
inconsistency
in this
respect
is
pointed
out in
Vogel,
Leos
Jandcek,
351.
232 232 232 232 232 PAUL WINGFIELD PAUL WINGFIELD PAUL WINGFIELD PAUL WINGFIELD PAUL WINGFIELD
JANAtEK'S
JANAtEK'S
JANAtEK'S
JANAtEK'S
JANAtEK'S
THE LIDOVt NOVINY REVIEW AND PAVEL DtDECEK'S TESTIMONY
The earliest account of the Trio is a review of its
premiere
which
appeared
in the Brno
daily
Lidove
noviny
on 8
April
1909.19
According
to
this,
the Trio had three
movements,
and the third of these was the
most
popular
with the audience. We can thus assume that at least one
of the First
String Quartet's
four movements was
newly composed
in
1923, irrespective
of whether
Janacek
based the other three on
material from the Trio or not.
Unfortunately, however,
the review
does not contain
any
detailed
description
of the actual music in
any
of
the Trio's three
movements,
and so we cannot draw
any
further
conclusions from it about the
relationship
between that work and the
First
String Quartet.
The other
description
of the Trio's
content,
written
by
the violinist
in the first
performance,
is a little more detailed. In
1947, nearly
40
years
after the Trio's first
performance,
the Czech
musicologist Jan
Racek
attempted
to discover what had become of it. In the course of
his research he wrote to Pavel
Dedecek,
who was then 62
years
old.
Dedecek's
reply
to Racek's letter is dated 26 December 1947 and is
now in the
JA.20
In his
letter,
Dedecek
apologizes
for the fact that he
can
barely
remember the
piece,
which is because he
played
so
many
works in Brno around 1909. He then offers the
following description
of
the Trio:
Pamatuji
se dobre na
pocatek prvni vety
se sextolami v
prvnich
houslich i
violoncellu a
pokud
mam
jest!
v
pameti, byl psan
v taktu 2/1
(dvoucelovem).
Tazali
jsme
se
tehdy
s Pavlatou
Janacka
na
to,
co timto
pocatecnim rytmem
lici a rekl
nam,
ze
je
to duneni vlaku v
pohybu
...
Zacatek
skladby odpovidal
liceni Tolsteho.
Jinak
bylo
v
prvni vete,
pokud
se matne
pamatuji,
dosti tematicke
uisecnosti.
Druha veta v as moll
byla
zpevna
a zda se
mne,
ze v lichem taktovem rozdeleni.
Byla
ta veta velmi
krasna,
zpevna
a
pamatuji se,
ze od
prvniho
taktu housloveho
partu
v
prvni
poloze
sul
G, vyrustala
melodie az k
vysokym poloham struny
E.... Pokud
jde
o zaver
tria,
tu mne
jiz pamel
selhava a na finalni
takty
se
jiz
nepamatuji.
(I
remember well the
beginning
of the first movement with
sextuplets
in
the first violin
[sic]
and violoncello and as far as I can still
recall,
it was
written in 2/1 time
(two
semibreves
per bar).
Pavlata and I asked
Janacek
at that time what the
opening depicted
and he told us that it was the
rumbling
of a train in motion.... The start of the work
corresponded
to
Tolstoy's description [the
novel
begins
in a
railway carriage]. Otherwise,
there was in the first
movement,
as far as I
dimly remember,
a fair amount
of thematic
brevity.
The second
movement,
in Ab
minor,
was melodious
and it
appears
to me that it was in
triple
time. The movement was
very
beautiful and melodious and I remember that from the first bar of the
violin
part
the
melody,
which started on the G
string,
climbed
gradually up
premiere
which
appeared
in the Brno
daily
Lidove
noviny
on 8
April
1909.19
According
to
this,
the Trio had three
movements,
most
popular
of the First
String Quartet's
four movements was
newly composed
in
1923, irrespective
of whether
Janacek
the review
does not contain
any
detailed
description
any
of
the Trio's three
movements,
any
further
relationship
First
String Quartet.
The other
description
of the Trio's
content,
written
by
the violinist
in the first
performance,
1947, nearly
40
years
performance,
the Czech
musicologist Jan
Racek
attempted
Dedecek,
who was then 62
years
old.
Dedecek's
reply
now in the
JA.20
In his
letter,
Dedecek
apologizes
can
barely
remember the
piece,
which is because he
played
so
many
of
the Trio:
Pamatuji
se dobre na
pocatek prvni vety
se sextolami v
prvnich
houslich i
violoncellu a
pokud
mam
jest!
v
pameti, byl psan
v taktu 2/1
(dvoucelovem).
Tazali
jsme
se
tehdy
s Pavlatou
Janacka
na
to,
co timto
pocatecnim rytmem
lici a rekl
nam,
ze
je
to duneni vlaku v
pohybu
...
Zacatek
skladby odpovidal
liceni Tolsteho.
Jinak
bylo
v
prvni vete,
pokud
se matne
pamatuji,
dosti tematicke
uisecnosti.
byla
zpevna
a zda se
mne,
Byla
ta veta velmi
krasna,
zpevna
a
pamatuji se,
ze od
prvniho
taktu housloveho
partu
v
prvni
poloze
sul
G, vyrustala
melodie az k
E.... Pokud
jde
o zaver
tria,
tu mne
jiz pamel
takty
se
jiz
nepamatuji.
(I
remember well the
beginning
sextuplets
in
the first violin
[sic]
recall,
it was
written in 2/1 time
(two
semibreves
per bar).
Pavlata and I asked
Janacek
opening depicted
rumbling
corresponded
to
novel
begins
in a
movement,
as far as I
dimly remember,
a fair amount
of thematic
brevity.
The second
movement,
in Ab
minor,
was melodious
and it
appears
triple
very
violin
part
the
melody,
string,
climbed
gradually up
premiere
which
appeared
in the Brno
daily
Lidove
noviny
on 8
April
1909.19
According
to
this,
the Trio had three
movements,
most
popular
of the First
String Quartet's
four movements was
newly composed
in
1923, irrespective
of whether
Janacek
the review
does not contain
any
detailed
description
any
of
the Trio's three
movements,
any
further
relationship
First
String Quartet.
The other
description
of the Trio's
content,
written
by
the violinist
in the first
performance,
1947, nearly
40
years
performance,
the Czech
musicologist Jan
Racek
attempted
Dedecek,
who was then 62
years
old.
Dedecek's
reply
now in the
JA.20
In his
letter,
Dedecek
apologizes
can
barely
remember the
piece,
which is because he
played
so
many
of
the Trio:
Pamatuji
se dobre na
pocatek prvni vety
se sextolami v
prvnich
houslich i
violoncellu a
pokud
mam
jest!
v
pameti, byl psan
v taktu 2/1
(dvoucelovem).
Tazali
jsme
se
tehdy
s Pavlatou
Janacka
na
to,
co timto
pocatecnim rytmem
lici a rekl
nam,
ze
je
to duneni vlaku v
pohybu
...
Zacatek
skladby odpovidal
liceni Tolsteho.
Jinak
bylo
v
prvni vete,
pokud
se matne
pamatuji,
dosti tematicke
uisecnosti.
byla
zpevna
a zda se
mne,
Byla
ta veta velmi
krasna,
zpevna
a
pamatuji se,
ze od
prvniho
taktu housloveho
partu
v
prvni
poloze
sul
G, vyrustala
melodie az k
E.... Pokud
jde
o zaver
tria,
tu mne
jiz pamel
takty
se
jiz
nepamatuji.
(I
remember well the
beginning
sextuplets
in
the first violin
[sic]
recall,
it was
written in 2/1 time
(two
semibreves
per bar).
Pavlata and I asked
Janacek
opening depicted
rumbling
corresponded
to
novel
begins
in a
movement,
as far as I
dimly remember,
a fair amount
of thematic
brevity.
The second
movement,
in Ab
minor,
was melodious
and it
appears
triple
very
violin
part
the
melody,
string,
climbed
gradually up
premiere
which
appeared
in the Brno
daily
Lidove
noviny
on 8
April
1909.19
According
to
this,
the Trio had three
movements,
most
popular
of the First
String Quartet's
four movements was
newly composed
in
1923, irrespective
of whether
Janacek
the review
does not contain
any
detailed
description
any
of
the Trio's three
movements,
any
further
relationship
First
String Quartet.
The other
description
of the Trio's
content,
written
by
the violinist
in the first
performance,
1947, nearly
40
years
performance,
the Czech
musicologist Jan
Racek
attempted
Dedecek,
who was then 62
years
old.
Dedecek's
reply
now in the
JA.20
In his
letter,
Dedecek
apologizes
can
barely
remember the
piece,
which is because he
played
so
many
of
the Trio:
Pamatuji
se dobre na
pocatek prvni vety
se sextolami v
prvnich
houslich i
violoncellu a
pokud
mam
jest!
v
pameti, byl psan
v taktu 2/1
(dvoucelovem).
Tazali
jsme
se
tehdy
s Pavlatou
Janacka
na
to,
co timto
pocatecnim rytmem
lici a rekl
nam,
ze
je
to duneni vlaku v
pohybu
...
Zacatek
skladby odpovidal
liceni Tolsteho.
Jinak
bylo
v
prvni vete,
pokud
se matne
pamatuji,
dosti tematicke
uisecnosti.
byla
zpevna
a zda se
mne,
Byla
ta veta velmi
krasna,
zpevna
a
pamatuji se,
ze od
prvniho
taktu housloveho
partu
v
prvni
poloze
sul
G, vyrustala
melodie az k
E.... Pokud
jde
o zaver
tria,
tu mne
jiz pamel
takty
se
jiz
nepamatuji.
(I
remember well the
beginning
sextuplets
in
the first violin
[sic]
recall,
it was
written in 2/1 time
(two
semibreves
per bar).
Pavlata and I asked
Janacek
opening depicted
rumbling
corresponded
to
novel
begins
in a
movement,
as far as I
dimly remember,
a fair amount
of thematic
brevity.
The second
movement,
in Ab
minor,
was melodious
and it
appears
triple
very
violin
part
the
melody,
string,
climbed
gradually up
premiere
which
appeared
in the Brno
daily
Lidove
noviny
on 8
April
1909.19
According
to
this,
the Trio had three
movements,
most
popular
of the First
String Quartet's
four movements was
newly composed
in
1923, irrespective
of whether
Janacek
the review
does not contain
any
detailed
description
any
of
the Trio's three
movements,
any
further
relationship
First
String Quartet.
The other
description
of the Trio's
content,
written
by
the violinist
in the first
performance,
1947, nearly
40
years
performance,
the Czech
musicologist Jan
Racek
attempted
Dedecek,
who was then 62
years
old.
Dedecek's
reply
now in the
JA.20
In his
letter,
Dedecek
apologizes
can
barely
remember the
piece,
which is because he
played
so
many
of
the Trio:
Pamatuji
se dobre na
pocatek prvni vety
se sextolami v
prvnich
houslich i
violoncellu a
pokud
mam
jest!
v
pameti, byl psan
v taktu 2/1
(dvoucelovem).
Tazali
jsme
se
tehdy
s Pavlatou
Janacka
na
to,
co timto
pocatecnim rytmem
lici a rekl
nam,
ze
je
to duneni vlaku v
pohybu
...
Zacatek
skladby odpovidal
liceni Tolsteho.
Jinak
bylo
v
prvni vete,
pokud
se matne
pamatuji,
dosti tematicke
uisecnosti.
byla
zpevna
a zda se
mne,
Byla
ta veta velmi
krasna,
zpevna
a
pamatuji se,
ze od
prvniho
taktu housloveho
partu
v
prvni
poloze
sul
G, vyrustala
melodie az k
E.... Pokud
jde
o zaver
tria,
tu mne
jiz pamel
takty
se
jiz
nepamatuji.
(I
remember well the
beginning
sextuplets
in
the first violin
[sic]
recall,
it was
written in 2/1 time
(two
semibreves
per bar).
Pavlata and I asked
Janacek
opening depicted
rumbling
corresponded
to
novel
begins
in a
movement,
as far as I
dimly remember,
a fair amount
of thematic
brevity.
The second
movement,
in Ab
minor,
was melodious
and it
appears
triple
very
violin
part
the
melody,
string,
climbed
gradually up
19
This review is also described
briefly
in
Racek, Korespondence,
116.
20
Dedecek's letter has the classmark B 1715.
19
briefly
in
116.
20
19
briefly
in
116.
20
19
briefly
in
116.
20
19
briefly
in
116.
20
233 233 233 233 233
to the E
string....
As far as the end of the Trio is
concerned, my memory
already
fails me and I can no
longer
remember the
closing bars.)
It
appears
at first
sight
that Dedecek's remarks about the first two
movements of the Trio
support Janacek's
claim that
only
'a few ideas'
from it were used in the
Quartet. Certainly,
neither the first nor
any
other movement of the
Quartet
is in 2/1 time and none starts with a
sextuplet figure. Moreover,
no movement in the
Quartet
answers
Dedecek's
description
of the second of the Trio. But if the violinist's
letter is
analysed closely,
it does seem to contain at least a few hints
that the
relationship
between the first movement of the Trio and the
first of the
Quartet might
be more
complex.
For
instance,
even
though
the first movement of the
Quartet
is not in
2/1
time,
it is still in
duple
time
(2/4),
and
Janacek
might
therefore have
adapted
the first
movement of the Trio for
quartet
in 1923
simply by changing
the
instrumentation and
by reducing
the note values. This
theory
is made
more
plausible by
the fact that a substantial number of the
composer's
other
pieces
had their note values halved or
quartered during
their
geneses (song
X of the
song cycle
The Diary
of
One Who
Disappeared
(1917-21),
for
example).
As far as the first movement of the
Quartet
is
concerned,
this
may
indeed have had its note values reduced
by
a
factor of four. But the first movement of the Trio
might
have had
only
half as
many
barlines as the first of the
Quartet
and,
despite
its 2/1
time
signature,
its main unit of
pulse may
have been a
minim,
not a
semibreve.21
Consequently,
the note values
might
have been
only
halved in the
Quartet.
A second
important
clue in Dedecek's letter is the fact that he
describes in detail
only
the
opening
of the first movement of the
Trio,
as this of course means that the remainder of that movement
may
have been related to the first of the
Quartet.
The latter
certainly
does
contain 'a fair amount of thematic
brevity'.
It is even
possible
that in
1923
Janacek
merely
removed an initial introduction to the first
movement of the Trio which contained
sextuplet figuration
and used
the rest of that movement in the
Quartet,
without
making any
alterations other than those
required by
the
change
of forces. This
hypothesis
seems all the more
likely,
because the
original
version of
the first movement of the Violin Sonata had an 18-bar
introduction,
which was discarded and
replaced by
one of
only
three bars before the
piece
was
published
in 1922.22
Furthermore,
Quartet
does contain two
passages
with
sextuplet semiquavers:
bars
57-70 and 149-61. These
passages
- with their continuous
sextuplet
movement
(shared by
the two violins at first and later
by
the second
violin and
viola)
and their use of a
repeated
one-bar melodic
figure
(in
21
Even in the final versions of several of
Janacek's pieces
the time
signatures
and the
principal
units of
pulse
conflict.
22
Janacek's
original
version of the whole of the Violin Sonata is in the
JA
under the classmark
A.33.743.
to the E
string....
already
longer
remember the
closing bars.)
It
appears
at first
sight
support Janacek's
claim that
only
'a few ideas'
Quartet. Certainly,
any
Quartet
no movement in the
Quartet
answers
Dedecek's
description
letter is
analysed closely,
that the
relationship
first of the
Quartet might
be more
complex.
For
instance,
even
though
Quartet
is not in
2/1
time,
it is still in
duple
time
(2/4),
and
Janacek
might
therefore have
adapted
the first
quartet
in 1923
simply by changing
the
instrumentation and
by reducing
theory
is made
more
plausible by
composer's
other
pieces
quartered during
their
geneses (song
X of the
song cycle
The Diary
of
One Who
Disappeared
(1917-21),
for
example).
Quartet
is
concerned,
this
may
by
a
might
have had
only
half as
many
Quartet
and,
despite
its 2/1
time
signature,
its main unit of
pulse may
have been a
minim,
not a
semibreve.21
Consequently,
the note values
might
have been
only
halved in the
Quartet.
A second
important
describes in detail
only
the
opening
Trio,
may
Quartet.
The latter
certainly
does
brevity'.
It is even
possible
that in
1923
Janacek
merely
and used
Quartet,
without
making any
required by
the
change
of forces. This
hypothesis
seems all the more
likely,
because the
original
version of
introduction,
replaced by
one of
only
piece
was
published
in 1922.22
Furthermore,
Quartet
does contain two
passages
with
bars
57-70 and 149-61. These
passages
sextuplet
movement
(shared by
by
the second
violin and
viola)
and their use of a
repeated
one-bar melodic
figure
(in
21
Janacek's pieces
the time
signatures
and the
principal
units of
pulse
conflict.
22
Janacek's
original
JA
under the classmark
A.33.743.
to the E
string....
already
longer
remember the
closing bars.)
It
appears
at first
sight
support Janacek's
claim that
only
'a few ideas'
Quartet. Certainly,
any
Quartet
no movement in the
Quartet
answers
Dedecek's
description
letter is
analysed closely,
that the
relationship
first of the
Quartet might
be more
complex.
For
instance,
even
though
Quartet
is not in
2/1
time,
it is still in
duple
time
(2/4),
and
Janacek
might
therefore have
adapted
the first
quartet
in 1923
simply by changing
the
instrumentation and
by reducing
theory
is made
more
plausible by
composer's
other
pieces
quartered during
their
geneses (song
X of the
song cycle
The Diary
of
One Who
Disappeared
(1917-21),
for
example).
Quartet
is
concerned,
this
may
by
a
might
have had
only
half as
many
Quartet
and,
despite
its 2/1
time
signature,
its main unit of
pulse may
have been a
minim,
not a
semibreve.21
Consequently,
the note values
might
have been
only
halved in the
Quartet.
A second
important
describes in detail
only
the
opening
Trio,
may
Quartet.
The latter
certainly
does
brevity'.
It is even
possible
that in
1923
Janacek
merely
and used
Quartet,
without
making any
required by
the
change
of forces. This
hypothesis
seems all the more
likely,
because the
original
version of
introduction,
replaced by
one of
only
piece
was
published
in 1922.22
Furthermore,
Quartet
does contain two
passages
with
bars
57-70 and 149-61. These
passages
sextuplet
movement
(shared by
by
the second
violin and
viola)
and their use of a
repeated
one-bar melodic
figure
(in
21
Janacek's pieces
the time
signatures
and the
principal
units of
pulse
conflict.
22
Janacek's
original
JA
under the classmark
A.33.743.
to the E
string....
already
longer
remember the
closing bars.)
It
appears
at first
sight
support Janacek's
claim that
only
'a few ideas'
Quartet. Certainly,
any
Quartet
no movement in the
Quartet
answers
Dedecek's
description
letter is
analysed closely,
that the
relationship
first of the
Quartet might
be more
complex.
For
instance,
even
though
Quartet
is not in
2/1
time,
it is still in
duple
time
(2/4),
and
Janacek
might
therefore have
adapted
the first
quartet
in 1923
simply by changing
the
instrumentation and
by reducing
theory
is made
more
plausible by
composer's
other
pieces
quartered during
their
geneses (song
X of the
song cycle
The Diary
of
One Who
Disappeared
(1917-21),
for
example).
Quartet
is
concerned,
this
may
by
a
might
have had
only
half as
many
Quartet
and,
despite
its 2/1
time
signature,
its main unit of
pulse may
have been a
minim,
not a
semibreve.21
Consequently,
the note values
might
have been
only
halved in the
Quartet.
A second
important
describes in detail
only
the
opening
Trio,
may
Quartet.
The latter
certainly
does
brevity'.
It is even
possible
that in
1923
Janacek
merely
and used
Quartet,
without
making any
required by
the
change
of forces. This
hypothesis
seems all the more
likely,
because the
original
version of
introduction,
replaced by
one of
only
piece
was
published
in 1922.22
Furthermore,
Quartet
does contain two
passages
with
bars
57-70 and 149-61. These
passages
sextuplet
movement
(shared by
by
the second
violin and
viola)
and their use of a
repeated
one-bar melodic
figure
(in
21
Janacek's pieces
the time
signatures
and the
principal
units of
pulse
conflict.
22
Janacek's
original
JA
under the classmark
A.33.743.
to the E
string....
already
longer
remember the
closing bars.)
It
appears
at first
sight
support Janacek's
claim that
only
'a few ideas'
Quartet. Certainly,
any
Quartet
no movement in the
Quartet
answers
Dedecek's
description
letter is
analysed closely,
that the
relationship
first of the
Quartet might
be more
complex.
For
instance,
even
though
Quartet
is not in
2/1
time,
it is still in
duple
time
(2/4),
and
Janacek
might
therefore have
adapted
the first
quartet
in 1923
simply by changing
the
instrumentation and
by reducing
theory
is made
more
plausible by
composer's
other
pieces
quartered during
their
geneses (song
X of the
song cycle
The Diary
of
One Who
Disappeared
(1917-21),
for
example).
Quartet
is
concerned,
this
may
by
a
might
have had
only
half as
many
Quartet
and,
despite
its 2/1
time
signature,
its main unit of
pulse may
have been a
minim,
not a
semibreve.21
Consequently,
the note values
might
have been
only
halved in the
Quartet.
A second
important
describes in detail
only
the
opening
Trio,
may
Quartet.
The latter
certainly
does
brevity'.
It is even
possible
that in
1923
Janacek
merely
and used
Quartet,
without
making any
required by
the
change
of forces. This
hypothesis
seems all the more
likely,
because the
original
version of
introduction,
replaced by
one of
only
piece
was
published
in 1922.22
Furthermore,
Quartet
does contain two
passages
with
bars
57-70 and 149-61. These
passages
sextuplet
movement
(shared by
by
the second
violin and
viola)
and their use of a
repeated
one-bar melodic
figure
(in
21
Janacek's pieces
the time
signatures
and the
principal
units of
pulse
conflict.
22
Janacek's
original
JA
under the classmark
A.33.743.
235 235 235 235 235
JANACEK'S
Example
1
JANACEK'S
Example
1
JANACEK'S
Example
1
JANACEK'S
Example
1
JANACEK'S
Example
1
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
A 11 m2-' A 11 m2-' A 11 m2-' A 11 m2-' A 11 m2-'
Vivo
(4(") S
1
!
I
!
2
./
- _ '-o** ^ A
) J_
J
_J
//
/
K2Z~~~~~E i9!
Vivo
(4(") S
1
!
I
!
2
./
- _ '-o** ^ A
) J_
J
_J
//
/
K2Z~~~~~E i9!
Vivo
(4(") S
1
!
I
!
2
./
- _ '-o** ^ A
) J_
J
_J
//
/
K2Z~~~~~E i9!
Vivo
(4(") S
1
!
I
!
2
./
- _ '-o** ^ A
) J_
J
_J
//
/
K2Z~~~~~E i9!
Vivo
(4(") S
1
!
I
!
2
./
- _ '-o** ^ A
) J_
J
_J
//
/
K2Z~~~~~E i9!
f
.0
f
h
n
;
I
J-
!
.i'J^, _
...tl
.
A
~~?r?~
f
.0
f
h
n
;
I
J-
!
.i'J^, _
...tl
.
A
~~?r?~
f
.0
f
h
n
;
I
J-
!
.i'J^, _
...tl
.
A
~~?r?~
f
.0
f
h
n
;
I
J-
!
.i'J^, _
...tl
.
A
~~?r?~
f
.0
f
h
n
;
I
J-
!
.i'J^, _
...tl
.
A
~~?r?~
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
' ' ' ' '
the viola
initially
and afterwards in the
violoncello)
- look and sound
as
though they
could have been intended to
represent
'a train in
motion'.
(Bars
57-61 are
reproduced
in
Example 1.)
It is conceivable
that these sections are
largely
identical with the
passage
described
by
Dedecek and that either Dedecek made a mistake about the
position
of the
sextuplet passage
within the first movement of the
Trio,
or
Janacek
changed
the order of his themes when he transcribed the
movement for
quartet. (Such
alterations were common
during
the
genesis
of the
composer's music.) Thus,
we should reserve
judgment
about the
significance
of Dedecek's remarks on the content of
Janacek's
Piano Trio until the other
surviving
evidence has been
examined.
If Dedecek's letter tells us little about the actual music in the
Trio,
it tells us even less about what became of the
manuscript
material
after the
premiere.
All that Dedecek has to
say
on that
subject
is:
Noty
z
pultu odnasel, jak
se mne
zda, tehdejsi
skolnik
pan
Simandl. Nevim
ovsem co se s triem dale delo.
(It appears
to me that the then caretaker Mr Simandl took the music off the
stands. I do not
know,
of
course,
what was done with the Trio after
that.)
the viola
initially
violoncello)
- look and sound
as
though they
represent
'a train in
motion'.
(Bars
57-61 are
reproduced
in
Example 1.)
It is conceivable
largely
identical with the
passage
described
by
position
of the
sextuplet passage
Trio,
or
Janacek
changed
movement for
quartet. (Such
during
the
genesis
of the
we should reserve
judgment
about the
significance
Janacek's
surviving
evidence has been
examined.
Trio,
manuscript
material
after the
premiere.
say
on that
subject
is:
Noty
z
pultu odnasel, jak
se mne
zda, tehdejsi
skolnik
pan
Simandl. Nevim
(It appears
stands. I do not
know,
of
course,
that.)
the viola
initially
violoncello)
- look and sound
as
though they
represent
'a train in
motion'.
(Bars
57-61 are
reproduced
in
Example 1.)
It is conceivable
largely
identical with the
passage
described
by
position
of the
sextuplet passage
Trio,
or
Janacek
changed
movement for
quartet. (Such
during
the
genesis
of the
we should reserve
judgment
about the
significance
Janacek's
surviving
evidence has been
examined.
Trio,
manuscript
material
after the
premiere.
say
on that
subject
is:
Noty
z
pultu odnasel, jak
se mne
zda, tehdejsi
skolnik
pan
Simandl. Nevim
(It appears
stands. I do not
know,
of
course,
that.)
the viola
initially
violoncello)
- look and sound
as
though they
represent
'a train in
motion'.
(Bars
57-61 are
reproduced
in
Example 1.)
It is conceivable
largely
identical with the
passage
described
by
position
of the
sextuplet passage
Trio,
or
Janacek
changed
movement for
quartet. (Such
during
the
genesis
of the
we should reserve
judgment
about the
significance
Janacek's
surviving
evidence has been
examined.
Trio,
manuscript
material
after the
premiere.
say
on that
subject
is:
Noty
z
pultu odnasel, jak
se mne
zda, tehdejsi
skolnik
pan
Simandl. Nevim
(It appears
stands. I do not
know,
of
course,
that.)
the viola
initially
violoncello)
- look and sound
as
though they
represent
'a train in
motion'.
(Bars
57-61 are
reproduced
in
Example 1.)
It is conceivable
largely
identical with the
passage
described
by
position
of the
sextuplet passage
Trio,
or
Janacek
changed
movement for
quartet. (Such
during
the
genesis
of the
we should reserve
judgment
about the
significance
Janacek's
surviving
evidence has been
examined.
Trio,
manuscript
material
after the
premiere.
say
on that
subject
is:
Noty
z
pultu odnasel, jak
se mne
zda, tehdejsi
skolnik
pan
Simandl. Nevim
(It appears
stands. I do not
know,
of
course,
that.)
if
of
i
IF-JIT1
F if
of
i
IF-JIT1
F if
of
i
IF-JIT1
F if
of
i
IF-JIT1
F if
of
i
IF-JIT1
F
- - - - -
On the basis of these comments one can conclude
only
that the
caretaker
gave
the score and
parts straight
back to
Janaek
after the
concert. In order to discover how much material for the Trio was in
existence in 1909 and to find out what
happened
to it
subsequently,
we need to consult the
remaining
letters about the
work,
all but one of
which are also in the
JA.
JANACEK'S
1909-22 CORRESPONDENCE
The earliest
surviving correspondence
about the Trio
(from January
and
February
of
1909)
is concerned with the
problem
of
finding
a
pianist
to
play
in the
premiere.
Jan
Herman,
Ludmila
Propokova
and
Emanuel Polak all declined invitations to
play
before Fialova
accepted.)23
The first letter that refers to the actual
manuscript
material is dated 6 March 1909 and was sent
by
Janacek
to his friend
Artus
Rektorys,
the
Prague
critic:24
Mily priteli!
Nema se to hrat!
Snad
je
to
jen nacrtek, snad,
az to za
nejakou
dobu znovu
prehlednu,
vzrostou
myslenky jinak.
Tedy
nikomu to
nedavejte.
Az
piijedu
do
Prahy
tak si to odnesu.
(Dear friend,
It
[the Trio]
is not to be
played!
Perhaps
it is
only
a
sketch;
perhaps,
when I take a look at it
again
after
some
time,
the ideas will
develop differently.
Therefore,
do not
give
it to
anybody.
When I come to
Prague
I will take it
away.)
This letter is
quoted
here almost in full. It is
significant,
because it not
only
indicates that
Janacek
decided to revise the Trio as late as March
1909
(less
than a month before the
premiere),
but also demonstrates
that on 6 March of that
year
a score of the
original
version of the
piece
was still in
Rektorys's possession. (The composer
seems to have sent
this to
Rektorys
in late 1908 so that it would be available for
inspection by any Prague pianist
whom
Rektorys
invited to
play
in the
premiere.) Despite
the
composer's
declared intention to retrieve the
score of the Trio from
Rektorys, however,
he does not
appear
to have
been in
any hurry
to
go
and collect it. On 17 March
Janacek
wrote to
Rektorys
to inform him that he had
postponed
a
planned
visit to
23
There are seven letters in all on this
subject: Janiaek
to
Jan Branberger (6 January 1909),
Branberger
to
Janacek (10 January), Janacek
to Artus
Rektorys (between
10 and 21
January),
Rektorys
to
to
Rektorys (22 January
and 1
February)
and
Rektorys
to
Janacek (5 February).
The first of these letters is in the
JA (B 1437)
and has not been
published;
the second is in a
private
collection and is not available in
print;
and the
remaining
five are all also in the
JA
and have been
published
in
103-7.
24
See
109.
only
that the
caretaker
gave
the score and
parts straight
back to
Janaek
after the
happened
to it
subsequently,
remaining
letters about the
work,
all but one of
JA.
JANACEK'S
The earliest
about the Trio
(from January
and
February
of
1909)
problem
of
finding
a
pianist
to
play
in the
premiere.
Jan
Herman,
Ludmila
Propokova
and
play
before Fialova
accepted.)23
manuscript
by
Janacek
to his friend
Artus
Rektorys,
the
Prague
critic:24
Mily priteli!
Nema se to hrat!
Snad
je
to
jen nacrtek, snad,
az to za
nejakou
dobu znovu
prehlednu,
vzrostou
myslenky jinak.
Tedy
nikomu to
nedavejte.
Az
piijedu
do
Prahy
tak si to odnesu.
(Dear friend,
It
[the Trio]
is not to be
played!
Perhaps
it is
only
a
sketch;
perhaps,
again
after
some
time,
the ideas will
Therefore,
do not
give
it to
anybody.
When I come to
Prague
I will take it
away.)
This letter is
quoted
significant,
because it not
only
indicates that
Janacek
1909
(less
premiere),
year
a score of the
original
version of the
piece
was still in
seems to have sent
this to
Rektorys
whom
Rektorys
invited to
play
in the
premiere.) Despite
the
composer's
Rektorys, however,
he does not
appear
to have
been in
any hurry
to
go
Janacek
wrote to
Rektorys
postponed
a
planned
visit to
23
subject: Janiaek
to
Branberger
to
to Artus
Rektorys (between
10 and 21
January),
Rektorys
to
to
and 1
February)
and
Rektorys
to
JA (B 1437)
and has not been
published;
the second is in a
private
print;
and the
remaining
JA
and have been
published
in
103-7.
24
See
109.
only
that the
caretaker
gave
the score and
parts straight
back to
Janaek
after the
happened
to it
subsequently,
remaining
letters about the
work,
all but one of
JA.
JANACEK'S
The earliest
about the Trio
(from January
and
February
of
1909)
problem
of
finding
a
pianist
to
play
in the
premiere.
Jan
Herman,
Ludmila
Propokova
and
play
before Fialova
accepted.)23
manuscript
by
Janacek
to his friend
Artus
Rektorys,
the
Prague
critic:24
Mily priteli!
Nema se to hrat!
Snad
je
to
jen nacrtek, snad,
az to za
nejakou
dobu znovu
prehlednu,
vzrostou
myslenky jinak.
Tedy
nikomu to
nedavejte.
Az
piijedu
do
Prahy
tak si to odnesu.
(Dear friend,
It
[the Trio]
is not to be
played!
Perhaps
it is
only
a
sketch;
perhaps,
again
after
some
time,
the ideas will
Therefore,
do not
give
it to
anybody.
When I come to
Prague
I will take it
away.)
This letter is
quoted
significant,
because it not
only
indicates that
Janacek
1909
(less
premiere),
year
a score of the
original
version of the
piece
was still in
seems to have sent
this to
Rektorys
whom
Rektorys
invited to
play
in the
premiere.) Despite
the
composer's
Rektorys, however,
he does not
appear
to have
been in
any hurry
to
go
Janacek
wrote to
Rektorys
postponed
a
planned
visit to
23
subject: Janiaek
to
Branberger
to
to Artus
Rektorys (between
10 and 21
January),
Rektorys
to
to
and 1
February)
and
Rektorys
to
JA (B 1437)
and has not been
published;
the second is in a
private
print;
and the
remaining
JA
and have been
published
in
103-7.
24
See
109.
only
that the
caretaker
gave
the score and
parts straight
back to
Janaek
after the
happened
to it
subsequently,
remaining
letters about the
work,
all but one of
JA.
JANACEK'S
The earliest
about the Trio
(from January
and
February
of
1909)
problem
of
finding
a
pianist
to
play
in the
premiere.
Jan
Herman,
Ludmila
Propokova
and
play
before Fialova
accepted.)23
manuscript
by
Janacek
to his friend
Artus
Rektorys,
the
Prague
critic:24
Mily priteli!
Nema se to hrat!
Snad
je
to
jen nacrtek, snad,
az to za
nejakou
dobu znovu
prehlednu,
vzrostou
myslenky jinak.
Tedy
nikomu to
nedavejte.
Az
piijedu
do
Prahy
tak si to odnesu.
(Dear friend,
It
[the Trio]
is not to be
played!
Perhaps
it is
only
a
sketch;
perhaps,
again
after
some
time,
the ideas will
Therefore,
do not
give
it to
anybody.
When I come to
Prague
I will take it
away.)
This letter is
quoted
significant,
because it not
only
indicates that
Janacek
1909
(less
premiere),
year
a score of the
original
version of the
piece
was still in
seems to have sent
this to
Rektorys
whom
Rektorys
invited to
play
in the
premiere.) Despite
the
composer's
Rektorys, however,
he does not
appear
to have
been in
any hurry
to
go
Janacek
wrote to
Rektorys
postponed
a
planned
visit to
23
subject: Janiaek
to
Branberger
to
to Artus
Rektorys (between
10 and 21
January),
Rektorys
to
to
and 1
February)
and
Rektorys
to
JA (B 1437)
and has not been
published;
the second is in a
private
print;
and the
remaining
JA
and have been
published
in
103-7.
24
See
109.
only
that the
caretaker
gave
the score and
parts straight
back to
Janaek
after the
happened
to it
subsequently,
remaining
letters about the
work,
all but one of
JA.
JANACEK'S
The earliest
about the Trio
(from January
and
February
of
1909)
problem
of
finding
a
pianist
to
play
in the
premiere.
Jan
Herman,
Ludmila
Propokova
and
play
before Fialova
accepted.)23
manuscript
by
Janacek
to his friend
Artus
Rektorys,
the
Prague
critic:24
Mily priteli!
Nema se to hrat!
Snad
je
to
jen nacrtek, snad,
az to za
nejakou
dobu znovu
prehlednu,
vzrostou
myslenky jinak.
Tedy
nikomu to
nedavejte.
Az
piijedu
do
Prahy
tak si to odnesu.
(Dear friend,
It
[the Trio]
is not to be
played!
Perhaps
it is
only
a
sketch;
perhaps,
again
after
some
time,
the ideas will
Therefore,
do not
give
it to
anybody.
When I come to
Prague
I will take it
away.)
This letter is
quoted
significant,
because it not
only
indicates that
Janacek
1909
(less
premiere),
year
a score of the
original
version of the
piece
was still in
seems to have sent
this to
Rektorys
whom
Rektorys
invited to
play
in the
premiere.) Despite
the
composer's
Rektorys, however,
he does not
appear
to have
been in
any hurry
to
go
Janacek
wrote to
Rektorys
postponed
a
planned
visit to
23
subject: Janiaek
to
Branberger
to
to Artus
Rektorys (between
10 and 21
January),
Rektorys
to
to
and 1
February)
and
Rektorys
to
JA (B 1437)
and has not been
published;
the second is in a
private
print;
and the
remaining
JA
and have been
published
in
103-7.
24
See
109.
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
Prague.25
Moreover, Janacek
continued to
put
off this
trip,
and as late
as 8
April
he wrote to
Rektorys:26
Mily priteli!
Trio, jehoz
nacrtek vlastni mate snad u sebe
jeste, jsem dopracoval
a
vycistil.
Davano
bylo
3. dubna a zanechalo
hluboky
dojem.
Do
Prahy prijedu
asi od
soboty
za
tyden.
Tesim se
jiz
na to.
(Dear
friend!
I have reworked and cleaned
up
the
Trio, my
sketch of which
you possibly
still have at
your place.
It was
performed
on 3
April
and left a
deep impression.
I will
probably
come to
Prague
a week on
Saturday.
I am
already looking
forward to
that.)
The
composer
did
finally go
to
Prague
on the
day specified
in his letter
of 8
April
and
perhaps
he did collect his score then.
Nevertheless,
this
letter
clearly
indicates that he revised the Trio without
using
the score
that he had sent to
Rektorys,
because the score was
obviously
in
Rektorys's
hands until
just
over two weeks after the
premiere
at the
very
least.
Janacek
must, therefore,
have had his first version
copied
before it was
posted.
It is not clear from his letters whether he sent his
own
autograph
score or the
copy
to
Rektorys.
But one of those was
certainly
used as the basis for the March 1909
revision,
and a
copyist's
score and
parts
for the second version must have been made in the
second half of March 1909. We can thus determine from the
surviving
correspondence
that there existed at the time of the Trio's
premiere
an
autograph
score,
two
copies
and one set of
copyist's parts
for the
work.
Furthermore,
either the
autograph
or the earliest
copy
must
have had two
layers:
the first
containing
the
original
version and the
second
containing
the revised version in the
composer's
own hand.
The
remaining
letters about the Trio show that the later
copyist's
score and the
parts
were extant for another 13
years,
as these
appear
to have been borrowed for concerts in Boskovice
(14 August 1910),
Prague (March 1911),
Kromeriz
(June
1912),
Pribram
(August? 1914),
Prague (December 1917?)
and
Prague again (8 April 1922).27
Of
course, Janacek
might
have
destroyed
all of the
manuscript
material
25
Ibid.,
113.
26
This letter
(JA
B
1496)
has been
published
in
115-16.
Janacek dated it
9
April
and Racek
reproduces
that date in his book.
However,
the
envelope
is
clearly postmarked
8
April
and it thus seems obvious that the
composer
made a mistake.
Janacek's
date for the first
performance
of the Trio
(3 April)
is also
wrong (the
concert took
place
on 2
April).
27
There are ten extant letters about these
performances
in the
JA:
five from Antonin Vfana to
Janacek (A 3428,
A
3430,
A
3431,
A 420 and A
3810;
dated 28
July 1910,
16
August 1910,
13
November
1910,
21
May
1914 and 2
July
1914
respectively),
three from
Jaroslav Elgart
to
Janiaek (B 339,
B 342 and A
4536;
the first two dated 19 March 1912 and 22 March 1912
respectively
and the third
undated),
one from the
secretary
of the
'Osvetovy
svaz'
('Cultural
Union')
in
Prague
to
Janacek (A 682;
dated 4 December
1917)
and one from Bohuslav Sich to
Janaek (B 448;
dated 3 March
1922). Vogel
also records on
p.
224 of his
biography
that a further
performance
of the Trio was
planned
to take
place
in
Prague
in 1916. This concert was
eventually
cancelled.
Prague.25
Moreover, Janacek
continued to
put
off this
trip,
and as late
as 8
April
he wrote to
Rektorys:26
Mily priteli!
Trio, jehoz
a
vycistil.
Davano
bylo
hluboky
dojem.
Do
Prahy prijedu
asi od
soboty
za
tyden.
Tesim se
jiz
na to.
(Dear
friend!
up
the
Trio, my
sketch of which
you possibly
still have at
your place.
It was
performed
on 3
April
and left a
deep impression.
I will
probably
come to
Prague
a week on
Saturday.
I am
already looking
forward to
that.)
The
composer
did
finally go
to
Prague
on the
day specified
in his letter
of 8
April
and
perhaps
Nevertheless,
this
letter
clearly
using
the score
that he had sent to
Rektorys,
obviously
in
Rektorys's
hands until
just
premiere
at the
very
least.
Janacek
must, therefore,
copied
before it was
posted.
own
autograph
score or the
copy
to
Rektorys.
certainly
revision,
and a
copyist's
score and
parts
surviving
correspondence
premiere
an
autograph
score,
two
copies
and one set of
copyist's parts
for the
work.
Furthermore,
either the
autograph
or the earliest
copy
must
have had two
layers:
the first
containing
the
original
version and the
second
containing
composer's
own hand.
The
remaining
copyist's
score and the
parts
years,
as these
appear
(14 August 1910),
Kromeriz
(June
1912),
Pribram
(August? 1914),
and
Of
course, Janacek
might
have
destroyed
all of the
manuscript
material
25
Ibid.,
113.
26
This letter
(JA
B
1496)
has been
published
in
115-16.
Janacek dated it
9
April
and Racek
reproduces
However,
the
envelope
is
clearly postmarked
8
April
composer
made a mistake.
Janacek's
date for the first
performance
of the Trio
(3 April)
is also
wrong (the
concert took
place
on 2
April).
27
performances
in the
JA:
Janacek (A 3428,
A
3430,
A
3431,
A 420 and A
3810;
dated 28
July 1910,
16
August 1910,
13
November
1910,
21
May
1914 and 2
July
1914
respectively),
three from
Jaroslav Elgart
to
Janiaek (B 339,
B 342 and A
4536;
respectively
and the third
undated),
one from the
secretary
of the
'Osvetovy
svaz'
('Cultural
Union')
in
Prague
to
Janacek (A 682;
dated 4 December
1917)
Janaek (B 448;
dated 3 March
1922). Vogel
also records on
p.
224 of his
biography
that a further
performance
of the Trio was
planned
to take
place
in
Prague
eventually
cancelled.
Prague.25
Moreover, Janacek
continued to
put
off this
trip,
and as late
as 8
April
he wrote to
Rektorys:26
Mily priteli!
Trio, jehoz
a
vycistil.
Davano
bylo
hluboky
dojem.
Do
Prahy prijedu
asi od
soboty
za
tyden.
Tesim se
jiz
na to.
(Dear
friend!
up
the
Trio, my
sketch of which
you possibly
still have at
your place.
It was
performed
on 3
April
and left a
deep impression.
I will
probably
come to
Prague
a week on
Saturday.
I am
already looking
forward to
that.)
The
composer
did
finally go
to
Prague
on the
day specified
in his letter
of 8
April
and
perhaps
Nevertheless,
this
letter
clearly
using
the score
that he had sent to
Rektorys,
obviously
in
Rektorys's
hands until
just
premiere
at the
very
least.
Janacek
must, therefore,
copied
before it was
posted.
own
autograph
score or the
copy
to
Rektorys.
certainly
revision,
and a
copyist's
score and
parts
surviving
correspondence
premiere
an
autograph
score,
two
copies
and one set of
copyist's parts
for the
work.
Furthermore,
either the
autograph
or the earliest
copy
must
have had two
layers:
the first
containing
the
original
version and the
second
containing
composer's
own hand.
The
remaining
copyist's
score and the
parts
years,
as these
appear
(14 August 1910),
Kromeriz
(June
1912),
Pribram
(August? 1914),
and
Of
course, Janacek
might
have
destroyed
all of the
manuscript
material
25
Ibid.,
113.
26
This letter
(JA
B
1496)
has been
published
in
115-16.
Janacek dated it
9
April
and Racek
reproduces
However,
the
envelope
is
clearly postmarked
8
April
composer
made a mistake.
Janacek's
date for the first
performance
of the Trio
(3 April)
is also
wrong (the
concert took
place
on 2
April).
27
performances
in the
JA:
Janacek (A 3428,
A
3430,
A
3431,
A 420 and A
3810;
dated 28
July 1910,
16
August 1910,
13
November
1910,
21
May
1914 and 2
July
1914
respectively),
three from
Jaroslav Elgart
to
Janiaek (B 339,
B 342 and A
4536;
respectively
and the third
undated),
one from the
secretary
of the
'Osvetovy
svaz'
('Cultural
Union')
in
Prague
to
Janacek (A 682;
dated 4 December
1917)
Janaek (B 448;
dated 3 March
1922). Vogel
also records on
p.
224 of his
biography
that a further
performance
of the Trio was
planned
to take
place
in
Prague
eventually
cancelled.
Prague.25
Moreover, Janacek
continued to
put
off this
trip,
and as late
as 8
April
he wrote to
Rektorys:26
Mily priteli!
Trio, jehoz
a
vycistil.
Davano
bylo
hluboky
dojem.
Do
Prahy prijedu
asi od
soboty
za
tyden.
Tesim se
jiz
na to.
(Dear
friend!
up
the
Trio, my
sketch of which
you possibly
still have at
your place.
It was
performed
on 3
April
and left a
deep impression.
I will
probably
come to
Prague
a week on
Saturday.
I am
already looking
forward to
that.)
The
composer
did
finally go
to
Prague
on the
day specified
in his letter
of 8
April
and
perhaps
Nevertheless,
this
letter
clearly
using
the score
that he had sent to
Rektorys,
obviously
in
Rektorys's
hands until
just
premiere
at the
very
least.
Janacek
must, therefore,
copied
before it was
posted.
own
autograph
score or the
copy
to
Rektorys.
certainly
revision,
and a
copyist's
score and
parts
surviving
correspondence
premiere
an
autograph
score,
two
copies
and one set of
copyist's parts
for the
work.
Furthermore,
either the
autograph
or the earliest
copy
must
have had two
layers:
the first
containing
the
original
version and the
second
containing
composer's
own hand.
The
remaining
copyist's
score and the
parts
years,
as these
appear
(14 August 1910),
Kromeriz
(June
1912),
Pribram
(August? 1914),
and
Of
course, Janacek
might
have
destroyed
all of the
manuscript
material
25
Ibid.,
113.
26
This letter
(JA
B
1496)
has been
published
in
115-16.
Janacek dated it
9
April
and Racek
reproduces
However,
the
envelope
is
clearly postmarked
8
April
composer
made a mistake.
Janacek's
date for the first
performance
of the Trio
(3 April)
is also
wrong (the
concert took
place
on 2
April).
27
performances
in the
JA:
Janacek (A 3428,
A
3430,
A
3431,
A 420 and A
3810;
dated 28
July 1910,
16
August 1910,
13
November
1910,
21
May
1914 and 2
July
1914
respectively),
three from
Jaroslav Elgart
to
Janiaek (B 339,
B 342 and A
4536;
respectively
and the third
undated),
one from the
secretary
of the
'Osvetovy
svaz'
('Cultural
Union')
in
Prague
to
Janacek (A 682;
dated 4 December
1917)
Janaek (B 448;
dated 3 March
1922). Vogel
also records on
p.
224 of his
biography
that a further
performance
of the Trio was
planned
to take
place
in
Prague
eventually
cancelled.
Prague.25
Moreover, Janacek
continued to
put
off this
trip,
and as late
as 8
April
he wrote to
Rektorys:26
Mily priteli!
Trio, jehoz
a
vycistil.
Davano
bylo
hluboky
dojem.
Do
Prahy prijedu
asi od
soboty
za
tyden.
Tesim se
jiz
na to.
(Dear
friend!
up
the
Trio, my
sketch of which
you possibly
still have at
your place.
It was
performed
on 3
April
and left a
deep impression.
I will
probably
come to
Prague
a week on
Saturday.
I am
already looking
forward to
that.)
The
composer
did
finally go
to
Prague
on the
day specified
in his letter
of 8
April
and
perhaps
Nevertheless,
this
letter
clearly
using
the score
that he had sent to
Rektorys,
obviously
in
Rektorys's
hands until
just
premiere
at the
very
least.
Janacek
must, therefore,
copied
before it was
posted.
own
autograph
score or the
copy
to
Rektorys.
certainly
revision,
and a
copyist's
score and
parts
surviving
correspondence
premiere
an
autograph
score,
two
copies
and one set of
copyist's parts
for the
work.
Furthermore,
either the
autograph
or the earliest
copy
must
have had two
layers:
the first
containing
the
original
version and the
second
containing
composer's
own hand.
The
remaining
copyist's
score and the
parts
years,
as these
appear
(14 August 1910),
Kromeriz
(June
1912),
Pribram
(August? 1914),
and
Of
course, Janacek
might
have
destroyed
all of the
manuscript
material
25
Ibid.,
113.
26
This letter
(JA
B
1496)
has been
published
in
115-16.
Janacek dated it
9
April
and Racek
reproduces
However,
the
envelope
is
clearly postmarked
8
April
composer
made a mistake.
Janacek's
date for the first
performance
of the Trio
(3 April)
is also
wrong (the
concert took
place
on 2
April).
27
performances
in the
JA:
Janacek (A 3428,
A
3430,
A
3431,
A 420 and A
3810;
dated 28
July 1910,
16
August 1910,
13
November
1910,
21
May
1914 and 2
July
1914
respectively),
three from
Jaroslav Elgart
to
Janiaek (B 339,
B 342 and A
4536;
respectively
and the third
undated),
one from the
secretary
of the
'Osvetovy
svaz'
('Cultural
Union')
in
Prague
to
Janacek (A 682;
dated 4 December
1917)
Janaek (B 448;
dated 3 March
1922). Vogel
also records on
p.
224 of his
biography
that a further
performance
of the Trio was
planned
to take
place
in
Prague
eventually
cancelled.
237 237 237 237 237
in
1922,
but this is
unlikely
for two reasons.
First,
pieces
that the
composer
was
thoroughly
dissatisfied with were
destroyed
close to
their dates of
composition
or were not
performed
more than once. If
he considered a work to be worth
keeping
in
manuscript
for several
years,
he would
invariably
revise it and
eventually
have it
published.
The first version of the Violin
Sonata,
for
example,
was
completed
in
1914,
but the
piece
was not
published
until 1922.
Second,
the
surviving correspondence suggests
that the Trio was a success
wherever it was
performed: Janacek's
letter to
Rektorys
of 8
April
1909
testifies that the
premiere
was
greeted favourably by
the
public,
and
the
organizer
of the concert in Boskovice wrote to
Janacek
that the
work had had
'bourlivy uspech' ('thundering success')
there.28
Why
would the
composer
have
destroyed
a
piece
that had achieved such
public
acclaim? In
fact,
concrete evidence that some
manuscript
material still existed in 1923 can be found in Brod's 1924
biography
(see above,
p. 232).
THE TRIO MANUSCRIPTS AFTER 1922
Brod's
entry
about the Trio in his list of works
(see above, p. 232)
contains the word
'rukopis' ('manuscript').
Wherever else this word
appears
on its own in the list of works it indicates that the
piece
in
question
was in
manuscript
in
1923,
and each of these
compositions
was indeed
published
at a later date. If a work had been
destroyed by
the time Brod made his
catalogue,
this fact is stated
explicitly.
There
thus
appears
to be little doubt that in late 1923 at least some of the
material for
Janacek's
Piano Trio was still in existence.
Indeed, given
that the
composer
tended to hoard
manuscripts,
all of it was
probably
extant at that time. There is no
evidence, however,
that the material
survived
beyond
1923.
Consequently,
even
though
Janacek
stated that
only
'a few ideas' from the Trio were used in the
Quartet,
the
documentary
evidence would seem to indicate a
very
different
scenario.
The Piano Trio was
performed,
as were
many
works written before
the
composer's
final
decade,
from
manuscript parts
for 13
years.
The
material then
probably
remained in
Janacek's possession
until he
received a commission for a new
piece
from the Bohemian
Quartet
in
October 1923.
Perhaps
as a result of
having recently
revised and had
printed
the Violin Sonata and several other
long unpublished works,
the
composer
turned his attention once
again
to the Trio and
transcribed
all,
or a substantial
part
of
it,
for
string quartet.
He then
probably
revised the
Quartet
and
disposed
of the
manuscript
material
for the Trio
shortly
after this revision had been
completed (apparently
on 7 November
1923).
Such a course of events would
explain
the lack
of recorded references to the Trio after 1923 and would also account
in
1922,
but this is
unlikely
for two reasons.
First,
pieces
that the
composer
was
thoroughly
destroyed
close to
their dates of
composition
or were not
performed
more than once. If
keeping
in
manuscript
for several
years,
he would
invariably
revise it and
eventually
have it
published.
Sonata,
for
example,
was
completed
in
1914,
but the
piece
was not
published
until 1922.
Second,
the
wherever it was
letter to
Rektorys
of 8
April
1909
testifies that the
premiere
was
the
public,
and
the
organizer
Janacek
that the
work had had
there.28
Why
would the
composer
have
destroyed
a
piece
public
acclaim? In
fact,
manuscript
biography
(see above,
p. 232).
Brod's
entry
(see above, p. 232)
contains the word
appears
piece
in
question
was in
manuscript
in
1923,
and each of these
compositions
was indeed
published
destroyed by
catalogue,
this fact is stated
explicitly.
There
thus
appears
material for
Janacek's
Indeed, given
that the
composer
tended to hoard
manuscripts,
all of it was
probably
evidence, however,
that the material
survived
beyond
1923.
Consequently,
even
though
Janacek
stated that
only
Quartet,
the
documentary
very
different
scenario.
The Piano Trio was
performed,
as were
many
the
composer's
final
decade,
from
manuscript parts
for 13
years.
The
material then
probably
remained in
until he
piece
from the Bohemian
Quartet
in
October 1923.
Perhaps
as a result of
having recently
revised and had
printed
the
composer
again
to the Trio and
transcribed
all,
or a substantial
part
of
it,
for
string quartet.
He then
probably
revised the
Quartet
and
disposed
of the
manuscript
material
for the Trio
shortly
on 7 November
1923).
explain
the lack
in
1922,
but this is
unlikely
for two reasons.
First,
pieces
that the
composer
was
thoroughly
destroyed
close to
their dates of
composition
or were not
performed
more than once. If
keeping
in
manuscript
for several
years,
he would
invariably
revise it and
eventually
have it
published.
Sonata,
for
example,
was
completed
in
1914,
but the
piece
was not
published
until 1922.
Second,
the
wherever it was
letter to
Rektorys
of 8
April
1909
testifies that the
premiere
was
the
public,
and
the
organizer
Janacek
that the
work had had
there.28
Why
would the
composer
have
destroyed
a
piece
public
acclaim? In
fact,
manuscript
biography
(see above,
p. 232).
Brod's
entry
(see above, p. 232)
contains the word
appears
piece
in
question
was in
manuscript
in
1923,
and each of these
compositions
was indeed
published
destroyed by
catalogue,
this fact is stated
explicitly.
There
thus
appears
material for
Janacek's
Indeed, given
that the
composer
tended to hoard
manuscripts,
all of it was
probably
evidence, however,
that the material
survived
beyond
1923.
Consequently,
even
though
Janacek
stated that
only
Quartet,
the
documentary
very
different
scenario.
The Piano Trio was
performed,
as were
many
the
composer's
final
decade,
from
manuscript parts
for 13
years.
The
material then
probably
remained in
until he
piece
from the Bohemian
Quartet
in
October 1923.
Perhaps
as a result of
having recently
revised and had
printed
the
composer
again
to the Trio and
transcribed
all,
or a substantial
part
of
it,
for
string quartet.
He then
probably
revised the
Quartet
and
disposed
of the
manuscript
material
for the Trio
shortly
on 7 November
1923).
explain
the lack
in
1922,
but this is
unlikely
for two reasons.
First,
pieces
that the
composer
was
thoroughly
destroyed
close to
their dates of
composition
or were not
performed
more than once. If
keeping
in
manuscript
for several
years,
he would
invariably
revise it and
eventually
have it
published.
Sonata,
for
example,
was
completed
in
1914,
but the
piece
was not
published
until 1922.
Second,
the
wherever it was
letter to
Rektorys
of 8
April
1909
testifies that the
premiere
was
the
public,
and
the
organizer
Janacek
that the
work had had
there.28
Why
would the
composer
have
destroyed
a
piece
public
acclaim? In
fact,
manuscript
biography
(see above,
p. 232).
Brod's
entry
(see above, p. 232)
contains the word
appears
piece
in
question
was in
manuscript
in
1923,
and each of these
compositions
was indeed
published
destroyed by
catalogue,
this fact is stated
explicitly.
There
thus
appears
material for
Janacek's
Indeed, given
that the
composer
tended to hoard
manuscripts,
all of it was
probably
evidence, however,
that the material
survived
beyond
1923.
Consequently,
even
though
Janacek
stated that
only
Quartet,
the
documentary
very
different
scenario.
The Piano Trio was
performed,
as were
many
the
composer's
final
decade,
from
manuscript parts
for 13
years.
The
material then
probably
remained in
until he
piece
from the Bohemian
Quartet
in
October 1923.
Perhaps
as a result of
having recently
revised and had
printed
the
composer
again
to the Trio and
transcribed
all,
or a substantial
part
of
it,
for
string quartet.
He then
probably
revised the
Quartet
and
disposed
of the
manuscript
material
for the Trio
shortly
on 7 November
1923).
explain
the lack
in
1922,
but this is
unlikely
for two reasons.
First,
pieces
that the
composer
was
thoroughly
destroyed
close to
their dates of
composition
or were not
performed
more than once. If
keeping
in
manuscript
for several
years,
he would
invariably
revise it and
eventually
have it
published.
Sonata,
for
example,
was
completed
in
1914,
but the
piece
was not
published
until 1922.
Second,
the
wherever it was
letter to
Rektorys
of 8
April
1909
testifies that the
premiere
was
the
public,
and
the
organizer
Janacek
that the
work had had
there.28
Why
would the
composer
have
destroyed
a
piece
public
acclaim? In
fact,
manuscript
biography
(see above,
p. 232).
Brod's
entry
(see above, p. 232)
contains the word
appears
piece
in
question
was in
manuscript
in
1923,
and each of these
compositions
was indeed
published
destroyed by
catalogue,
this fact is stated
explicitly.
There
thus
appears
material for
Janacek's
Indeed, given
that the
composer
tended to hoard
manuscripts,
all of it was
probably
evidence, however,
that the material
survived
beyond
1923.
Consequently,
even
though
Janacek
stated that
only
Quartet,
the
documentary
very
different
scenario.
The Piano Trio was
performed,
as were
many
the
composer's
final
decade,
from
manuscript parts
for 13
years.
The
material then
probably
remained in
until he
piece
from the Bohemian
Quartet
in
October 1923.
Perhaps
as a result of
having recently
revised and had
printed
the
composer
again
to the Trio and
transcribed
all,
or a substantial
part
of
it,
for
string quartet.
He then
probably
revised the
Quartet
and
disposed
of the
manuscript
material
for the Trio
shortly
on 7 November
1923).
explain
the lack
28
JA
A 3430
(from
Antonin Vinia to
Janiaek).
28
JA
A 3430
(from
Antonin Vinia to
Janiaek).
28
JA
A 3430
(from
Antonin Vinia to
Janiaek).
28
JA
A 3430
(from
Antonin Vinia to
Janiaek).
28
JA
A 3430
(from
Antonin Vinia to
Janiaek).
238 238 238 238 238
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
for the fact that the
piece appears
not to have survived.
IfJanacek
had
used much more music from the Trio in the
Quartet
than he was
subsequently prepared
to
admit,
he would no
longer
have needed the
autographs, copies
and
parts
for the earlier work once the
autograph
of the later one was finished. The
composer
did not
acknowledge
the
extent to which the
Quartet
was based on an earlier
piece probably
because he wanted the members of the Bohemian
Quartet
to think
that it had been written
specially
for them. Of
course,
more
precise
information about the actual content of the Trio is
required
if this
hypothesis
is to become more than an
interesting speculation.
This
evidence can be discovered in the extant material for both the Trio
and the
Quartet.
THE EXTANT SHEET OF MATERIAL FOR THE TRIO
A
single
sheet of music from the Piano Trio has been
preserved
amongst
the sketches for another
work,
the cantata
Cartdk
on Soldn
(1911;
revised
1920).29
This mixture of material has come about as a
result of
Janacek's
rather unusual
working
methods. When the
composer
was
writing preliminary
sketches for a
piece
he would often
write on
only
the recto of each sheet. The versos were left blank and
were often used later for a
subsequent
redraft of that work or for the
sketches or a draft of another
piece.
As a
result,
it is
relatively
common to discover material for one
composition
amongst
that of
another.30 The sketches for 6artdk on Solan contain
rejected passages
from two additional
pieces:
the
opera
Mr Broucek
(1908-17)
and A
Fairy-Tale
for violoncello and
piano (1910;
revised
1923).
The Trio
fragment
was discovered as
early
as the 1960s
by John
Tyrrell
when he was
writing
his doctoral thesis on
Janacek's operas.31
However,
he did not have time to transcribe
it;
this task was
completed by
the Czech
composer
and
musicologist Jarmil
Burghauser,
one of the main editors of the new
Complete
Critical
Edition of
Janacek's
music.32
Burghauser
wrote a short
composition
based on his
transcription,
which was
performed
at a
Janacek
festival
in Brno in
1968,
but neither he nor
anyone
else has been able both to
identify correctly
the
stage
of the Trio's
genesis
to which the
page
of
material
belongs
and to discover
any relationship
between this
fragment
and the final version of the First
String Quartet.
In the
Cartdk
on Solan volume of the
Complete
Critical Edition the
fragment
is
described as a 'zlomek skici'
('fragment
of a
sketch').33
But this sheet
29
The
sketches, early
drafts and final
autograph
of eartdk on Soldi are all in the
JA
and have
the same classmark
(A.30.392).
30
Janacek's
working
methods are described in more detail in Paul
Wingfield,
"'On an
Overgrown
Path": A
Re-appraisal
of the Sources
of,
and the Editorial Problems
in,
the Music of
Leos
Janacek' (M.Phil. dissertation, University
of
Cambridge, 1984),
8-22.
31
'Janacek's
Development
as an
Operatic Composer
as Evidenced in his Revisions of the
First Five
Operas' (D.Phil. dissertation, University
of
Oxford, 1969).
32
L.
Janacek:
souborni kriticki
vyddni (L. Jandaek: Complete
Critical
Edition),
ed.
Jiri Vyslouzil
et al.
(Prague, 1978-).
33
See
p.
59 of vol. 4 of the edition
(1981),
which was edited
by Jan
Hanus and Milos Stedroi.
piece appears
IfJanacek
had
Quartet
than he was
to
admit,
he would no
longer
have needed the
autographs, copies
and
parts
autograph
composer
did not
acknowledge
the
extent to which the
Quartet
piece probably
Quartet
to think
specially
for them. Of
course,
more
precise
required
if this
hypothesis
This
and the
Quartet.
A
single
preserved
amongst
work,
the cantata
Cartdk
on Soldn
(1911;
revised
1920).29
result of
Janacek's
rather unusual
working
methods. When the
composer
was
writing preliminary
sketches for a
piece
he would often
write on
only
subsequent
piece.
As a
result,
it is
relatively
composition
amongst
that of
rejected passages
from two additional
pieces:
the
opera
Mr Broucek
(1908-17)
and A
Fairy-Tale
for violoncello and
piano (1910;
revised
1923).
The Trio
fragment
was discovered as
early
as the 1960s
by John
Tyrrell
when he was
writing
Janacek's operas.31
However,
it;
this task was
completed by
the Czech
composer
and
musicologist Jarmil
Burghauser,
Complete
Critical
Edition of
Janacek's
music.32
Burghauser
wrote a short
composition
based on his
transcription,
which was
performed
at a
Janacek
festival
in Brno in
1968,
but neither he nor
anyone
identify correctly
the
stage
of the Trio's
genesis
to which the
page
of
material
belongs
and to discover
any relationship
between this
fragment
String Quartet.
In the
Cartdk
Complete
fragment
is
('fragment
of a
sketch').33
But this sheet
29
The
sketches, early
drafts and final
autograph
JA
and have
the same classmark
(A.30.392).
30
Janacek's
working
Wingfield,
"'On an
Overgrown
Path": A
Re-appraisal
of the Sources
of,
in,
the Music of
Leos
of
Cambridge, 1984),
8-22.
31
'Janacek's
Development
as an
Operatic Composer
First Five
of
Oxford, 1969).
32
L.
Janacek:
souborni kriticki
Critical
Edition),
ed.
Jiri Vyslouzil
et al.
(Prague, 1978-).
33
See
p.
(1981),
which was edited
by Jan
piece appears
IfJanacek
had
Quartet
than he was
to
admit,
he would no
longer
have needed the
autographs, copies
and
parts
autograph
composer
did not
acknowledge
the
extent to which the
Quartet
piece probably
Quartet
to think
specially
for them. Of
course,
more
precise
required
if this
hypothesis
This
and the
Quartet.
A
single
preserved
amongst
work,
the cantata
Cartdk
on Soldn
(1911;
revised
1920).29
result of
Janacek's
rather unusual
working
methods. When the
composer
was
writing preliminary
sketches for a
piece
he would often
write on
only
subsequent
piece.
As a
result,
it is
relatively
composition
amongst
that of
rejected passages
from two additional
pieces:
the
opera
Mr Broucek
(1908-17)
and A
Fairy-Tale
for violoncello and
piano (1910;
revised
1923).
The Trio
fragment
was discovered as
early
as the 1960s
by John
Tyrrell
when he was
writing
Janacek's operas.31
However,
it;
this task was
completed by
the Czech
composer
and
musicologist Jarmil
Burghauser,
Complete
Critical
Edition of
Janacek's
music.32
Burghauser
wrote a short
composition
based on his
transcription,
which was
performed
at a
Janacek
festival
in Brno in
1968,
but neither he nor
anyone
identify correctly
the
stage
of the Trio's
genesis
to which the
page
of
material
belongs
and to discover
any relationship
between this
fragment
String Quartet.
In the
Cartdk
Complete
fragment
is
('fragment
of a
sketch').33
But this sheet
29
The
sketches, early
drafts and final
autograph
JA
and have
the same classmark
(A.30.392).
30
Janacek's
working
Wingfield,
"'On an
Overgrown
Path": A
Re-appraisal
of the Sources
of,
in,
the Music of
Leos
of
Cambridge, 1984),
8-22.
31
'Janacek's
Development
as an
Operatic Composer
First Five
of
Oxford, 1969).
32
L.
Janacek:
souborni kriticki
Critical
Edition),
ed.
Jiri Vyslouzil
et al.
(Prague, 1978-).
33
See
p.
(1981),
which was edited
by Jan
piece appears
IfJanacek
had
Quartet
than he was
to
admit,
he would no
longer
have needed the
autographs, copies
and
parts
autograph
composer
did not
acknowledge
the
extent to which the
Quartet
piece probably
Quartet
to think
specially
for them. Of
course,
more
precise
required
if this
hypothesis
This
and the
Quartet.
A
single
preserved
amongst
work,
the cantata
Cartdk
on Soldn
(1911;
revised
1920).29
result of
Janacek's
rather unusual
working
methods. When the
composer
was
writing preliminary
sketches for a
piece
he would often
write on
only
subsequent
piece.
As a
result,
it is
relatively
composition
amongst
that of
rejected passages
from two additional
pieces:
the
opera
Mr Broucek
(1908-17)
and A
Fairy-Tale
for violoncello and
piano (1910;
revised
1923).
The Trio
fragment
was discovered as
early
as the 1960s
by John
Tyrrell
when he was
writing
Janacek's operas.31
However,
it;
this task was
completed by
the Czech
composer
and
musicologist Jarmil
Burghauser,
Complete
Critical
Edition of
Janacek's
music.32
Burghauser
wrote a short
composition
based on his
transcription,
which was
performed
at a
Janacek
festival
in Brno in
1968,
but neither he nor
anyone
identify correctly
the
stage
of the Trio's
genesis
to which the
page
of
material
belongs
and to discover
any relationship
between this
fragment
String Quartet.
In the
Cartdk
Complete
fragment
is
('fragment
of a
sketch').33
But this sheet
29
The
sketches, early
drafts and final
autograph
JA
and have
the same classmark
(A.30.392).
30
Janacek's
working
Wingfield,
"'On an
Overgrown
Path": A
Re-appraisal
of the Sources
of,
in,
the Music of
Leos
of
Cambridge, 1984),
8-22.
31
'Janacek's
Development
as an
Operatic Composer
First Five
of
Oxford, 1969).
32
L.
Janacek:
souborni kriticki
Critical
Edition),
ed.
Jiri Vyslouzil
et al.
(Prague, 1978-).
33
See
p.
(1981),
which was edited
by Jan
piece appears
IfJanacek
had
Quartet
than he was
to
admit,
he would no
longer
have needed the
autographs, copies
and
parts
autograph
composer
did not
acknowledge
the
extent to which the
Quartet
piece probably
Quartet
to think
specially
for them. Of
course,
more
precise
required
if this
hypothesis
This
and the
Quartet.
A
single
preserved
amongst
work,
the cantata
Cartdk
on Soldn
(1911;
revised
1920).29
result of
Janacek's
rather unusual
working
methods. When the
composer
was
writing preliminary
sketches for a
piece
he would often
write on
only
subsequent
piece.
As a
result,
it is
relatively
composition
amongst
that of
rejected passages
from two additional
pieces:
the
opera
Mr Broucek
(1908-17)
and A
Fairy-Tale
for violoncello and
piano (1910;
revised
1923).
The Trio
fragment
was discovered as
early
as the 1960s
by John
Tyrrell
when he was
writing
Janacek's operas.31
However,
it;
this task was
completed by
the Czech
composer
and
musicologist Jarmil
Burghauser,
Complete
Critical
Edition of
Janacek's
music.32
Burghauser
wrote a short
composition
based on his
transcription,
which was
performed
at a
Janacek
festival
in Brno in
1968,
but neither he nor
anyone
identify correctly
the
stage
of the Trio's
genesis
to which the
page
of
material
belongs
and to discover
any relationship
between this
fragment
String Quartet.
In the
Cartdk
Complete
fragment
is
('fragment
of a
sketch').33
But this sheet
29
The
sketches, early
drafts and final
autograph
JA
and have
the same classmark
(A.30.392).
30
Janacek's
working
Wingfield,
"'On an
Overgrown
Path": A
Re-appraisal
of the Sources
of,
in,
the Music of
Leos
of
Cambridge, 1984),
8-22.
31
'Janacek's
Development
as an
Operatic Composer
First Five
of
Oxford, 1969).
32
L.
Janacek:
souborni kriticki
Critical
Edition),
ed.
Jiri Vyslouzil
et al.
(Prague, 1978-).
33
See
p.
(1981),
which was edited
by Jan
239 239 239 239 239
Example
2
Example
2
Example
2
Example
2
Example
2
H[ousle]
Cello
Kla[vir]
H[ousle]
Cello
Kla[vir]
H[ousle]
Cello
Kla[vir]
H[ousle]
Cello
Kla[vir]
H[ousle]
Cello
Kla[vir]
[Con moto]
o
1-
T
r
r
-
I
-' '-'
I
'-'
I
Ped Ped
[Ped]
(F ,. j_
[Con moto]
o
1-
T
r
r
-
I
-' '-'
I
'-'
I
Ped Ped
[Ped]
(F ,. j_
[Con moto]
o
1-
T
r
r
-
I
-' '-'
I
'-'
I
Ped Ped
[Ped]
(F ,. j_
[Con moto]
o
1-
T
r
r
-
I
-' '-'
I
'-'
I
Ped Ped
[Ped]
(F ,. j_
[Con moto]
o
1-
T
r
r
-
I
-' '-'
I
'-'
I
Ped Ped
[Ped]
(F ,. j_
r
-T
Il , , m . i]
[.l)']
i'T
t "'T
'"
_4
~iri
'
Ifr-.-!
i-- fli
-"
i-
r
-T
Il , , m . i]
[.l)']
i'T
t "'T
'"
_4
~iri
'
Ifr-.-!
i-- fli
-"
i-
r
-T
Il , , m . i]
[.l)']
i'T
t "'T
'"
_4
~iri
'
Ifr-.-!
i-- fli
-"
i-
r
-T
Il , , m . i]
[.l)']
i'T
t "'T
'"
_4
~iri
'
Ifr-.-!
i-- fli
-"
i-
r
-T
Il , , m . i]
[.l)']
i'T
t "'T
'"
_4
~iri
'
Ifr-.-!
i-- fli
-"
i-
[Ped] [Ped] [Ped] [Ped] [Ped] [Ped] [Ped] [Ped] [Ped] [Ped]
does not look like
Janacek's preliminary
sketches for
any
other work.
Those are
extremely untidy,
the music in them is
usually
written on
systems containing
two or three staves at the
most,
and the staves
themselves have
obviously
been drawn freehand. In
addition,
the
musical content is
generally
a series of short thematic
sketches,
which
are
rarely
continuous. The
fragment
of the
Trio,
on the other
hand,
is
much neater: it is written in full
score;
it consists of two
systems
of
continuous
music;
and the staves have been ruled.
(A transcription
of
the sheet is offered in
Example 2.)
The
surviving page
of the Trio
therefore seems to
belong
to a
complete
draft of the
piece.
Of
course,
it is
unlikely
ever to have been
part
of the final
version,
because that
was still
being performed
in
1922,
whereas the Trio
fragment
was
considered
dispensable
as
early
as 1911.34 It therefore either
belonged
to the 1908 draft or was written and
rejected
as
part
of the March 1909
revision and was
presumably
considered redundant before
April
1909.
The fact that the sheet was
superfluous
at such an
early
date raises an
obvious
problem: why
did
Janacek
wait until 1911 to use its verso?
After
all,
the material for Mr Broucek and A
FaiTy-Tale
that can be found
34
Cartdk on Solda was
probably
commissioned in December 1910 and was written between
January
and March of 1911
(see p.
XI of vol. 4 of the
Complete Edition).
does not look like
sketches for
any
other work.
Those are
extremely untidy,
usually
written on
systems containing
most,
and the staves
themselves have
obviously
addition,
the
musical content is
generally
sketches,
which
are
rarely
continuous. The
fragment
of the
Trio,
on the other
hand,
is
score;
it consists of two
systems
of
continuous
music;
(A transcription
of
Example 2.)
The
surviving page
of the Trio
therefore seems to
belong
to a
complete
draft of the
piece.
Of
course,
it is
unlikely
ever to have been
part
of the final
version,
because that
was still
being performed
in
1922,
whereas the Trio
fragment
was
considered
dispensable
as
early
belonged
rejected
as
part
of the March 1909
revision and was
presumably
April
1909.
superfluous
at such an
early
date raises an
obvious
problem: why
did
Janacek
After
all,
FaiTy-Tale
that can be found
34
Cartdk on Solda was
probably
January
and March of 1911
(see p.
XI of vol. 4 of the
Complete Edition).
does not look like
sketches for
any
other work.
Those are
extremely untidy,
usually
written on
systems containing
most,
and the staves
themselves have
obviously
addition,
the
musical content is
generally
sketches,
which
are
rarely
continuous. The
fragment
of the
Trio,
on the other
hand,
is
score;
it consists of two
systems
of
continuous
music;
(A transcription
of
Example 2.)
The
surviving page
of the Trio
therefore seems to
belong
to a
complete
draft of the
piece.
Of
course,
it is
unlikely
ever to have been
part
of the final
version,
because that
was still
being performed
in
1922,
whereas the Trio
fragment
was
considered
dispensable
as
early
belonged
rejected
as
part
of the March 1909
revision and was
presumably
April
1909.
superfluous
at such an
early
date raises an
obvious
problem: why
did
Janacek
After
all,
FaiTy-Tale
that can be found
34
Cartdk on Solda was
probably
January
and March of 1911
(see p.
XI of vol. 4 of the
Complete Edition).
does not look like
sketches for
any
other work.
Those are
extremely untidy,
usually
written on
systems containing
most,
and the staves
themselves have
obviously
addition,
the
musical content is
generally
sketches,
which
are
rarely
continuous. The
fragment
of the
Trio,
on the other
hand,
is
score;
it consists of two
systems
of
continuous
music;
(A transcription
of
Example 2.)
The
surviving page
of the Trio
therefore seems to
belong
to a
complete
draft of the
piece.
Of
course,
it is
unlikely
ever to have been
part
of the final
version,
because that
was still
being performed
in
1922,
whereas the Trio
fragment
was
considered
dispensable
as
early
belonged
rejected
as
part
of the March 1909
revision and was
presumably
April
1909.
superfluous
at such an
early
date raises an
obvious
problem: why
did
Janacek
After
all,
FaiTy-Tale
that can be found
34
Cartdk on Solda was
probably
January
and March of 1911
(see p.
XI of vol. 4 of the
Complete Edition).
does not look like
sketches for
any
other work.
Those are
extremely untidy,
usually
written on
systems containing
most,
and the staves
themselves have
obviously
addition,
the
musical content is
generally
sketches,
which
are
rarely
continuous. The
fragment
of the
Trio,
on the other
hand,
is
score;
it consists of two
systems
of
continuous
music;
(A transcription
of
Example 2.)
The
surviving page
of the Trio
therefore seems to
belong
to a
complete
draft of the
piece.
Of
course,
it is
unlikely
ever to have been
part
of the final
version,
because that
was still
being performed
in
1922,
whereas the Trio
fragment
was
considered
dispensable
as
early
belonged
rejected
as
part
of the March 1909
revision and was
presumably
April
1909.
superfluous
at such an
early
date raises an
obvious
problem: why
did
Janacek
After
all,
FaiTy-Tale
that can be found
34
Cartdk on Solda was
probably
January
and March of 1911
(see p.
XI of vol. 4 of the
Complete Edition).
240 240 240 240 240
JANACEK'S
'LOST' KREUTZER SONATA 241
Example
3
JANACEK'S
Example
3
JANACEK'S
Example
3
JANACEK'S
Example
3
JANACEK'S
Example
3
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
(Con moto)
(sul pont.)
_rL *_-. . .---=
I^^Q'
'
'
(nf cresc.)
f
(Con moto)
(sul pont.)
_rL *_-. . .---=
I^^Q'
'
'
(nf cresc.)
f
(Con moto)
(sul pont.)
_rL *_-. . .---=
I^^Q'
'
'
(nf cresc.)
f
(Con moto)
(sul pont.)
_rL *_-. . .---=
I^^Q'
'
'
(nf cresc.)
f
(Con moto)
(sul pont.)
_rL *_-. . .---=
I^^Q'
'
'
(nf cresc.)
f
;e $ _ .ff;ff
-.
_
_ _ _
dim.
[
i _r
4i^
'N~~~~~~~~~ntrl etc. '
sul
ponticello
.-L,E 19 - J/
I
_J_L-, , '
^ ~~~~I? . ab
Wha~S'cffiffl- 9*it-t
;e $ _ .ff;ff
-.
_
_ _ _
dim.
[
i _r
4i^
'N~~~~~~~~~ntrl etc. '
sul
ponticello
.-L,E 19 - J/
I
_J_L-, , '
^ ~~~~I? . ab
;e $ _ .ff;ff
-.
_
_ _ _
dim.
[
i _r
4i^
'N~~~~~~~~~ntrl etc. '
sul
ponticello
.-L,E 19 - J/
I
_J_L-, , '
^ ~~~~I? . ab
;e $ _ .ff;ff
-.
_
_ _ _
dim.
[
i _r
4i^
'N~~~~~~~~~ntrl etc. '
sul
ponticello
.-L,E 19 - J/
I
_J_L-, , '
^ ~~~~I? . ab
;e $ _ .ff;ff
-.
_
_ _ _
dim.
[
i _r
4i^
'N~~~~~~~~~ntrl etc. '
sul
ponticello
.-L,E 19 - J/
I
_J_L-, , '
^ ~~~~I? . ab
f f f f f
tiL.bl I
r-
_f tiL.bl I
r-
_f tiL.bl I
r-
_f tiL.bl I
r-
_f tiL.bl I
r-
_f
amongst
the sketches for (artdk on Solan all dates from 1910 at the
earliest.35
A
possible
solution to this
problem
can be found in
Janacek's
letter
to
Rektorys
of 8
April
1909
(see above,
p. 237).
At this
stage, Rektorys
still had in his
possession
a score of the first version of the Trio. That
score
may
have been
Janacek's
own
autograph
rather than the
copy,
and the
surviving
sheet from the Trio
might
have been
part
of that
autograph,
which
may
not have been returned to
Janacek
until 1911.
The
composer might
thus have used the blank versos of the
autograph
score for sketches of other
works,
including
eartdk on
Soldin,
as soon as
he had retrieved it.
There are two flaws in the
theory just outlined,
however.
First,
it is
not
likely
that
Janacek
would have sent his own
untidy autograph
to
Rektorys
when a neat
copy
was available. And
second,
the
hypothesis
does not
explain why only
a
single page
of the 1908 draft has survived.
If one looks
closely
at the
fragment, though,
it is
possible
to formulate
a more feasible
theory.
This sheet has no
page
number,
even
though
it
was
Janacek's
habit to write continuous ink numeration
sequences
on
his drafts. As a
rule,
unnumbered sheets of material for
Janacek's
works are not
parts
of finished
drafts,
but rather
they
contain music
that was
rejected
before
any pagination
was inserted. The sheet from
the Trio was
probably
discarded
during
the
composition
of either the
1908 draft or the 1909 revision and
put
to one side. The reason for its
verso
remaining
unused until 1911
may
be that
Janacek placed
it in
his famous
painted
trunk,
in which he stored both
complete
and
incomplete
drafts and final
autographs,
as well as
sketches,
partly
used leaves and
wholly
unused sheets of
paper.
It
may
have remained
there until he rediscovered it in 1911.
The
relationship
between the music on the sheet and the First
Quartet
is much easier to determine.
Example
3 contains bars 20-31
of movement III of the
Quartet. Though
some of the note values in the
Quartet passage
have been halved and some have been reduced
by
a
factor of
four,
the themes and the harmonic structure are the same in
Examples
2 and 3.36
Furthermore, Janacek
even rescored this
passage
in the
simplest possible
manner: the violin and violoncello
parts
of the
Trio were allotted to the first violin and violoncello in the
Quartet,
the
right
hand of the
piano part
was
given
to the second violin and the left
35 The sketches for Mr Broucek cannot have been written earlier than 18
February 1910;
for
further details see
John Tyrrell,
'Mr Broucek's Excursion to the
Moon', Casopis
Moravskiho musea:
vedy spolecenski,
53-4
(1968-9),
89-124
(pp. 109-10). Similarly,
A
Fairy-Tale
was not
begun
until
early 1910;
see
Vogel, LeosJanacek,
200.
36 The fact that the note values are shorter in the third movement of the
Quartet
than
they
are
in the Trio
fragment supports
the
theory put
forward on
p.
234 above that the note values of
the first movement of the Trio
may
have been reduced in 1923. This fact also raises an
interesting analytical point.
The note values of a
Janacek
theme are often
gradually
diminished
over the course of a movement in a finished work. In the sources of the Trio and the First
Quartet
we can see this
process being employed
not
only
within the final version of a
movement,
but also
throughout
its whole
genesis.
amongst
earliest.35
A
possible
solution to this
problem
can be found in
Janacek's
letter
to
Rektorys
of 8
April
1909
(see above,
p. 237).
At this
stage, Rektorys
still had in his
possession
score
may
have been
Janacek's
own
autograph
rather than the
copy,
and the
surviving
sheet from the Trio
might
have been
part
of that
autograph,
which
may
Janacek
until 1911.
The
composer might
autograph
works,
including
eartdk on
Soldin,
as soon as
however.
First,
it is
not
likely
that
Janacek
untidy autograph
to
Rektorys
when a neat
copy
was available. And
second,
the
hypothesis
does not
explain why only
a
single page
If one looks
closely
at the
fragment, though,
it is
possible
to formulate
a more feasible
theory.
This sheet has no
page
number,
even
though
it
was
Janacek's
sequences
on
his drafts. As a
rule,
Janacek's
works are not
parts
of finished
drafts,
but rather
they
contain music
that was
rejected
before
any pagination
the Trio was
probably
discarded
during
the
composition
of either the
put
verso
remaining
unused until 1911
may
be that
Janacek placed
it in
his famous
painted
trunk,
complete
and
incomplete
drafts and final
autographs,
as well as
sketches,
partly
used leaves and
wholly
unused sheets of
paper.
It
may
have remained
The
relationship
Quartet
Example
Quartet. Though
Quartet passage
by
a
factor of
four,
Examples
2 and 3.36
even rescored this
passage
in the
simplest possible
parts
of the
Quartet,
the
right
hand of the
piano part
was
given
February 1910;
for
further details see
John Tyrrell,
Moon', Casopis
Moravskiho musea:
vedy spolecenski,
53-4
(1968-9),
89-124
A
Fairy-Tale
was not
begun
until
early 1910;
see
Vogel, LeosJanacek,
200.
Quartet
than
they
are
in the Trio
fragment supports
the
theory put
forward on
p.
may
Janacek
theme are often
gradually
diminished
Quartet
we can see this
not
only
movement,
but also
throughout
its whole
genesis.
amongst
earliest.35
A
possible
solution to this
problem
can be found in
Janacek's
letter
to
Rektorys
of 8
April
1909
(see above,
p. 237).
At this
stage, Rektorys
still had in his
possession
score
may
have been
Janacek's
own
autograph
rather than the
copy,
and the
surviving
sheet from the Trio
might
have been
part
of that
autograph,
which
may
Janacek
until 1911.
The
composer might
autograph
works,
including
eartdk on
Soldin,
as soon as
however.
First,
it is
not
likely
that
Janacek
untidy autograph
to
Rektorys
when a neat
copy
was available. And
second,
the
hypothesis
does not
explain why only
a
single page
If one looks
closely
at the
fragment, though,
it is
possible
to formulate
a more feasible
theory.
This sheet has no
page
number,
even
though
it
was
Janacek's
sequences
on
his drafts. As a
rule,
Janacek's
works are not
parts
of finished
drafts,
but rather
they
contain music
that was
rejected
before
any pagination
the Trio was
probably
discarded
during
the
composition
of either the
put
verso
remaining
unused until 1911
may
be that
Janacek placed
it in
his famous
painted
trunk,
complete
and
incomplete
drafts and final
autographs,
as well as
sketches,
partly
used leaves and
wholly
unused sheets of
paper.
It
may
have remained
The
relationship
Quartet
Example
Quartet. Though
Quartet passage
by
a
factor of
four,
Examples
2 and 3.36
even rescored this
passage
in the
simplest possible
parts
of the
Quartet,
the
right
hand of the
piano part
was
given
February 1910;
for
further details see
John Tyrrell,
Moon', Casopis
Moravskiho musea:
vedy spolecenski,
53-4
(1968-9),
89-124
A
Fairy-Tale
was not
begun
until
early 1910;
see
Vogel, LeosJanacek,
200.
Quartet
than
they
are
in the Trio
fragment supports
the
theory put
forward on
p.
may
Janacek
theme are often
gradually
diminished
Quartet
we can see this
not
only
movement,
but also
throughout
its whole
genesis.
amongst
earliest.35
A
possible
solution to this
problem
can be found in
Janacek's
letter
to
Rektorys
of 8
April
1909
(see above,
p. 237).
At this
stage, Rektorys
still had in his
possession
score
may
have been
Janacek's
own
autograph
rather than the
copy,
and the
surviving
sheet from the Trio
might
have been
part
of that
autograph,
which
may
Janacek
until 1911.
The
composer might
autograph
works,
including
eartdk on
Soldin,
as soon as
however.
First,
it is
not
likely
that
Janacek
untidy autograph
to
Rektorys
when a neat
copy
was available. And
second,
the
hypothesis
does not
explain why only
a
single page
If one looks
closely
at the
fragment, though,
it is
possible
to formulate
a more feasible
theory.
This sheet has no
page
number,
even
though
it
was
Janacek's
sequences
on
his drafts. As a
rule,
Janacek's
works are not
parts
of finished
drafts,
but rather
they
contain music
that was
rejected
before
any pagination
the Trio was
probably
discarded
during
the
composition
of either the
put
verso
remaining
unused until 1911
may
be that
Janacek placed
it in
his famous
painted
trunk,
complete
and
incomplete
drafts and final
autographs,
as well as
sketches,
partly
used leaves and
wholly
unused sheets of
paper.
It
may
have remained
The
relationship
Quartet
Example
Quartet. Though
Quartet passage
by
a
factor of
four,
Examples
2 and 3.36
even rescored this
passage
in the
simplest possible
parts
of the
Quartet,
the
right
hand of the
piano part
was
given
February 1910;
for
further details see
John Tyrrell,
Moon', Casopis
Moravskiho musea:
vedy spolecenski,
53-4
(1968-9),
89-124
A
Fairy-Tale
was not
begun
until
early 1910;
see
Vogel, LeosJanacek,
200.
Quartet
than
they
are
in the Trio
fragment supports
the
theory put
forward on
p.
may
Janacek
theme are often
gradually
diminished
Quartet
we can see this
not
only
movement,
but also
throughout
its whole
genesis.
amongst
earliest.35
A
possible
solution to this
problem
can be found in
Janacek's
letter
to
Rektorys
of 8
April
1909
(see above,
p. 237).
At this
stage, Rektorys
still had in his
possession
score
may
have been
Janacek's
own
autograph
rather than the
copy,
and the
surviving
sheet from the Trio
might
have been
part
of that
autograph,
which
may
Janacek
until 1911.
The
composer might
autograph
works,
including
eartdk on
Soldin,
as soon as
however.
First,
it is
not
likely
that
Janacek
untidy autograph
to
Rektorys
when a neat
copy
was available. And
second,
the
hypothesis
does not
explain why only
a
single page
If one looks
closely
at the
fragment, though,
it is
possible
to formulate
a more feasible
theory.
This sheet has no
page
number,
even
though
it
was
Janacek's
sequences
on
his drafts. As a
rule,
Janacek's
works are not
parts
of finished
drafts,
but rather
they
contain music
that was
rejected
before
any pagination
the Trio was
probably
discarded
during
the
composition
of either the
put
verso
remaining
unused until 1911
may
be that
Janacek placed
it in
his famous
painted
trunk,
complete
and
incomplete
drafts and final
autographs,
as well as
sketches,
partly
used leaves and
wholly
unused sheets of
paper.
It
may
have remained
The
relationship
Quartet
Example
Quartet. Though
Quartet passage
by
a
factor of
four,
Examples
2 and 3.36
even rescored this
passage
in the
simplest possible
parts
of the
Quartet,
the
right
hand of the
piano part
was
given
February 1910;
for
further details see
John Tyrrell,
Moon', Casopis
Moravskiho musea:
vedy spolecenski,
53-4
(1968-9),
89-124
A
Fairy-Tale
was not
begun
until
early 1910;
see
Vogel, LeosJanacek,
200.
Quartet
than
they
are
in the Trio
fragment supports
the
theory put
forward on
p.
may
Janacek
theme are often
gradually
diminished
Quartet
we can see this
not
only
movement,
but also
throughout
its whole
genesis.
JANACEK'S
Example
4
JANACEK'S
Example
4
JANACEK'S
Example
4
JANACEK'S
Example
4
JANACEK'S
Example
4
Violin
Piano
Violin
Piano
Violin
Piano
Violin
Piano
Violin
Piano
(Presto)
)- -!-- .
!l, - I
J
^
lp- I
\W'
p dolc
0--
--- --
rf
0
ff^'fth)
A?- ^* =n --- ^ ?*
*?
^ ^m~w
(Presto)
)- -!-- .
!l, - I
J
^
lp- I
\W'
p dolc
0--
--- --
rf
0
ff^'fth)
A?- ^* =n --- ^ ?*
*?
^ ^m~w
(Presto)
)- -!-- .
!l, - I
J
^
lp- I
\W'
p dolc
0--
--- --
rf
0
ff^'fth)
A?- ^* =n --- ^ ?*
*?
^ ^m~w
(Presto)
)- -!-- .
!l, - I
J
^
lp- I
\W'
p dolc
0--
--- --
rf
0
ff^'fth)
A?- ^* =n --- ^ ?*
*?
^ ^m~w
(Presto)
)- -!-- .
!l, - I
J
^
lp- I
\W'
p dolc
0--
--- --
rf
0
ff^'fth)
A?- ^* =n --- ^ ?*
*?
^ ^m~w
Example
5
Con moto J= 144
lehae, pla
r
leggiero
con
timidzcsa]
Example
6
(Con moto)'
a
tempo
A 11--- \ lt ll_ _ ffi __N
Violin I
6
hR 1 L- etc.
pth e he
to the viola. The fact that
Janacek
divided the
piano part
of the Trio
between the second violin and viola in the
Quartet
accounts for an
anomaly
in the final version of the later work. In
Example 2,
the third
note of the four-note motif in the
right
hand of the
piano
is doubled at
the octave each time it is
repeated.
The last statement of this motif
includes the
notef,
which of course is too low for the violin to
play.
As
a
result,
in bars 30-1 of the second violin
part
in movement III of the
Quartet
the note
f
has been altered to
g,
which
produces
an
unexpec-
ted variation of the motif.
The main musical idea in both the Trio
fragment
and its
equivalent
section in the
Quartet is,
of
course,
a
quotation
from the second
subject
of the first movement of Beethoven's 'Kreutzer' Sonata for
violin and
piano. Example
4
gives
the first
eight
bars of Beethoven's
second
subject
and
Examples
5 and 6 show the first two statements of
Janacek's principal
theme in movement III of the
Quartet.
This
quotation
is
quite
blatant and it is
pointed
out in most
published
accounts of the First
Quartet.
The
surviving
sheet from the Trio thus
demonstrates
clearly
that
Janacek's quotation
from Beethoven's
famous violin sonata dates from
1908,
not from 1923.
Indeed,
this
reference was
very appropriate
in its
original context,
as Beethoven's
'Kreutzer' Sonata was
performed
in the concert in which
Janacek's
Trio was
premiered.37
The fact that the Trio
fragment
was
rejected
at
Example
5
Con moto J= 144
lehae, pla
r
leggiero
con
timidzcsa]
Example
6
(Con moto)'
a
tempo
A 11--- \ lt ll_ _ ffi __N
Violin I
6
hR 1 L- etc.
pth e he
Janacek
divided the
piano part
of the Trio
Quartet
accounts for an
anomaly
Example 2,
the third
right
hand of the
piano
is doubled at
repeated.
includes the
notef,
play.
As
a
result,
part
Quartet
the note
f
has been altered to
g,
which
produces
an
unexpec-
fragment
and its
equivalent
section in the
Quartet is,
of
course,
a
quotation
from the second
subject
violin and
piano. Example
4
gives
the first
eight
bars of Beethoven's
second
subject
and
Examples
Janacek's principal
Quartet.
This
quotation
is
quite
blatant and it is
pointed
out in most
published
Quartet.
The
surviving
demonstrates
clearly
that
Janacek's quotation
from Beethoven's
1908,
not from 1923.
Indeed,
this
reference was
very appropriate
in its
original context,
as Beethoven's
performed
Janacek's
Trio was
premiered.37
fragment
was
rejected
at
Example
5
Con moto J= 144
lehae, pla
r
leggiero
con
timidzcsa]
Example
6
(Con moto)'
a
tempo
A 11--- \ lt ll_ _ ffi __N
Violin I
6
hR 1 L- etc.
pth e he
Janacek
divided the
piano part
of the Trio
Quartet
accounts for an
anomaly
Example 2,
the third
right
hand of the
piano
is doubled at
repeated.
includes the
notef,
play.
As
a
result,
part
Quartet
the note
f
has been altered to
g,
which
produces
an
unexpec-
fragment
and its
equivalent
section in the
Quartet is,
of
course,
a
quotation
from the second
subject
violin and
piano. Example
4
gives
the first
eight
bars of Beethoven's
second
subject
and
Examples
Janacek's principal
Quartet.
This
quotation
is
quite
blatant and it is
pointed
out in most
published
Quartet.
The
surviving
demonstrates
clearly
that
Janacek's quotation
from Beethoven's
1908,
not from 1923.
Indeed,
this
reference was
very appropriate
in its
original context,
as Beethoven's
performed
Janacek's
Trio was
premiered.37
fragment
was
rejected
at
Example
5
Con moto J= 144
lehae, pla
r
leggiero
con
timidzcsa]
Example
6
(Con moto)'
a
tempo
A 11--- \ lt ll_ _ ffi __N
Violin I
6
hR 1 L- etc.
pth e he
Janacek
divided the
piano part
of the Trio
Quartet
accounts for an
anomaly
Example 2,
the third
right
hand of the
piano
is doubled at
repeated.
includes the
notef,
play.
As
a
result,
part
Quartet
the note
f
has been altered to
g,
which
produces
an
unexpec-
fragment
and its
equivalent
section in the
Quartet is,
of
course,
a
quotation
from the second
subject
violin and
piano. Example
4
gives
the first
eight
bars of Beethoven's
second
subject
and
Examples
Janacek's principal
Quartet.
This
quotation
is
quite
blatant and it is
pointed
out in most
published
Quartet.
The
surviving
demonstrates
clearly
that
Janacek's quotation
from Beethoven's
1908,
not from 1923.
Indeed,
this
reference was
very appropriate
in its
original context,
as Beethoven's
performed
Janacek's
Trio was
premiered.37
fragment
was
rejected
at
Example
5
Con moto J= 144
lehae, pla
r
leggiero
con
timidzcsa]
Example
6
(Con moto)'
a
tempo
A 11--- \ lt ll_ _ ffi __N
Violin I
6
hR 1 L- etc.
pth e he
Janacek
divided the
piano part
of the Trio
Quartet
accounts for an
anomaly
Example 2,
the third
right
hand of the
piano
is doubled at
repeated.
includes the
notef,
play.
As
a
result,
part
Quartet
the note
f
has been altered to
g,
which
produces
an
unexpec-
fragment
and its
equivalent
section in the
Quartet is,
of
course,
a
quotation
from the second
subject
violin and
piano. Example
4
gives
the first
eight
bars of Beethoven's
second
subject
and
Examples
Janacek's principal
Quartet.
This
quotation
is
quite
blatant and it is
pointed
out in most
published
Quartet.
The
surviving
demonstrates
clearly
that
Janacek's quotation
from Beethoven's
1908,
not from 1923.
Indeed,
this
reference was
very appropriate
in its
original context,
as Beethoven's
performed
Janacek's
Trio was
premiered.37
fragment
was
rejected
at
37
See
116.
37
See
116.
37
See
116.
37
See
116.
37
See
116.
some
point during
that
piece's development
also means that the sheet
which
replaced
it
probably
contained music which was
yet
more like
that in
Example
3.
Thus, Janacek
may
well have
changed only
the
scoring,
not the
content,
of this
passage
when he transcribed it for
quartet
in 1923. In the
light
of these
discoveries,
it is worth
examining
all the material for the
Quartet,
in order to discover whether the
relationship
between that work and the Trio
goes deeper.
THE
QUARTET
SKETCHES
What seems to be the earliest
surviving
material for the
Quartet
is
written on a piece of
paper
that has been cut out of the back of a large
brown-paper envelope.38
The recto bears the
heading
'IV' and two
main themes have been sketched on both the recto and the verso. One
of these themes is written on a
single
stave and is almost identical
with the theme that first
appears
in the violins in bars 96-7 of
movement IV of the
Quartet's
final version.
(Example
7
gives
the
published
form of this
theme.)
The other theme is sketched on a
system consisting
of three staves
(see Example 8). Though
the second
violin
part
here is
obviously
similar to the second violin
part
in
Example 7,
the
melody
in the viola does not
appear
in
any
version of
the fourth movement. In
fact,
this is much more like the
opening
theme of the second
movement,
which is also in the viola
(see
Example 9).
We therefore seem to have sketches for
parts
of both the
second and the fourth movements on the same sheet.
Naturally,
the
very
existence of these sketches indicates that some sections of the
Quartet
were
freshly composed
in
1923,
but it is
strange
that so few
sketches have survived.39 To discover
why only
one sheet of sketches
is
extant,
early
drafts and the final
autograph
of
the First
Quartet.
THE
QUARTET
MANUSCRIPT
The rest of the
surviving
material for the
Quartet
is all in the
JA
and it
has the classmark A.7443. There are 111
separate sheets,
the first of
which is the
title-page
and is written on a
piece
of
grey
card. The
rectos of the other 110 sheets contain a
complete autograph
of the
Quartet, except
for bars 1-8 of movement I.
Presumably
the first leaf
of the
autograph
was
given away by Janacek
to a friend as a
souvenir,
or else it was taken
by
an
autograph
hunter after the
composer's
death.
(I
have so far been unable to trace this
missing sheet.) Many
of
the versos of the
Quartet manuscript
also have music on
them,
which
has been deleted in red
pencil.
These versos are
parts
of a number of
earlier drafts.
Janacek's
usual
procedure
for
writing
second and
some
point during
that
piece's development
which
replaced
it
probably
yet
more like
that in
Example
3.
Thus, Janacek
may
well have
changed only
the
scoring,
not the
content,
of this
passage
quartet
in 1923. In the
light
of these
discoveries,
it is worth
examining
Quartet,
relationship
goes deeper.
THE
QUARTET
SKETCHES
surviving
material for the
Quartet
is
paper
The recto bears the
heading
'IV' and two
single
appears
movement IV of the
Quartet's
final version.
(Example
7
gives
the
published
form of this
theme.)
system consisting
of three staves
the second
violin
part
here is
obviously
part
in
Example 7,
the
melody
appear
in
any
version of
fact,
opening
theme of the second
movement,
(see
Example 9).
parts
of both the
Naturally,
the
very
Quartet
were
freshly composed
in
1923,
but it is
strange
that so few
why only
is
extant,
early
autograph
of
the First
Quartet.
THE
QUARTET
MANUSCRIPT
The rest of the
surviving
material for the
Quartet
is all in the
JA
and it
separate sheets,
the first of
which is the
title-page
and is written on a
piece
of
grey
card. The
complete autograph
of the
Quartet, except
Presumably
the first leaf
of the
autograph
was
to a friend as a
souvenir,
by
an
autograph
hunter after the
composer's
death.
(I
of
the versos of the
Quartet manuscript
also have music on
them,
which
pencil.
These versos are
parts
of a number of
earlier drafts.
Janacek's
usual
procedure
for
writing
second and
some
point during
that
piece's development
which
replaced
it
probably
yet
more like
that in
Example
3.
Thus, Janacek
may
well have
changed only
the
scoring,
not the
content,
of this
passage
quartet
in 1923. In the
light
of these
discoveries,
it is worth
examining
Quartet,
relationship
goes deeper.
THE
QUARTET
SKETCHES
surviving
material for the
Quartet
is
paper
The recto bears the
heading
'IV' and two
single
appears
movement IV of the
Quartet's
final version.
(Example
7
gives
the
published
form of this
theme.)
system consisting
of three staves
the second
violin
part
here is
obviously
part
in
Example 7,
the
melody
appear
in
any
version of
fact,
opening
theme of the second
movement,
(see
Example 9).
parts
of both the
Naturally,
the
very
Quartet
were
freshly composed
in
1923,
but it is
strange
that so few
why only
is
extant,
early
autograph
of
the First
Quartet.
THE
QUARTET
MANUSCRIPT
The rest of the
surviving
material for the
Quartet
is all in the
JA
and it
separate sheets,
the first of
which is the
title-page
and is written on a
piece
of
grey
card. The
complete autograph
of the
Quartet, except
Presumably
the first leaf
of the
autograph
was
to a friend as a
souvenir,
by
an
autograph
hunter after the
composer's
death.
(I
of
the versos of the
Quartet manuscript
also have music on
them,
which
pencil.
These versos are
parts
of a number of
earlier drafts.
Janacek's
usual
procedure
for
writing
second and
some
point during
that
piece's development
which
replaced
it
probably
yet
more like
that in
Example
3.
Thus, Janacek
may
well have
changed only
the
scoring,
not the
content,
of this
passage
quartet
in 1923. In the
light
of these
discoveries,
it is worth
examining
Quartet,
relationship
goes deeper.
THE
QUARTET
SKETCHES
surviving
material for the
Quartet
is
paper
The recto bears the
heading
'IV' and two
single
appears
movement IV of the
Quartet's
final version.
(Example
7
gives
the
published
form of this
theme.)
system consisting
of three staves
the second
violin
part
here is
obviously
part
in
Example 7,
the
melody
appear
in
any
version of
fact,
opening
theme of the second
movement,
(see
Example 9).
parts
of both the
Naturally,
the
very
Quartet
were
freshly composed
in
1923,
but it is
strange
that so few
why only
is
extant,
early
autograph
of
the First
Quartet.
THE
QUARTET
MANUSCRIPT
The rest of the
surviving
material for the
Quartet
is all in the
JA
and it
separate sheets,
the first of
which is the
title-page
and is written on a
piece
of
grey
card. The
complete autograph
of the
Quartet, except
Presumably
the first leaf
of the
autograph
was
to a friend as a
souvenir,
by
an
autograph
hunter after the
composer's
death.
(I
of
the versos of the
Quartet manuscript
also have music on
them,
which
pencil.
These versos are
parts
of a number of
earlier drafts.
Janacek's
usual
procedure
for
writing
second and
some
point during
that
piece's development
which
replaced
it
probably
yet
more like
that in
Example
3.
Thus, Janacek
may
well have
changed only
the
scoring,
not the
content,
of this
passage
quartet
in 1923. In the
light
of these
discoveries,
it is worth
examining
Quartet,
relationship
goes deeper.
THE
QUARTET
SKETCHES
surviving
material for the
Quartet
is
paper
The recto bears the
heading
'IV' and two
single
appears
movement IV of the
Quartet's
final version.
(Example
7
gives
the
published
form of this
theme.)
system consisting
of three staves
the second
violin
part
here is
obviously
part
in
Example 7,
the
melody
appear
in
any
version of
fact,
opening
theme of the second
movement,
(see
Example 9).
parts
of both the
Naturally,
the
very
Quartet
were
freshly composed
in
1923,
but it is
strange
that so few
why only
is
extant,
early
autograph
of
the First
Quartet.
THE
QUARTET
MANUSCRIPT
The rest of the
surviving
material for the
Quartet
is all in the
JA
and it
separate sheets,
the first of
which is the
title-page
and is written on a
piece
of
grey
card. The
complete autograph
of the
Quartet, except
Presumably
the first leaf
of the
autograph
was
to a friend as a
souvenir,
by
an
autograph
hunter after the
composer's
death.
(I
of
the versos of the
Quartet manuscript
also have music on
them,
which
pencil.
These versos are
parts
of a number of
earlier drafts.
Janacek's
usual
procedure
for
writing
second and
38
This sheet is
kept
in the
JA
with the
autograph
of the work.
39
19
pages
of sketches are extant for the Second
String Quartet (1928),
for instance.
38
This sheet is
kept
in the
JA
with the
autograph
of the work.
39
19
pages
for instance.
38
This sheet is
kept
in the
JA
with the
autograph
of the work.
39
19
pages
for instance.
38
This sheet is
kept
in the
JA
with the
autograph
of the work.
39
19
pages
for instance.
38
This sheet is
kept
in the
JA
with the
autograph
of the work.
39
19
pages
for instance.
JANACEK'S
Example
7
JANACEK'S
Example
7
JANACEK'S
Example
7
JANACEK'S
Example
7
JANACEK'S
Example
7
[Violin I]
[Violin II]
[Viola]
[Cello]
[Violin I]
[Violin II]
[Viola]
[Cello]
[Violin I]
[Violin II]
[Viola]
[Cello]
[Violin I]
[Violin II]
[Viola]
[Cello]
[Violin I]
[Violin II]
[Viola]
[Cello]
L 0P r
-.
r L 0P r
-.
r L 0P r
-.
r L 0P r
-.
r L 0P r
-.
r
Piu mosso h = 138
r3'
-
t
Piu mosso h = 138
r3'
-
t
Piu mosso h = 138
r3'
-
t
Piu mosso h = 138
r3'
-
t
Piu mosso h = 138
r3'
-
t
:^
L% I
p-it
I
istJ
v
fc
pizz.
e.
,-3.
etc.
/
11, - smf
:^
L% I
p-it
I
istJ
v
fc
pizz.
e.
,-3.
etc.
/
11, - smf
:^
L% I
p-it
I
istJ
v
fc
pizz.
e.
,-3.
etc.
/
11, - smf
:^
L% I
p-it
I
istJ
v
fc
pizz.
e.
,-3.
etc.
/
11, - smf
:^
L% I
p-it
I
istJ
v
fc
pizz.
e.
,-3.
etc.
/
11, - smf
[<]
^
rl-,lluO
wi t i-F
"jU
JL J
i
[<]
^
rl-,lluO
wi t i-F
"jU
JL J
i
[<]
^
rl-,lluO
wi t i-F
"jU
JL J
i
[<]
^
rl-,lluO
wi t i-F
"jU
JL J
i
[<]
^
rl-,lluO
wi t i-F
"jU
JL J
i
b11 1 1- b11 1 1- b11 1 1- b11 1 1- b11 1 1-
Con moto J = 84
A 1
7
Lr 5
y9.
6.
'I-t~
' '
~
'
i"'
.-
Con moto J = 84
A 1
7
Lr 5
y9.
6.
'I-t~
' '
~
'
i"'
.-
Con moto J = 84
A 1
7
Lr 5
y9.
6.
'I-t~
' '
~
'
i"'
.-
Con moto J = 84
A 1
7
Lr 5
y9.
6.
'I-t~
' '
~
'
i"'
.-
Con moto J = 84
A 1
7
Lr 5
y9.
6.
'I-t~
' '
~
'
i"'
.-
Violin I Violin I Violin I Violin I Violin I
Violin II Violin II Violin II Violin II Violin II
Example
8
Example
8
Example
8
Example
8
Example
8
Example
9
Example
9
Example
9
Example
9
Example
9
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
F
"
I)
n
B r
---
n-L
F
"
I)
n
B r
---
n-L
F
"
I)
n
B r
---
n-L
F
"
I)
n
B r
---
n-L
F
"
I)
n
B r
---
n-L
-__
gl
1
*/.
_
-__
gl
1
*/.
_
-__
gl
1
*/.
_
-__
gl
1
*/.
_
-__
gl
1
*/.
_
r...
.
..
?1
1i
A.i
JAI R [] 6' ] _ -
r...
.
..
?1
1i
A.i
JAI R [] 6' ] _ -
r...
.
..
?1
1i
A.i
JAI R [] 6' ] _ -
r...
.
..
?1
1i
A.i
JAI R [] 6' ] _ -
r...
.
..
?1
1i
A.i
JAI R [] 6' ] _ -
subsequent
drafts was to use the
previous
one as the basis for the
next. Most
pages
of the
previous
draft were revised and some were
rejected altogether,
their blank versos
being
used for new material. As
many
works were redrafted twice or
more,
some sheets would eventu-
ally
have
rejected
music on both sides and these would be discarded.
(A
few such leaves have
survived,
but more often
they appear
to have
been
destroyed.) Janacek's
final
autograph
of the First
Quartet
is
thus,
characteristically,
a
hybrid
collection of several
partial
drafts.
The task of
sorting
out the various
layers
of a
Janacek manuscript
is
complicated
and so far
musicologists
have avoided it.
Despite
the
difficulties involved in such an
undertaking, however,
it is
always
possible
to
distinguish
the
layers
of an
autograph,
even if several
weeks of hard work are
required
to
complete
the task. The number
and content of the earlier drafts can be determined
through
the
detailed
study
of musical
continuity,
ink
types,
ink
blots,
graphology
and
paper types.4
The fact that
Janacek rarely
used
printed
manu-
script paper
for instrumental works after about 1900 is also of
help
to
the
musicologist.
In
particular,
the
autograph
of the First
Quartet
is
written on
separate
sheets of
plain paper,
on which the staves have
been ruled
by
the
composer
himself.
Frequently
there are wide
disparities
between the total
spans
of the
systems
on
contiguous
pages,
a fact which seems to indicate that those
pages
are
parts
of
different drafts.
Furthermore, although
most of the staves on both the
rectos and the versos of the sheets were drawn with a
rastrum,
a few
pages
have had each line of each stave ruled
separately.
All of the
music on the
pages
with the less common
type
of staves
appears
to
have been
composed
at the same time.
The initial draft of
Janacek's
First
Quartet
can therefore be
constructed. When the task has been
completed,
it soon becomes
obvious that
many
of the
pages
that make
up
the
preliminary
draft are
exceptional
in
Janacek's output.
As a
rule,
the
composer's
first drafts
are
untidy
and
many passages appear
to have been corrected as soon
as
they
were written. These drafts contain few
dynamics, expression
markings, tempo
indications or metronome marks. At this
stage
of a
piece's genesis Janacek
was
generally working
at
great speed
and had
only
a brief sketch of the outline of each movement to
compose
from.
The earliest drafts of the first and third movements of the First
Quartet,
however,
are much more like the
composer's
final
autographs
of other works.
They
are
surprisingly
detailed and even contain a
large
number of metronome
markings. Moreover, Janacek
seems
always
to
have known how much
space
he would need for each bar and there are
few corrections within the first
layer
itself. These drafts thus
appear
to
have been
copied
from
extremely
neat
exemplars.
In
contrast,
the first
drafts of the second and fourth movements seem to have been written
subsequent
previous
next. Most
pages
of the
previous
their blank versos
being
many
more,
ally
have
rejected
(A
survived,
but more often
they appear
to have
been
final
autograph
of the First
Quartet
is
thus,
characteristically,
a
hybrid
partial
drafts.
The task of
sorting
out the various
layers
of a
Janacek manuscript
is
complicated
and so far
musicologists
have avoided it.
Despite
the
it is
always
possible
to
distinguish
the
layers
of an
autograph,
even if several
required
to
complete
through
the
detailed
study
of musical
continuity,
ink
types,
ink
blots,
graphology
and
paper types.4
The fact that
Janacek rarely
used
printed
manu-
script paper
help
to
the
musicologist.
In
particular,
the
autograph
of the First
Quartet
is
written on
separate
sheets of
plain paper,
been ruled
by
the
composer
himself.
Frequently
there are wide
disparities
between the total
spans
of the
systems
on
contiguous
pages,
pages
are
parts
of
different drafts.
rastrum,
a few
pages
separately.
All of the
music on the
pages
type
of staves
appears
to
have been
composed
at the same time.
Janacek's
First
Quartet
can therefore be
completed,
it soon becomes
obvious that
many
of the
pages
that make
up
the
preliminary
draft are
exceptional
in
Janacek's output.
As a
rule,
the
composer's
first drafts
are
untidy
and
as
they
markings, tempo
stage
of a
was
generally working
at
great speed
and had
only
compose
from.
Quartet,
however,
composer's
final
autographs
of other works.
They
are
surprisingly
large
number of metronome
seems
always
to
have known how much
space
layer
appear
to
have been
copied
from
extremely
neat
exemplars.
In
contrast,
the first
subsequent
previous
next. Most
pages
of the
previous
their blank versos
being
many
more,
ally
have
rejected
(A
survived,
but more often
they appear
to have
been
final
autograph
of the First
Quartet
is
thus,
characteristically,
a
hybrid
partial
drafts.
The task of
sorting
out the various
layers
of a
Janacek manuscript
is
complicated
and so far
musicologists
have avoided it.
Despite
the
it is
always
possible
to
distinguish
the
layers
of an
autograph,
even if several
required
to
complete
through
the
detailed
study
of musical
continuity,
ink
types,
ink
blots,
graphology
and
paper types.4
The fact that
Janacek rarely
used
printed
manu-
script paper
help
to
the
musicologist.
In
particular,
the
autograph
of the First
Quartet
is
written on
separate
sheets of
plain paper,
been ruled
by
the
composer
himself.
Frequently
there are wide
disparities
between the total
spans
of the
systems
on
contiguous
pages,
pages
are
parts
of
different drafts.
rastrum,
a few
pages
separately.
All of the
music on the
pages
type
of staves
appears
to
have been
composed
at the same time.
Janacek's
First
Quartet
can therefore be
completed,
it soon becomes
obvious that
many
of the
pages
that make
up
the
preliminary
draft are
exceptional
in
Janacek's output.
As a
rule,
the
composer's
first drafts
are
untidy
and
as
they
markings, tempo
stage
of a
was
generally working
at
great speed
and had
only
compose
from.
Quartet,
however,
composer's
final
autographs
of other works.
They
are
surprisingly
large
number of metronome
seems
always
to
have known how much
space
layer
appear
to
have been
copied
from
extremely
neat
exemplars.
In
contrast,
the first
subsequent
previous
next. Most
pages
of the
previous
their blank versos
being
many
more,
ally
have
rejected
(A
survived,
but more often
they appear
to have
been
final
autograph
of the First
Quartet
is
thus,
characteristically,
a
hybrid
partial
drafts.
The task of
sorting
out the various
layers
of a
Janacek manuscript
is
complicated
and so far
musicologists
have avoided it.
Despite
the
it is
always
possible
to
distinguish
the
layers
of an
autograph,
even if several
required
to
complete
through
the
detailed
study
of musical
continuity,
ink
types,
ink
blots,
graphology
and
paper types.4
The fact that
Janacek rarely
used
printed
manu-
script paper
help
to
the
musicologist.
In
particular,
the
autograph
of the First
Quartet
is
written on
separate
sheets of
plain paper,
been ruled
by
the
composer
himself.
Frequently
there are wide
disparities
between the total
spans
of the
systems
on
contiguous
pages,
pages
are
parts
of
different drafts.
rastrum,
a few
pages
separately.
All of the
music on the
pages
type
of staves
appears
to
have been
composed
at the same time.
Janacek's
First
Quartet
can therefore be
completed,
it soon becomes
obvious that
many
of the
pages
that make
up
the
preliminary
draft are
exceptional
in
Janacek's output.
As a
rule,
the
composer's
first drafts
are
untidy
and
as
they
markings, tempo
stage
of a
was
generally working
at
great speed
and had
only
compose
from.
Quartet,
however,
composer's
final
autographs
of other works.
They
are
surprisingly
large
number of metronome
seems
always
to
have known how much
space
layer
appear
to
have been
copied
from
extremely
neat
exemplars.
In
contrast,
the first
subsequent
previous
next. Most
pages
of the
previous
their blank versos
being
many
more,
ally
have
rejected
(A
survived,
but more often
they appear
to have
been
final
autograph
of the First
Quartet
is
thus,
characteristically,
a
hybrid
partial
drafts.
The task of
sorting
out the various
layers
of a
Janacek manuscript
is
complicated
and so far
musicologists
have avoided it.
Despite
the
it is
always
possible
to
distinguish
the
layers
of an
autograph,
even if several
required
to
complete
through
the
detailed
study
of musical
continuity,
ink
types,
ink
blots,
graphology
and
paper types.4
The fact that
Janacek rarely
used
printed
manu-
script paper
help
to
the
musicologist.
In
particular,
the
autograph
of the First
Quartet
is
written on
separate
sheets of
plain paper,
been ruled
by
the
composer
himself.
Frequently
there are wide
disparities
between the total
spans
of the
systems
on
contiguous
pages,
pages
are
parts
of
different drafts.
rastrum,
a few
pages
separately.
All of the
music on the
pages
type
of staves
appears
to
have been
composed
at the same time.
Janacek's
First
Quartet
can therefore be
completed,
it soon becomes
obvious that
many
of the
pages
that make
up
the
preliminary
draft are
exceptional
in
Janacek's output.
As a
rule,
the
composer's
first drafts
are
untidy
and
as
they
markings, tempo
stage
of a
was
generally working
at
great speed
and had
only
compose
from.
Quartet,
however,
composer's
final
autographs
of other works.
They
are
surprisingly
large
number of metronome
seems
always
to
have known how much
space
layer
appear
to
have been
copied
from
extremely
neat
exemplars.
In
contrast,
the first
40
An
in-depth
account of how modern
musicological
methods can be
applied
to the sources of
Janaiek's
music can be found in
Wingfield,
"'On an
Overgrown Path"',
23-51.
40
An
in-depth
musicological
methods can be
applied
to the sources of
Janaiek's
Wingfield,
"'On an
Overgrown Path"',
23-51.
40
An
in-depth
musicological
methods can be
applied
to the sources of
Janaiek's
Wingfield,
"'On an
Overgrown Path"',
23-51.
40
An
in-depth
musicological
methods can be
applied
to the sources of
Janaiek's
Wingfield,
"'On an
Overgrown Path"',
23-51.
40
An
in-depth
musicological
methods can be
applied
to the sources of
Janaiek's
Wingfield,
"'On an
Overgrown Path"',
23-51.
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
more
hastily. They
contain a
significant
number of deletions and
rewritings,
and
they appear
to have been
compiled
from
only
a few
untidy
sketches.
There are three
likely explanations
for the curious
way
in which the
first version of the
Quartet
is made
up. First,
Janacek may
have
sketched movements I and III and
may
then have drafted
these,
employing
a few musical ideas from his Piano
Trio,
but
largely
composing
new music. He
might
next have written sketches for
movements II and IV and he
might
then have drafted the whole
piece,
recopying neatly
the two movements
already composed
and
compiling
the
remaining
movements from the sketches
(which
have
survived).
After
this,
he
presumably destroyed
the
first,
partial
draft and the
sketches for
it,
since none of these sources is extant.
However,
if
Janacek
did construct his initial score of the
Quartet
in this
manner,
he was
diverging
from his usual
compositional
methods and was
wasting, uncharacteristically,
a lot of time and
paper.
This
theory
thus
seems to be the least
plausible
of the three.
A second
hypothesis
is
slightly
more
probable.
Janacek
may
have
sketched and drafted
(and
perhaps redrafted)
the whole
piece.
He
might
then have decided to make a neat
copy.
When he was
writing
this he
may
have been
happy
with movements I and
III,
but he
may
have become dissatisfied with movements II and IV.
Thus,
he
possibly
wrote new sketches for movements II and IV
(which appear
to have
survived)
and then redrafted them as
part
of what was
originally
intended to be his neat
copy.
Afterwards,
he
all
the material
(including
the
sketches)
for the first
draft,
which
may
or
may
not have been
closely
modelled on the Trio.
There is a
problem
with this
theory,
however:
why
has no material
for the
early draft(s)
survived? After
all,
for almost
every
other
Janacek
work at least some of the sheets from the first draft are extant. The
solution to this
problem might
be that
Janacek
revised his
preliminary
draft to such an extent that both sides of each sheet were
eventually
written on. He therefore
presumably
started to write his neat
copy
on
fresh sheets of
paper
and threw
away
all the earlier material when the
new score was
complete.
This solution seems
highly unlikely, though,
when the time-scale of the
Quartet's genesis
is looked at
closely.
It
appears
that
Janacek
received the commission
just
before 13 October
1923 and he does not seem to have started the work before that date
(see p.
231
above).
The last
page
of the earliest
surviving
draft in the
manuscript
(JA
A.7443)
is
clearly
dated 28 October 1923.
Thus,
the
second
explanation
of the
present
structure of A.7443
requires
us to
believe not
only
that
Janacek
destroyed every
trace of both his earliest
sketches for and his score of the
Quartet,
but also that he
sketched,
composed
and wrote out in their
entirety
at least two versions of the
piece
before 28 October 1923. This
explanation
is at best uncon-
vincing.
The third
hypothesis
about how the first draft of the First
Quartet
was
composed
is the most
plausible. Janacek probably
wrote this draft
more
hastily. They
contain a
significant
rewritings,
and
they appear
to have been
compiled
from
only
a few
untidy
sketches.
There are three
likely explanations
for the curious
way
in which the
Quartet
is made
up. First,
Janacek may
have
may
then have drafted
these,
employing
Trio,
but
largely
composing
new music. He
might
might
piece,
recopying neatly
the two movements
already composed
and
compiling
the
remaining
(which
have
survived).
After
this,
he
the
first,
partial
draft and the
sketches for
it,
However,
if
Janacek
Quartet
in this
manner,
he was
diverging
from his usual
compositional
methods and was
a lot of time and
paper.
This
theory
thus
plausible
of the three.
A second
hypothesis
is
slightly
more
probable.
Janacek
may
have
(and
perhaps redrafted)
the whole
piece.
He
might
copy.
When he was
writing
this he
may
have been
happy
III,
but he
may
Thus,
he
possibly
(which appear
to have
survived)
part
of what was
originally
copy.
Afterwards,
he
all
the material
(including
the
sketches)
for the first
draft,
which
may
or
may
not have been
closely
There is a
problem
with this
theory,
however:
why
has no material
for the
early draft(s)
survived? After
all,
for almost
every
other
Janacek
solution to this
problem might
be that
Janacek
revised his
preliminary
eventually
presumably
copy
on
fresh sheets of
paper
and threw
away
new score was
complete.
This solution seems
Quartet's genesis
is looked at
closely.
It
appears
that
Janacek
just
before 13 October
(see p.
231
above).
The last
page
of the earliest
surviving
draft in the
manuscript
(JA
A.7443)
is
clearly
Thus,
the
second
explanation
of the
present
structure of A.7443
requires
us to
believe not
only
that
Janacek
destroyed every
Quartet,
but also that he
sketched,
composed
entirety
piece
explanation
is at best uncon-
vincing.
The third
hypothesis
Quartet
was
composed
is the most
wrote this draft
more
hastily. They
contain a
significant
rewritings,
and
they appear
to have been
compiled
from
only
a few
untidy
sketches.
There are three
likely explanations
for the curious
way
in which the
Quartet
is made
up. First,
Janacek may
have
may
then have drafted
these,
employing
Trio,
but
largely
composing
new music. He
might
might
piece,
recopying neatly
the two movements
already composed
and
compiling
the
remaining
(which
have
survived).
After
this,
he
the
first,
partial
draft and the
sketches for
it,
However,
if
Janacek
Quartet
in this
manner,
he was
diverging
from his usual
compositional
methods and was
a lot of time and
paper.
This
theory
thus
plausible
of the three.
A second
hypothesis
is
slightly
more
probable.
Janacek
may
have
(and
perhaps redrafted)
the whole
piece.
He
might
copy.
When he was
writing
this he
may
have been
happy
III,
but he
may
Thus,
he
possibly
(which appear
to have
survived)
part
of what was
originally
copy.
Afterwards,
he
all
the material
(including
the
sketches)
for the first
draft,
which
may
or
may
not have been
closely
There is a
problem
with this
theory,
however:
why
has no material
for the
early draft(s)
survived? After
all,
for almost
every
other
Janacek
solution to this
problem might
be that
Janacek
revised his
preliminary
eventually
presumably
copy
on
fresh sheets of
paper
and threw
away
new score was
complete.
This solution seems
Quartet's genesis
is looked at
closely.
It
appears
that
Janacek
just
before 13 October
(see p.
231
above).
The last
page
of the earliest
surviving
draft in the
manuscript
(JA
A.7443)
is
clearly
Thus,
the
second
explanation
of the
present
structure of A.7443
requires
us to
believe not
only
that
Janacek
destroyed every
Quartet,
but also that he
sketched,
composed
entirety
piece
explanation
is at best uncon-
vincing.
The third
hypothesis
Quartet
was
composed
is the most
wrote this draft
more
hastily. They
contain a
significant
rewritings,
and
they appear
to have been
compiled
from
only
a few
untidy
sketches.
There are three
likely explanations
for the curious
way
in which the
Quartet
is made
up. First,
Janacek may
have
may
then have drafted
these,
employing
Trio,
but
largely
composing
new music. He
might
might
piece,
recopying neatly
the two movements
already composed
and
compiling
the
remaining
(which
have
survived).
After
this,
he
the
first,
partial
draft and the
sketches for
it,
However,
if
Janacek
Quartet
in this
manner,
he was
diverging
from his usual
compositional
methods and was
a lot of time and
paper.
This
theory
thus
plausible
of the three.
A second
hypothesis
is
slightly
more
probable.
Janacek
may
have
(and
perhaps redrafted)
the whole
piece.
He
might
copy.
When he was
writing
this he
may
have been
happy
III,
but he
may
Thus,
he
possibly
(which appear
to have
survived)
part
of what was
originally
copy.
Afterwards,
he
all
the material
(including
the
sketches)
for the first
draft,
which
may
or
may
not have been
closely
There is a
problem
with this
theory,
however:
why
has no material
for the
early draft(s)
survived? After
all,
for almost
every
other
Janacek
solution to this
problem might
be that
Janacek
revised his
preliminary
eventually
presumably
copy
on
fresh sheets of
paper
and threw
away
new score was
complete.
This solution seems
Quartet's genesis
is looked at
closely.
It
appears
that
Janacek
just
before 13 October
(see p.
231
above).
The last
page
of the earliest
surviving
draft in the
manuscript
(JA
A.7443)
is
clearly
Thus,
the
second
explanation
of the
present
structure of A.7443
requires
us to
believe not
only
that
Janacek
destroyed every
Quartet,
but also that he
sketched,
composed
entirety
piece
explanation
is at best uncon-
vincing.
The third
hypothesis
Quartet
was
composed
is the most
wrote this draft
more
hastily. They
contain a
significant
rewritings,
and
they appear
to have been
compiled
from
only
a few
untidy
sketches.
There are three
likely explanations
for the curious
way
in which the
Quartet
is made
up. First,
Janacek may
have
may
then have drafted
these,
employing
Trio,
but
largely
composing
new music. He
might
might
piece,
recopying neatly
the two movements
already composed
and
compiling
the
remaining
(which
have
survived).
After
this,
he
the
first,
partial
draft and the
sketches for
it,
However,
if
Janacek
Quartet
in this
manner,
he was
diverging
from his usual
compositional
methods and was
a lot of time and
paper.
This
theory
thus
plausible
of the three.
A second
hypothesis
is
slightly
more
probable.
Janacek
may
have
(and
perhaps redrafted)
the whole
piece.
He
might
copy.
When he was
writing
this he
may
have been
happy
III,
but he
may
Thus,
he
possibly
(which appear
to have
survived)
part
of what was
originally
copy.
Afterwards,
he
all
the material
(including
the
sketches)
for the first
draft,
which
may
or
may
not have been
closely
There is a
problem
with this
theory,
however:
why
has no material
for the
early draft(s)
survived? After
all,
for almost
every
other
Janacek
solution to this
problem might
be that
Janacek
revised his
preliminary
eventually
presumably
copy
on
fresh sheets of
paper
and threw
away
new score was
complete.
This solution seems
Quartet's genesis
is looked at
closely.
It
appears
that
Janacek
just
before 13 October
(see p.
231
above).
The last
page
of the earliest
surviving
draft in the
manuscript
(JA
A.7443)
is
clearly
Thus,
the
second
explanation
of the
present
structure of A.7443
requires
us to
believe not
only
that
Janacek
destroyed every
Quartet,
but also that he
sketched,
composed
entirety
piece
explanation
is at best uncon-
vincing.
The third
hypothesis
Quartet
was
composed
is the most
wrote this draft
247 247 247 247 247
by transcribing
the first and third movements
directly
from the final
version of the Piano Trio and
by composing
the second and fourth
movements from
only
a few sketches
(of
which the sheet of sketches
that has survived was
probably
the
earliest).
This
theory explains why
there are no extant sketches for movements I and III and
why
the
preliminary
drafts of these
parts
of the work are so neat. In
addition,
it
provides
a more realistic framework for the
development
of the
piece
as far as dates are concerned: the sketches and the first draft were
probably
written in the
fortnight up
to and
including
28 October 1923
and the revisions were
presumably
carried out between 28 October
and 7
November,
when the last
page
of the final version was dated.
Furthermore,
an
analysis
of the
layout
of the actual music in the first
draft of the
Quartet
would
appear
to
support
the third
theory
about
the
way
in which that draft was
composed.
It was observed on
pp.
242-3 above that the
surviving fragment
from the Trio was transcribed for
quartet simply through
the trans-
ference of the Trio's violin and violoncello
parts
to the first violin and
violoncello in the
Quartet
and
through
the division of the
piano part
between the second violin and the viola.
Janacek
seems to have used
this method of
transcription
to
compile
the entire first version of
movement III of the First
Quartet. Throughout
the earliest draft of
that movement there are three
layers
in the musical structure: two
instruments act
independently
and the other two share material. The
two instruments that act as a
single
unit are
generally
the second
violin and
violoncello,
although
the first violin and viola and the
second violin and violoncello are
occasionally paired
to
provide
some
textural
variety.
Much of the thematic material that is shared between
two instruments is even unidiomatic in its
quartet
form: for
example,
the
figuration
allotted to the second violin and the viola in bar 35 of
the final version is awkward to
play
at
Janacek's designated speed (J.
=
76)
and is far more suited to the
piano. (Examples
10 and 11
give
the First
Quartet
version of bar 35 and a theoretical
transcription
of it
for
piano
trio
respectively.)
The first two-thirds of the
preliminary
draft of movement III of the
Quartet
are
virtually
identical with bars 1-59 of the final
version,
and
so the movement's
origins
as a
piece
for
piano
trio are still evident in
the
printed
score.41 The last third of the first
draft, however,
was
completely
rewritten and
expanded
over the course of its three
revisions. The instrumental
writing
is therefore much more idiomatic
and the texture is more varied in bars 60-103 of the
printed version;
there is even a
genuine four-part layout
in most of the climactic
section
(bars 67-88),
and when two instruments are
eventually paired
in bars 83-8
they
are the two
violins,
not the second violin and viola.
The earliest version of movement I also relies on the
three-part
texture with two instruments
acting
as a
single
unit that can be found
by transcribing
directly
from the final
by composing
movements from
only
a few sketches
(of
probably
the
earliest).
This
theory explains why
why
the
preliminary
drafts of these
parts
addition,
it
provides
development
of the
piece
probably
written in the
fortnight up
to and
including
28 October 1923
presumably
and 7
November,
when the last
page
Furthermore,
an
analysis
of the
layout
draft of the
Quartet
would
appear
to
support
the third
theory
about
the
way
composed.
It was observed on
pp.
surviving fragment
the trans-
parts
violoncello in the
Quartet
and
through
the division of the
piano part
Janacek
seems to have used
this method of
transcription
to
compile
Quartet. Throughout
layers
instruments act
independently
single
unit are
generally
the second
violin and
violoncello,
although
occasionally paired
to
provide
some
textural
variety.
quartet
form: for
example,
the
figuration
play
at
=
76)
piano. (Examples
10 and 11
give
the First
Quartet
transcription
of it
for
piano
trio
respectively.)
preliminary
Quartet
are
virtually
version,
and
so the movement's
origins
as a
piece
for
piano
the
printed
draft, however,
was
completely
rewritten and
expanded
writing
printed version;
there is even a
section
(bars 67-88),
eventually paired
in bars 83-8
they
are the two
violins,
three-part
acting
as a
single
by transcribing
directly
from the final
by composing
movements from
only
a few sketches
(of
probably
the
earliest).
This
theory explains why
why
the
preliminary
drafts of these
parts
addition,
it
provides
development
of the
piece
probably
written in the
fortnight up
to and
including
28 October 1923
presumably
and 7
November,
when the last
page
Furthermore,
an
analysis
of the
layout
draft of the
Quartet
would
appear
to
support
the third
theory
about
the
way
composed.
It was observed on
pp.
surviving fragment
the trans-
parts
violoncello in the
Quartet
and
through
the division of the
piano part
Janacek
seems to have used
this method of
transcription
to
compile
Quartet. Throughout
layers
instruments act
independently
single
unit are
generally
the second
violin and
violoncello,
although
occasionally paired
to
provide
some
textural
variety.
quartet
form: for
example,
the
figuration
play
at
=
76)
piano. (Examples
10 and 11
give
the First
Quartet
transcription
of it
for
piano
trio
respectively.)
preliminary
Quartet
are
virtually
version,
and
so the movement's
origins
as a
piece
for
piano
the
printed
draft, however,
was
completely
rewritten and
expanded
writing
printed version;
there is even a
section
(bars 67-88),
eventually paired
in bars 83-8
they
are the two
violins,
three-part
acting
as a
single
by transcribing
directly
from the final
by composing
movements from
only
a few sketches
(of
probably
the
earliest).
This
theory explains why
why
the
preliminary
drafts of these
parts
addition,
it
provides
development
of the
piece
probably
written in the
fortnight up
to and
including
28 October 1923
presumably
and 7
November,
when the last
page
Furthermore,
an
analysis
of the
layout
draft of the
Quartet
would
appear
to
support
the third
theory
about
the
way
composed.
It was observed on
pp.
surviving fragment
the trans-
parts
violoncello in the
Quartet
and
through
the division of the
piano part
Janacek
seems to have used
this method of
transcription
to
compile
Quartet. Throughout
layers
instruments act
independently
single
unit are
generally
the second
violin and
violoncello,
although
occasionally paired
to
provide
some
textural
variety.
quartet
form: for
example,
the
figuration
play
at
=
76)
piano. (Examples
10 and 11
give
the First
Quartet
transcription
of it
for
piano
trio
respectively.)
preliminary
Quartet
are
virtually
version,
and
so the movement's
origins
as a
piece
for
piano
the
printed
draft, however,
was
completely
rewritten and
expanded
writing
printed version;
there is even a
section
(bars 67-88),
eventually paired
in bars 83-8
they
are the two
violins,
three-part
acting
as a
single
by transcribing
directly
from the final
by composing
movements from
only
a few sketches
(of
probably
the
earliest).
This
theory explains why
why
the
preliminary
drafts of these
parts
addition,
it
provides
development
of the
piece
probably
written in the
fortnight up
to and
including
28 October 1923
presumably
and 7
November,
when the last
page
Furthermore,
an
analysis
of the
layout
draft of the
Quartet
would
appear
to
support
the third
theory
about
the
way
composed.
It was observed on
pp.
surviving fragment
the trans-
parts
violoncello in the
Quartet
and
through
the division of the
piano part
Janacek
seems to have used
this method of
transcription
to
compile
Quartet. Throughout
layers
instruments act
independently
single
unit are
generally
the second
violin and
violoncello,
although
occasionally paired
to
provide
some
textural
variety.
quartet
form: for
example,
the
figuration
play
at
=
76)
piano. (Examples
10 and 11
give
the First
Quartet
transcription
of it
for
piano
trio
respectively.)
preliminary
Quartet
are
virtually
version,
and
so the movement's
origins
as a
piece
for
piano
the
printed
draft, however,
was
completely
rewritten and
expanded
writing
printed version;
there is even a
section
(bars 67-88),
eventually paired
in bars 83-8
they
are the two
violins,
three-part
acting
as a
single
41
Of
course,
the 'sul
ponticello' markings
at several
points
in the final
Quartet
version have
changed
the actual sound of the music
considerably.
41
Of
course,
the 'sul
at several
points
in the final
Quartet
version have
changed
considerably.
41
Of
course,
the 'sul
at several
points
in the final
Quartet
version have
changed
considerably.
41
Of
course,
the 'sul
at several
points
in the final
Quartet
version have
changed
considerably.
41
Of
course,
the 'sul
at several
points
in the final
Quartet
version have
changed
considerably.
248 248 248 248 248
JANACEK'S
Example
10
Vivo . = 76
Violin I b
r
"
Viola LQ1 f t 7
pizz.
Cello ~
r
Yr
-
Example
11
Vivo J.- 76
A
r
.
fl?-
bt *i r
JANACEK'S
Example
10
Vivo . = 76
Violin I b
r
"
Viola LQ1 f t 7
pizz.
Cello ~
r
Yr
-
Example
11
Vivo J.- 76
A
r
.
fl?-
bt *i r
JANACEK'S
Example
10
Vivo . = 76
Violin I b
r
"
Viola LQ1 f t 7
pizz.
Cello ~
r
Yr
-
Example
11
Vivo J.- 76
A
r
.
fl?-
bt *i r
JANACEK'S
Example
10
Vivo . = 76
Violin I b
r
"
Viola LQ1 f t 7
pizz.
Cello ~
r
Yr
-
Example
11
Vivo J.- 76
A
r
.
fl?-
bt *i r
JANACEK'S
Example
10
Vivo . = 76
Violin I b
r
"
Viola LQ1 f t 7
pizz.
Cello ~
r
Yr
-
Example
11
Vivo J.- 76
A
r
.
fl?-
bt *i r
Violin
Cello
Piano
Exai
Violin I
Violin I
Viola
Cello
Violin
Cello
Piano
Exai
Violin I
Violin I
Viola
Cello
Violin
Cello
Piano
Exai
Violin I
Violin I
Viola
Cello
Violin
Cello
Piano
Exai
Violin I
Violin I
Viola
Cello
Violin
Cello
Piano
Exai
Violin I
Violin I
Viola
Cello
b
L
i
(I I
pizz.
b (
F^--- F
L
i
,-
rl 2!n
mple
r12 r
F '
mple
12
b
L
i
(I I
pizz.
b (
F^--- F
L
i
,-
rl 2!n
mple
r12 r
F '
mple
12
b
L
i
(I I
pizz.
b (
F^--- F
L
i
,-
rl 2!n
mple
r12 r
F '
mple
12
b
L
i
(I I
pizz.
b (
F^--- F
L
i
,-
rl 2!n
mple
r12 r
F '
mple
12
b
L
i
(I I
pizz.
b (
F^--- F
L
i
,-
rl 2!n
mple
r12 r
F '
mple
12
I I I I I
Example
13
Adagio
A -
.
Example
13
Adagio
A -
.
Example
13
Adagio
A -
.
Example
13
Adagio
A -
.
Example
13
Adagio
A -
.
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
(con sord.)
-
m l
.
I
(con sord.)
-
m l
.
I
(con sord.)
-
m l
.
I
(con sord.)
-
m l
.
I
(con sord.)
-
m l
.
I
0*J -) 4 -
w-
(con sord.)
f- = ' -
u _
I I
0*J -) 4 -
w-
(con sord.)
f- = ' -
u _
I I
0*J -) 4 -
w-
(con sord.)
f- = ' -
u _
I I
0*J -) 4 -
w-
(con sord.)
f- = ' -
u _
I I
0*J -) 4 -
w-
(con sord.)
f- = ' -
u _
I I
-con sord.-. con sord.
?l:Ai8\^lcl ftR`' Fft-^\^
-
w
#LIJ
I
_ --
_
-
w
#LIJ
I
_ --
_
-
w
#LIJ
I
_ --
_
-
w
#LIJ
I
_ --
_
-
w
#LIJ
I
_ --
_
Example
14
Example
14
Example
14
Example
14
Example
14
Adagio Adagio Adagio Adagio Adagio
Violin
Cello
Piano
Violin
Cello
Piano
Violin
Cello
Piano
Violin
Cello
Piano
Violin
Cello
Piano
Con moto Con moto Con moto Con moto Con moto
mf
lhe [leggieroJ
.-A . ______ -
mf
lhe [leggieroJ
.-A . ______ -
mf
lhe [leggieroJ
.-A . ______ -
mf
lhe [leggieroJ
.-A . ______ -
mf
lhe [leggieroJ
.-A . ______ -
Ped ! t _1 _i , Ped ! t _1 _i , Ped ! t _1 _i , Ped ! t _1 _i , Ped ! t _1 _i ,
Adagio Adagio Adagio Adagio Adagio
Con moto Con moto Con moto Con moto Con moto
flehce [lggierol
gn
.,i
,,.rr,1
e -
oI -
-
1-.
etc.
.)^ 1 . l s 4I
ii
....... ...
'
f3^^
=:
^
flehce [lggierol
gn
.,i
,,.rr,1
e -
oI -
-
1-.
etc.
.)^ 1 . l s 4I
ii
....... ...
'
f3^^
=:
^
flehce [lggierol
gn
.,i
,,.rr,1
e -
oI -
-
1-.
etc.
.)^ 1 . l s 4I
ii
....... ...
'
f3^^
=:
^
flehce [lggierol
gn
.,i
,,.rr,1
e -
oI -
-
1-.
etc.
.)^ 1 . l s 4I
ii
....... ...
'
f3^^
=:
^
flehce [lggierol
gn
.,i
,,.rr,1
e -
oI -
-
1-.
etc.
.)^ 1 . l s 4I
ii
....... ...
'
f3^^
=:
^
throughout
the first draft of movement III. Even
passages
that seem to
be more
idiomatically
scored in their initial versions are
slightly
clumsy
and were
rearranged
in later revisions. One such
passage
is
the
opening
of movement I. In its final
version,
the first theme of the
work
exploits double-stopping
and tremolos
successfully (see
Exam-
ple
12,
which
reproduces
the second statement of that
theme).42
But
42
This
example gives
the second rather than the first statement of this theme because the
first
page
of the
Quartet manuscript
is
missing (see p.
245
above).
throughout
passages
that seem to
be more
idiomatically
slightly
clumsy
and were
rearranged
passage
is
the
opening
version,
work
and tremolos
successfully (see
Exam-
ple
12,
which
reproduces
theme).42
But
42
This
example gives
first
page
of the
Quartet manuscript
is
missing (see p.
245
above).
throughout
passages
that seem to
be more
idiomatically
slightly
clumsy
and were
rearranged
passage
is
the
opening
version,
work
and tremolos
successfully (see
Exam-
ple
12,
which
reproduces
theme).42
But
42
This
example gives
first
page
of the
Quartet manuscript
is
missing (see p.
245
above).
throughout
passages
that seem to
be more
idiomatically
slightly
clumsy
and were
rearranged
passage
is
the
opening
version,
work
and tremolos
successfully (see
Exam-
ple
12,
which
reproduces
theme).42
But
42
This
example gives
first
page
of the
Quartet manuscript
is
missing (see p.
245
above).
throughout
passages
that seem to
be more
idiomatically
slightly
clumsy
and were
rearranged
passage
is
the
opening
version,
work
and tremolos
successfully (see
Exam-
ple
12,
which
reproduces
theme).42
But
42
This
example gives
first
page
of the
Quartet manuscript
is
missing (see p.
245
above).
250 250 250 250 250
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
the initial form of the theme was less
convincing (see Example 13);
indeed,
that version looks
suspiciously
like a
transcription
of a theme
originally composed
for
piano,
and in fact the whole
opening
section
of the first version of the
Quartet
could be rewritten for
piano
trio
without
any problems. (Example
14 offers such a
hypothetical
reconstruction of bars 1-14 of movement
I.)
Just
as the instrumentation in the first version of movements I and
III of the
Quartet suggests clearly
that these are awkward
transcrip-
tions of models scored for
piano trio,
so the
layout
of the initial drafts
of movements II and IV indicates that these
parts
of the work were
intended for
string quartet
from the outset. As
early
as the
opening
of
movement II there is a real
four-part
texture - this
passage
is more or
less the same in all versions
(the
final one is
given
in
Example 9)
- and
the rest of the first draft of this movement contains a
greater variety
of
textures and a faster rate of textural transformation than the earliest
versions of movements I and III.
Similarly,
movement IV is idiomatic
even in its first version and that draft could not
easily
be
rearranged
for
piano
trio.
Both the musical content and the
layout
of the earliest versions of
movements I and III
ofJanacek's
First
String Quartet
thus
support
the
theory
that these were modelled
closely
on two movements from the
composer's
earlier Piano Trio. The later
stages
of the
development
of
the whole
Quartet
would also seem to confirm this
hypothesis.
For
while movements I and III were
changed very
little
during
the
Quartet's
genesis,
movements II and IV were altered so
radically
that
the first and final versions of each of these movements are
essentially
different
pieces.
It therefore
appears
that
Janacek
had
spent
a
considerable amount of time
polishing
movements I and III even
before he wrote their first extant
drafts,
whereas it seems that he had
conceived
only
the basic outlines of movements II and IV when he
started to draft them for the first time. Of
course,
the
uncomplicated
geneses
of movements I and III of the
Quartet
both
support
the
theory
that these movements were
originally composed
for
piano
trio and
make it
relatively easy
to reconstruct their first drafts. The
original
Trio versions of movements I and III of the
Quartet
could also be
reconstructed without
any great difficulty.43
It is not
possible,
however,
to determine from the
Quartet manuscript
alone either the
content of the
missing
third movement of the Trio or the exact
position
in the Trio of the two movements later
adapted
for
quartet.
But if Pavel Dedecek's
testimony (discussed
in full on
pp.
233-6
above)
is now re-examined in the
light
of all the other
evidence,
a
plausible
basic structure for the Trio can be evaluated.
It was established on
pp.
234-5 above that Dedecek's
description
of the first movement of the Trio could fit the first of the
Quartet.
It
was also
suggested
that the note values
may
have been halved or
indeed,
that version looks
suspiciously
like a
transcription
of a theme
originally composed
for
piano,
opening
section
Quartet
piano
trio
without
14 offers such a
hypothetical
I.)
Just
III of the
transcrip-
piano trio,
so the
layout
parts
of the work were
intended for
string quartet
from the outset. As
early
as the
opening
of
four-part
texture - this
passage
is more or
(the
final one is
given
in
Example 9)
- and
greater variety
of
Similarly,
easily
be
rearranged
for
piano
trio.
layout
movements I and III
ofJanacek's
First
String Quartet
thus
support
the
theory
closely
composer's
stages
of the
development
of
the whole
Quartet
hypothesis.
For
changed very
little
during
the
Quartet's
genesis,
radically
that
essentially
different
pieces.
It therefore
appears
that
Janacek
had
spent
a
polishing
drafts,
conceived
only
course,
the
uncomplicated
geneses
Quartet
both
support
the
theory
originally composed
for
piano
trio and
make it
relatively easy
original
Quartet
could also be
It is not
possible,
however,
Quartet manuscript
alone either the
content of the
missing
position
adapted
for
quartet.
in full on
pp.
233-6
above)
light
of all the other
evidence,
a
plausible
pp.
description
Quartet.
It
was also
suggested
may
have been halved or
indeed,
that version looks
suspiciously
like a
transcription
of a theme
originally composed
for
piano,
opening
section
Quartet
piano
trio
without
14 offers such a
hypothetical
I.)
Just
III of the
transcrip-
piano trio,
so the
layout
parts
of the work were
intended for
string quartet
from the outset. As
early
as the
opening
of
four-part
texture - this
passage
is more or
(the
final one is
given
in
Example 9)
- and
greater variety
of
Similarly,
easily
be
rearranged
for
piano
trio.
layout
movements I and III
ofJanacek's
First
String Quartet
thus
support
the
theory
closely
composer's
stages
of the
development
of
the whole
Quartet
hypothesis.
For
changed very
little
during
the
Quartet's
genesis,
radically
that
essentially
different
pieces.
It therefore
appears
that
Janacek
had
spent
a
polishing
drafts,
conceived
only
course,
the
uncomplicated
geneses
Quartet
both
support
the
theory
originally composed
for
piano
trio and
make it
relatively easy
original
Quartet
could also be
It is not
possible,
however,
Quartet manuscript
alone either the
content of the
missing
position
adapted
for
quartet.
in full on
pp.
233-6
above)
light
of all the other
evidence,
a
plausible
pp.
description
Quartet.
It
was also
suggested
may
have been halved or
indeed,
that version looks
suspiciously
like a
transcription
of a theme
originally composed
for
piano,
opening
section
Quartet
piano
trio
without
14 offers such a
hypothetical
I.)
Just
III of the
transcrip-
piano trio,
so the
layout
parts
of the work were
intended for
string quartet
from the outset. As
early
as the
opening
of
four-part
texture - this
passage
is more or
(the
final one is
given
in
Example 9)
- and
greater variety
of
Similarly,
easily
be
rearranged
for
piano
trio.
layout
movements I and III
ofJanacek's
First
String Quartet
thus
support
the
theory
closely
composer's
stages
of the
development
of
the whole
Quartet
hypothesis.
For
changed very
little
during
the
Quartet's
genesis,
radically
that
essentially
different
pieces.
It therefore
appears
that
Janacek
had
spent
a
polishing
drafts,
conceived
only
course,
the
uncomplicated
geneses
Quartet
both
support
the
theory
originally composed
for
piano
trio and
make it
relatively easy
original
Quartet
could also be
It is not
possible,
however,
Quartet manuscript
alone either the
content of the
missing
position
adapted
for
quartet.
in full on
pp.
233-6
above)
light
of all the other
evidence,
a
plausible
pp.
description
Quartet.
It
was also
suggested
may
have been halved or
indeed,
that version looks
suspiciously
like a
transcription
of a theme
originally composed
for
piano,
opening
section
Quartet
piano
trio
without
14 offers such a
hypothetical
I.)
Just
III of the
transcrip-
piano trio,
so the
layout
parts
of the work were
intended for
string quartet
from the outset. As
early
as the
opening
of
four-part
texture - this
passage
is more or
(the
final one is
given
in
Example 9)
- and
greater variety
of
Similarly,
easily
be
rearranged
for
piano
trio.
layout
movements I and III
ofJanacek's
First
String Quartet
thus
support
the
theory
closely
composer's
stages
of the
development
of
the whole
Quartet
hypothesis.
For
changed very
little
during
the
Quartet's
genesis,
radically
that
essentially
different
pieces.
It therefore
appears
that
Janacek
had
spent
a
polishing
drafts,
conceived
only
course,
the
uncomplicated
geneses
Quartet
both
support
the
theory
originally composed
for
piano
trio and
make it
relatively easy
original
Quartet
could also be
It is not
possible,
however,
Quartet manuscript
alone either the
content of the
missing
position
adapted
for
quartet.
in full on
pp.
233-6
above)
light
of all the other
evidence,
a
plausible
pp.
description
Quartet.
It
was also
suggested
may
have been halved or
43
My
reconstruction of the Trio version of movement III of the
Quartet
was
performed
on 31
July
1986 in the
Queen
Elizabeth Hall.
43
My
Quartet
was
performed
on 31
July
1986 in the
Queen
Elizabeth Hall.
43
My
Quartet
was
performed
on 31
July
1986 in the
Queen
Elizabeth Hall.
43
My
Quartet
was
performed
on 31
July
1986 in the
Queen
Elizabeth Hall.
43
My
Quartet
was
performed
on 31
July
1986 in the
Queen
Elizabeth Hall.
251 251 251 251 251
quartered
in the later work. This seems even more
likely
when the
initial draft of the
Quartet's
first movement is
closely scrutinized,
as
that draft contains some bars notated in
2/2,
despite
the
prevailing
2/4 time
signature.
These errors on
Janacek's part might
be
explained
satisfactorily
if he had indeed
copied
the draft from an
exemplar
notated either in 2/2 or 2/1 with half the number of barlines.
Dedecek's account is therefore at least
partly supported by
other
evidence and the first movement of the Trio
appears
to have been
largely
the same as the first of the
Quartet.
Some further sections of
Dedecek's
testimony
also seem to be corroborated
by
the
manuscript
material. For
instance,
his
description
of the second movement of the
Trio does not match
any
version of
any
movement in the
Quartet,
and
the
Quartet autograph
does in fact reveal that one movement of the
Trio must have been discarded and
replaced by
a new movement
when the
piece
was
adapted
for
string quartet. Consequently,
the
rejected
movement was
probably
the second of the Trio. This
hypothesis
seems
yet
more
likely
when one considers that Dedecek
claims in his letter that the second movement of the Trio was in
Ab
minor,
because that is also the
key
Quartet.
As far as the third movement of the
Quartet
is
concerned,
since that is not in Ab minor and does not answer Dedecek's
description
of the first or the second movement of the
Trio,
it was
probably
a
transcription
of the final movement of the Trio.
STYLE AND FORM IN THE PUBLISHED VERSION OF THE
QUARTET
Many stylistic
and formal
aspects
of the
printed
version of the First
Quartet
would
appear
to
support
all the theories
expounded
so far
about that
piece's genesis.
Of
course,
such evidence is unreliable if
used in
isolation,
but it can be
employed
to check
hypotheses
formed
on the basis of detailed source
study.
The last
part
of this article will
consider some salient
stylistic
atd structural oddities in the
published
version of the
Quartet
and will demonstrate that the formal
procedures
in the
printed
version which are
apparently
characteristic
of
Janacek's
late
style
were added
only
after the first draft of the
Quartet
had been written.
A
major anomaly
in the final version of the
Quartet
is the use of
key
signatures
for all four movements. These were abandoned in the
operas
as
early
as Mr Broucek
(completed
in
1917)
and their use in the
other works written in the second decade of this
century
became
increasingly sporadic:
in the
song cycle
The
Diary of
One Who
Disappeared
(published
in
1921),
for
example, only
two
songs
have
key signatures.
Furthermore, they
are not
employed
at all in the wind sextet
Youth,
which was
begun
in
1924,
the
year
in which
Janacek
added the
finishing
touches to the First
Quartet. Consequently,
if the
Quartet
is
viewed as a work that was
largely composed
in
1923,
it is difficult to
explain why
the
composer employed key signatures throughout
the
piece.
But,
on the other
hand,
if two movements of the
Quartet
were
quartered
likely
when the
Quartet's
first movement is
as
2/2,
despite
the
prevailing
2/4 time
signature.
These errors on
be
explained
satisfactorily
if he had indeed
copied
the draft from an
exemplar
partly supported by
other
appears
to have been
largely
Quartet.
Dedecek's
testimony
by
the
manuscript
material. For
instance,
his
description
Trio does not match
any
version of
any
movement in the
Quartet,
and
the
Quartet autograph
replaced by
a new movement
when the
piece
was
adapted
for
the
rejected
movement was
probably
hypothesis
seems
yet
more
likely
Ab
minor,
key
Quartet.
Quartet
is
concerned,
description
Trio,
it was
probably
a
transcription
QUARTET
Many stylistic
and formal
aspects
of the
printed
Quartet
would
appear
to
support
all the theories
expounded
so far
about that
piece's genesis.
Of
course,
used in
isolation,
but it can be
employed
to check
hypotheses
formed
study.
The last
part
stylistic
published
version of the
Quartet
procedures
in the
printed
version which are
apparently
characteristic
of
Janacek's
late
style
were added
only
Quartet
had been written.
A
major anomaly
Quartet
is the use of
key
signatures
operas
as
early
as Mr Broucek
(completed
in
1917)
century
became
in the
song cycle
The
Diary of
One Who
Disappeared
(published
in
1921),
for
example, only
two
songs
have
key signatures.
Furthermore, they
are not
employed
Youth,
which was
begun
in
1924,
the
year
in which
Janacek
added the
finishing
if the
Quartet
is
largely composed
in
1923,
it is difficult to
explain why
the
the
piece.
But,
on the other
hand,
Quartet
were
quartered
likely
when the
Quartet's
first movement is
as
2/2,
despite
the
prevailing
2/4 time
signature.
These errors on
be
explained
satisfactorily
if he had indeed
copied
the draft from an
exemplar
partly supported by
other
appears
to have been
largely
Quartet.
Dedecek's
testimony
by
the
manuscript
material. For
instance,
his
description
Trio does not match
any
version of
any
movement in the
Quartet,
and
the
Quartet autograph
replaced by
a new movement
when the
piece
was
adapted
for
the
rejected
movement was
probably
hypothesis
seems
yet
more
likely
Ab
minor,
key
Quartet.
Quartet
is
concerned,
description
Trio,
it was
probably
a
transcription
QUARTET
Many stylistic
and formal
aspects
of the
printed
Quartet
would
appear
to
support
all the theories
expounded
so far
about that
piece's genesis.
Of
course,
used in
isolation,
but it can be
employed
to check
hypotheses
formed
study.
The last
part
stylistic
published
version of the
Quartet
procedures
in the
printed
version which are
apparently
characteristic
of
Janacek's
late
style
were added
only
Quartet
had been written.
A
major anomaly
Quartet
is the use of
key
signatures
operas
as
early
as Mr Broucek
(completed
in
1917)
century
became
in the
song cycle
The
Diary of
One Who
Disappeared
(published
in
1921),
for
example, only
two
songs
have
key signatures.
Furthermore, they
are not
employed
Youth,
which was
begun
in
1924,
the
year
in which
Janacek
added the
finishing
if the
Quartet
is
largely composed
in
1923,
it is difficult to
explain why
the
the
piece.
But,
on the other
hand,
Quartet
were
quartered
likely
when the
Quartet's
first movement is
as
2/2,
despite
the
prevailing
2/4 time
signature.
These errors on
be
explained
satisfactorily
if he had indeed
copied
the draft from an
exemplar
partly supported by
other
appears
to have been
largely
Quartet.
Dedecek's
testimony
by
the
manuscript
material. For
instance,
his
description
Trio does not match
any
version of
any
movement in the
Quartet,
and
the
Quartet autograph
replaced by
a new movement
when the
piece
was
adapted
for
the
rejected
movement was
probably
hypothesis
seems
yet
more
likely
Ab
minor,
key
Quartet.
Quartet
is
concerned,
description
Trio,
it was
probably
a
transcription
QUARTET
Many stylistic
and formal
aspects
of the
printed
Quartet
would
appear
to
support
all the theories
expounded
so far
about that
piece's genesis.
Of
course,
used in
isolation,
but it can be
employed
to check
hypotheses
formed
study.
The last
part
stylistic
published
version of the
Quartet
procedures
in the
printed
version which are
apparently
characteristic
of
Janacek's
late
style
were added
only
Quartet
had been written.
A
major anomaly
Quartet
is the use of
key
signatures
operas
as
early
as Mr Broucek
(completed
in
1917)
century
became
in the
song cycle
The
Diary of
One Who
Disappeared
(published
in
1921),
for
example, only
two
songs
have
key signatures.
Furthermore, they
are not
employed
Youth,
which was
begun
in
1924,
the
year
in which
Janacek
added the
finishing
if the
Quartet
is
largely composed
in
1923,
it is difficult to
explain why
the
the
piece.
But,
on the other
hand,
Quartet
were
quartered
likely
when the
Quartet's
first movement is
as
2/2,
despite
the
prevailing
2/4 time
signature.
These errors on
be
explained
satisfactorily
if he had indeed
copied
the draft from an
exemplar
partly supported by
other
appears
to have been
largely
Quartet.
Dedecek's
testimony
by
the
manuscript
material. For
instance,
his
description
Trio does not match
any
version of
any
movement in the
Quartet,
and
the
Quartet autograph
replaced by
a new movement
when the
piece
was
adapted
for
the
rejected
movement was
probably
hypothesis
seems
yet
more
likely
Ab
minor,
key
Quartet.
Quartet
is
concerned,
description
Trio,
it was
probably
a
transcription
QUARTET
Many stylistic
and formal
aspects
of the
printed
Quartet
would
appear
to
support
all the theories
expounded
so far
about that
piece's genesis.
Of
course,
used in
isolation,
but it can be
employed
to check
hypotheses
formed
study.
The last
part
stylistic
published
version of the
Quartet
procedures
in the
printed
version which are
apparently
characteristic
of
Janacek's
late
style
were added
only
Quartet
had been written.
A
major anomaly
Quartet
is the use of
key
signatures
operas
as
early
as Mr Broucek
(completed
in
1917)
century
became
in the
song cycle
The
Diary of
One Who
Disappeared
(published
in
1921),
for
example, only
two
songs
have
key signatures.
Furthermore, they
are not
employed
Youth,
which was
begun
in
1924,
the
year
in which
Janacek
added the
finishing
if the
Quartet
is
largely composed
in
1923,
it is difficult to
explain why
the
the
piece.
But,
on the other
hand,
Quartet
were
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
indeed transcribed from a Piano Trio written
nearly
15
years earlier,
this
anomaly
would be accounted for.
Perhaps
the least adventurous movement
ofJanacek's
First
Quartet
in structural terms is the
first,
which is in sonata form. In
spite
of the
idea
perpetuated
in the literature that the
composer's
sonata-form
movements
depend
on melodic contrast rather than tonal
tension,44
this movement contains
very
conventional tonal conflicts and resol-
utions. The
exposition
establishes the dominant as the rival
tonality,
which is
only slightly
unusual in a
minor-key
movement: one needs to
look no further than the first movement of Beethoven's 'Kreutzer'
Sonata for a
precedent,
a further connection between that work and
Janacek's
own 'Kreutzer' sonatas that is
surely
not coincidental. All of
the material first
played
in the dominant of the dominant and the
dominant itself in
Janacek's
exposition
is
recapitulated,
as one would
expect,
in the tonic. Far less conventional is the tonal scheme of the
initial sonata-form movement of the Violin
Sonata,
which was first
drafted as
early
as 1914.
Here,
doubt is created as to whether Db or
Ab is the tonic - a conflict that is not resolved until the
closing
bars of
the movement - and modal elements add further
ambiguity.
Both of
these devices are characteristic of
Janaiek's
later instrumental move-
ments,
whatever their formal
prototypes.
On
purely stylistic grounds
it therefore seems reasonable to assume that the first movement of the
Violin Sonata
postdates
the
opening
one of the First
Quartet,
which is
exactly
what the source evidence also
suggests.
In
Janacek's operas,
his treatment of
tonality
is instinctive and he
gravitates
towards his favourite
keys
of Db and Ab . Most of the late
instrumental
works,
on the other
hand,
have
integrated key
structures
that are reinforced
by
the
cyclical
return in the finale of material from
the first movement. The wind sextet Youth
(1924)
and the Sinfonietta
(1926)
have this
type
of structure. The use of a clear tonal scheme and
the return of material from movement I in the finale are thus two
features of the final version of the First
Quartet
that would seem to
connect it with the
composer's
other late instrumental works. Never-
theless,
it seems obvious from all the available evidence that the finale
of the
Quartet
was
newly composed
in 1923 and that the three-
movement Trio did not
employ cyclic procedures. Furthermore,
if we
return to the
Quartet manuscript,
it soon becomes clear that the
key
scheme of the Piano Trio must have been
haphazard
and that the
integration
of the
Quartet's
tonal
plan
was effected
only
in the later
revision
layers.
If the order of the movements in the Trio
proposed
on
pp.
251-2
above is
correct, Janacek's
key
scheme in that
piece
was
probably
E
minor
-
Ab minor
-
Gb minor. His tonal
plan
in the earliest draft of
the
Quartet
is
equally arbitrary:
the four movements are in E
minor,
44
This view of
Janiaek's sonata-form movements is offered
in,
for
example,
Miroslava
Kaikova,
'Sonatova forma v dile Leose
Janacka' ('Sonata
Form in Leos
Janacek's
Works'), Opus
musicum,
14
(1982),
135.
nearly
15
years earlier,
this
anomaly
Perhaps
ofJanacek's
First
Quartet
first,
spite
of the
idea
perpetuated
composer's
sonata-form
movements
depend
tension,44
very
utions. The
exposition
tonality,
which is
only slightly
unusual in a
minor-key
Sonata for a
precedent,
Janacek's
surely
the material first
played
dominant itself in
Janacek's
exposition
is
recapitulated,
as one would
expect,
Sonata,
which was first
drafted as
early
as 1914.
Here,
closing
bars of
ambiguity.
Both of
Janaiek's
ments,
prototypes.
On
Violin Sonata
postdates
the
opening
one of the First
Quartet,
which is
exactly
suggests.
In
Janacek's operas,
his treatment of
tonality
gravitates
keys
instrumental
works,
on the other
hand,
have
integrated key
structures
that are reinforced
by
the
cyclical
(1924)
and the Sinfonietta
(1926)
have this
type
Quartet
that would seem to
connect it with the
composer's
theless,
of the
Quartet
was
newly composed
if we
return to the
Quartet manuscript,
key
haphazard
and that the
integration
of the
Quartet's
tonal
plan
was effected
only
in the later
revision
layers.
proposed
on
pp.
251-2
above is
correct, Janacek's
key
scheme in that
piece
was
probably
E
minor
-
Ab minor
-
Gb minor. His tonal
plan
the
Quartet
is
equally arbitrary:
minor,
44
This view of
in,
for
example,
Miroslava
Kaikova,
Janacka' ('Sonata
Form in Leos
Janacek's
Works'), Opus
musicum,
14
(1982),
135.
nearly
15
years earlier,
this
anomaly
Perhaps
ofJanacek's
First
Quartet
first,
spite
of the
idea
perpetuated
composer's
sonata-form
movements
depend
tension,44
very
utions. The
exposition
tonality,
which is
only slightly
unusual in a
minor-key
Sonata for a
precedent,
Janacek's
surely
the material first
played
dominant itself in
Janacek's
exposition
is
recapitulated,
as one would
expect,
Sonata,
which was first
drafted as
early
as 1914.
Here,
closing
bars of
ambiguity.
Both of
Janaiek's
ments,
prototypes.
On
Violin Sonata
postdates
the
opening
one of the First
Quartet,
which is
exactly
suggests.
In
Janacek's operas,
his treatment of
tonality
gravitates
keys
instrumental
works,
on the other
hand,
have
integrated key
structures
that are reinforced
by
the
cyclical
(1924)
and the Sinfonietta
(1926)
have this
type
Quartet
that would seem to
connect it with the
composer's
theless,
of the
Quartet
was
newly composed
if we
return to the
Quartet manuscript,
key
haphazard
and that the
integration
of the
Quartet's
tonal
plan
was effected
only
in the later
revision
layers.
proposed
on
pp.
251-2
above is
correct, Janacek's
key
scheme in that
piece
was
probably
E
minor
-
Ab minor
-
Gb minor. His tonal
plan
the
Quartet
is
equally arbitrary:
minor,
44
This view of
in,
for
example,
Miroslava
Kaikova,
Janacka' ('Sonata
Form in Leos
Janacek's
Works'), Opus
musicum,
14
(1982),
135.
nearly
15
years earlier,
this
anomaly
Perhaps
ofJanacek's
First
Quartet
first,
spite
of the
idea
perpetuated
composer's
sonata-form
movements
depend
tension,44
very
utions. The
exposition
tonality,
which is
only slightly
unusual in a
minor-key
Sonata for a
precedent,
Janacek's
surely
the material first
played
dominant itself in
Janacek's
exposition
is
recapitulated,
as one would
expect,
Sonata,
which was first
drafted as
early
as 1914.
Here,
closing
bars of
ambiguity.
Both of
Janaiek's
ments,
prototypes.
On
Violin Sonata
postdates
the
opening
one of the First
Quartet,
which is
exactly
suggests.
In
Janacek's operas,
his treatment of
tonality
gravitates
keys
instrumental
works,
on the other
hand,
have
integrated key
structures
that are reinforced
by
the
cyclical
(1924)
and the Sinfonietta
(1926)
have this
type
Quartet
that would seem to
connect it with the
composer's
theless,
of the
Quartet
was
newly composed
if we
return to the
Quartet manuscript,
key
haphazard
and that the
integration
of the
Quartet's
tonal
plan
was effected
only
in the later
revision
layers.
proposed
on
pp.
251-2
above is
correct, Janacek's
key
scheme in that
piece
was
probably
E
minor
-
Ab minor
-
Gb minor. His tonal
plan
the
Quartet
is
equally arbitrary:
minor,
44
This view of
in,
for
example,
Miroslava
Kaikova,
Janacka' ('Sonata
Form in Leos
Janacek's
Works'), Opus
musicum,
14
(1982),
135.
nearly
15
years earlier,
this
anomaly
Perhaps
ofJanacek's
First
Quartet
first,
spite
of the
idea
perpetuated
composer's
sonata-form
movements
depend
tension,44
very
utions. The
exposition
tonality,
which is
only slightly
unusual in a
minor-key
Sonata for a
precedent,
Janacek's
surely
the material first
played
dominant itself in
Janacek's
exposition
is
recapitulated,
as one would
expect,
Sonata,
which was first
drafted as
early
as 1914.
Here,
closing
bars of
ambiguity.
Both of
Janaiek's
ments,
prototypes.
On
Violin Sonata
postdates
the
opening
one of the First
Quartet,
which is
exactly
suggests.
In
Janacek's operas,
his treatment of
tonality
gravitates
keys
instrumental
works,
on the other
hand,
have
integrated key
structures
that are reinforced
by
the
cyclical
(1924)
and the Sinfonietta
(1926)
have this
type
Quartet
that would seem to
connect it with the
composer's
theless,
of the
Quartet
was
newly composed
if we
return to the
Quartet manuscript,
key
haphazard
and that the
integration
of the
Quartet's
tonal
plan
was effected
only
in the later
revision
layers.
proposed
on
pp.
251-2
above is
correct, Janacek's
key
scheme in that
piece
was
probably
E
minor
-
Ab minor
-
Gb minor. His tonal
plan
the
Quartet
is
equally arbitrary:
minor,
44
This view of
in,
for
example,
Miroslava
Kaikova,
Janacka' ('Sonata
Form in Leos
Janacek's
Works'), Opus
musicum,
14
(1982),
135.
253 253 253 253 253
Example
15
Adagio .al. . r.
.
-3. _
AJI Mo. 6o
.
..
.
~
.1
Example
15
Adagio .al. . r.
.
-3. _
AJI Mo. 6o
.
..
.
~
.1
Example
15
Adagio .al. . r.
.
-3. _
AJI Mo. 6o
.
..
.
~
.1
Example
15
Adagio .al. . r.
.
-3. _
AJI Mo. 6o
.
..
.
~
.1
Example
15
Adagio .al. . r.
.
-3. _
AJI Mo. 6o
.
..
.
~
.1
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
?
--- -
h
-''
_
~ , _f .l
O - LV L
r
A \
^
^ 7
_
j1
20 )
.
I f^
6 .
^
^'! ,
~t r
?1
~tf~Lo :
'Vb~~~~~d
2
IJ)--
?
--- -
h
-''
_
~ , _f .l
O - LV L
r
A \
^
^ 7
_
j1
20 )
.
I f^
6 .
^
^'! ,
~t r
?1
~tf~Lo :
'Vb~~~~~d
2
IJ)--
?
--- -
h
-''
_
~ , _f .l
O - LV L
r
A \
^
^ 7
_
j1
20 )
.
I f^
6 .
^
^'! ,
~t r
?1
~tf~Lo :
'Vb~~~~~d
2
IJ)--
?
--- -
h
-''
_
~ , _f .l
O - LV L
r
A \
^
^ 7
_
j1
20 )
.
I f^
6 .
^
^'! ,
~t r
?1
~tf~Lo :
'Vb~~~~~d
2
IJ)--
?
--- -
h
-''
_
~ , _f .l
O - LV L
r
A \
^
^ 7
_
j1
20 )
.
I f^
6 .
^
^'! ,
~t r
?1
~tf~Lo :
'Vb~~~~~d
2
IJ)--
tiroce
[largamentel
=_-
.
,
tiroce
[largamentel
=_-
.
,
tiroce
[largamentel
=_-
.
,
tiroce
[largamentel
=_-
.
,
tiroce
[largamentel
=_-
.
,
f
tv
L
,, ,, .
f"pi
r.-rT F
r r-
pizz. arco
=
'
2fiK DC*L ?Tr f Z
f
tv
L
,, ,, .
f"pi
r.-rT F
r r-
pizz. arco
=
'
2fiK DC*L ?Tr f Z
f
tv
L
,, ,, .
f"pi
r.-rT F
r r-
pizz. arco
=
'
2fiK DC*L ?Tr f Z
f
tv
L
,, ,, .
f"pi
r.-rT F
r r-
pizz. arco
=
'
2fiK DC*L ?Tr f Z
f
tv
L
,, ,, .
f"pi
r.-rT F
r r-
pizz. arco
=
'
2fiK DC*L ?Tr f Z
A
T
'
r7
fg
^
"----l
"D
pizz.
arco
pizz.
*:
J^
t
'
I
T
r
,F
V
'
A
T
'
r7
fg
^
"----l
"D
pizz.
arco
pizz.
*:
J^
t
'
I
T
r
,F
V
'
A
T
'
r7
fg
^
"----l
"D
pizz.
arco
pizz.
*:
J^
t
'
I
T
r
,F
V
'
A
T
'
r7
fg
^
"----l
"D
pizz.
arco
pizz.
*:
J^
t
'
I
T
r
,F
V
'
A
T
'
r7
fg
^
"----l
"D
pizz.
arco
pizz.
*:
J^
t
'
I
T
r
,F
V
'
Example
16
Example
16
Example
16
Example
16
Example
16
Maestoso
J
~S44-
Maestoso
J
~S44-
Maestoso
J
~S44-
Maestoso
J
~S44-
Maestoso
J
~S44-
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Violin I
Violin II
Viola
Cello
Ab
minor,
G
b
minor and
Eb
minor
respectively.
In the second draft
of the
Quartet, however,
the
composer
seems to have been concerned
almost
exclusively
with the
integration
of the
key
structure. For
example,
the finale
acquired
a new
ending
centred around
Ab
minor.
That
key
thus now became the tonic of the last three
movements,
an
excursion to Gb and Eb
being
framed
by
two substantial sections in
Ab
minor,
G
b
minor and
Eb
minor
respectively.
In the second draft
of the
Quartet, however,
the
composer
almost
exclusively
with the
integration
of the
key
structure. For
example,
the finale
acquired
a new
ending
centred around
Ab
minor.
That
key
movements,
an
being
framed
by
Ab
minor,
G
b
minor and
Eb
minor
respectively.
In the second draft
of the
Quartet, however,
the
composer
almost
exclusively
with the
integration
of the
key
structure. For
example,
the finale
acquired
a new
ending
centred around
Ab
minor.
That
key
movements,
an
being
framed
by
Ab
minor,
G
b
minor and
Eb
minor
respectively.
In the second draft
of the
Quartet, however,
the
composer
almost
exclusively
with the
integration
of the
key
structure. For
example,
the finale
acquired
a new
ending
centred around
Ab
minor.
That
key
movements,
an
being
framed
by
Ab
minor,
G
b
minor and
Eb
minor
respectively.
In the second draft
of the
Quartet, however,
the
composer
almost
exclusively
with the
integration
of the
key
structure. For
example,
the finale
acquired
a new
ending
centred around
Ab
minor.
That
key
movements,
an
being
framed
by
254 254 254 254 254
Ifb(S) :.t 7
r
,
"
LJ-- f^
C
-
r
Ifb(S) :.t 7
r
,
"
LJ-- f^
C
-
r
Ifb(S) :.t 7
r
,
"
LJ-- f^
C
-
r
Ifb(S) :.t 7
r
,
"
LJ-- f^
C
-
r
Ifb(S) :.t 7
r
,
"
LJ-- f^
C
-
r
I
i-
I
i-
I
i-
I
i-
I
i-
JL- I; - T-.
1
II
JL- I; - T-.
1
II
JL- I; - T-.
1
II
JL- I; - T-.
1
II
JL- I; - T-.
1
II
.-
. *S
.-
. *S
.-
. *S
.-
. *S
.-
. *S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
JANACEK'S
A b . The fact that the first movement is still in E minor in the second
draft
may
seem to be a
problem,
but the new
ending
for the finale does
in fact
represent
a resolution of the E minor - A
b minor conflict. The
final section of movement IV in the second draft is
very
similar to bars
127-89 of the
printed
version. This
passage begins
with a
prolonged
E
in the
violoncello,
which moves
by way
of E b to A b in bar 170. As a
result,
the tonal
plan
of the
Quartet
is summarized in the
closing
bars.
Janacek's
attempts
to
integrate
the
key
scheme of the second draft
did not end here. In the first draft there is a reference to A b minor in
the
opening
movement,
but this is
very
short: it lasts
only
two-and-a-
half bars and is
equivalent
to bars 43-5
(first half)
of the final version.
In the second draft
Janacek
has added the
equivalent
of bars 38-42 of
the
published
work,
which means that the A b minor section is now
three times
longer
and thus far more
prominent. (Example
15
gives
the final version of bars
38-45.)
At the same
time,
the
composer
inserted the material that now forms bars 40-2 of movement I also
between the
equivalent
of bars 122 and 125 of the
published
version of
the finale.
(Example
16
gives
the final version of bars 121-6 of
movement
IV.) Consequently,
it seems that
Janacek
was
trying
to
establish a direct link between bars 38-45 of movement I and bars
121-6 of movement IV. The
importance
of this connection is not
difficult to evaluate. When the
opening
theme of the work is stated in
Ab minor in the
exposition
of movement
I,
it is
structurally
dissonant
and this dissonance is not resolved within that movement. The next
time in the course of the
piece
that this theme is heard in its
entirety
in Ab minor is in bars 121-6 of the
finale,
which constitute the climax
of the
Quartet. Janacek
thus resolves the A b minor
passage
of
movement I in the
finale,
and
by doing
so confirms Ab minor as the
tonic of the
Quartet
as a whole. The move from E to A b in the
violoncello in bars 127-89 of movement IV consolidates the resolution
of the
piece's
tonal conflicts that takes
place
in bars 121-6.
In
conclusion,
since much of the music in the First
Quartet
is
untypical
of its
supposed period
of
composition
and since the features
of the work which seem to
suggest
that it was
newly composed
in 1923
were all added after the first draft had been
written,
the
preliminary
draft of the
piece
is even more
likely
to have been
partly
a
transcrip-
tion of an earlier
composition.
CONCLUSION
Janacek's
First
String Quartet,
subtitled The Kreutzer
Sonata,
has
always
been claimed to be the result of an
extraordinary
burst of creative
energy. Every published
account of the work's
genesis
states that it
was
completed
in little more than a week. Of
course,
even
though
the
autograph
of the
Quartet
is dated 30 October
-
7 November
1923,
the
first draft was
definitely completed by
28 October and therefore the
piece
cannot have been
composed
in less than two weeks
(see p.
247
above).
But if the
Quartet's development
is examined in
detail,
it
draft
may
seem to be a
problem,
but the new
ending
for the finale does
in fact
represent
very
similar to bars
127-89 of the
printed
version. This
passage begins
with a
prolonged
E
in the
violoncello,
which moves
by way
result,
the tonal
plan
of the
Quartet
closing
bars.
Janacek's
attempts
to
integrate
the
key
the
opening
movement,
but this is
very
short: it lasts
only
two-and-a-
half bars and is
equivalent
to bars 43-5
(first half)
In the second draft
Janacek
has added the
equivalent
of bars 38-42 of
the
published
work,
three times
longer
and thus far more
prominent. (Example
15
gives
38-45.)
At the same
time,
the
composer
between the
equivalent
published
version of
the finale.
(Example
16
gives
movement
IV.) Consequently,
it seems that
Janacek
was
trying
to
importance
opening
Ab minor in the
exposition
of movement
I,
it is
structurally
dissonant
piece
entirety
finale,
of the
Quartet. Janacek
passage
of
movement I in the
finale,
and
by doing
tonic of the
Quartet
of the
piece's
place
in bars 121-6.
In
conclusion,
Quartet
is
untypical
of its
supposed period
of
composition
suggest
that it was
newly composed
in 1923
written,
the
preliminary
draft of the
piece
is even more
likely
to have been
partly
a
transcrip-
tion of an earlier
composition.
CONCLUSION
Janacek's
First
String Quartet,
Sonata,
has
always
extraordinary
burst of creative
genesis
states that it
was
completed
course,
even
though
the
autograph
of the
Quartet
is dated 30 October
-
7 November
1923,
the
first draft was
piece
cannot have been
composed
(see p.
247
above).
But if the
is examined in
detail,
it
draft
may
seem to be a
problem,
but the new
ending
for the finale does
in fact
represent
very
similar to bars
127-89 of the
printed
version. This
passage begins
with a
prolonged
E
in the
violoncello,
which moves
by way
result,
the tonal
plan
of the
Quartet
closing
bars.
Janacek's
attempts
to
integrate
the
key
the
opening
movement,
but this is
very
short: it lasts
only
two-and-a-
half bars and is
equivalent
to bars 43-5
(first half)
In the second draft
Janacek
has added the
equivalent
of bars 38-42 of
the
published
work,
three times
longer
and thus far more
prominent. (Example
15
gives
38-45.)
At the same
time,
the
composer
between the
equivalent
published
version of
the finale.
(Example
16
gives
movement
IV.) Consequently,
it seems that
Janacek
was
trying
to
importance
opening
Ab minor in the
exposition
of movement
I,
it is
structurally
dissonant
piece
entirety
finale,
of the
Quartet. Janacek
passage
of
movement I in the
finale,
and
by doing
tonic of the
Quartet
of the
piece's
place
in bars 121-6.
In
conclusion,
Quartet
is
untypical
of its
supposed period
of
composition
suggest
that it was
newly composed
in 1923
written,
the
preliminary
draft of the
piece
is even more
likely
to have been
partly
a
transcrip-
tion of an earlier
composition.
CONCLUSION
Janacek's
First
String Quartet,
Sonata,
has
always
extraordinary
burst of creative
genesis
states that it
was
completed
course,
even
though
the
autograph
of the
Quartet
is dated 30 October
-
7 November
1923,
the
first draft was
piece
cannot have been
composed
(see p.
247
above).
But if the
is examined in
detail,
it
draft
may
seem to be a
problem,
but the new
ending
for the finale does
in fact
represent
very
similar to bars
127-89 of the
printed
version. This
passage begins
with a
prolonged
E
in the
violoncello,
which moves
by way
result,
the tonal
plan
of the
Quartet
closing
bars.
Janacek's
attempts
to
integrate
the
key
the
opening
movement,
but this is
very
short: it lasts
only
two-and-a-
half bars and is
equivalent
to bars 43-5
(first half)
In the second draft
Janacek
has added the
equivalent
of bars 38-42 of
the
published
work,
three times
longer
and thus far more
prominent. (Example
15
gives
38-45.)
At the same
time,
the
composer
between the
equivalent
published
version of
the finale.
(Example
16
gives
movement
IV.) Consequently,
it seems that
Janacek
was
trying
to
importance
opening
Ab minor in the
exposition
of movement
I,
it is
structurally
dissonant
piece
entirety
finale,
of the
Quartet. Janacek
passage
of
movement I in the
finale,
and
by doing
tonic of the
Quartet
of the
piece's
place
in bars 121-6.
In
conclusion,
Quartet
is
untypical
of its
supposed period
of
composition
suggest
that it was
newly composed
in 1923
written,
the
preliminary
draft of the
piece
is even more
likely
to have been
partly
a
transcrip-
tion of an earlier
composition.
CONCLUSION
Janacek's
First
String Quartet,
Sonata,
has
always
extraordinary
burst of creative
genesis
states that it
was
completed
course,
even
though
the
autograph
of the
Quartet
is dated 30 October
-
7 November
1923,
the
first draft was
piece
cannot have been
composed
(see p.
247
above).
But if the
is examined in
detail,
it
draft
may
seem to be a
problem,
but the new
ending
for the finale does
in fact
represent
very
similar to bars
127-89 of the
printed
version. This
passage begins
with a
prolonged
E
in the
violoncello,
which moves
by way
result,
the tonal
plan
of the
Quartet
closing
bars.
Janacek's
attempts
to
integrate
the
key
the
opening
movement,
but this is
very
short: it lasts
only
two-and-a-
half bars and is
equivalent
to bars 43-5
(first half)
In the second draft
Janacek
has added the
equivalent
of bars 38-42 of
the
published
work,
three times
longer
and thus far more
prominent. (Example
15
gives
38-45.)
At the same
time,
the
composer
between the
equivalent
published
version of
the finale.
(Example
16
gives
movement
IV.) Consequently,
it seems that
Janacek
was
trying
to
importance
opening
Ab minor in the
exposition
of movement
I,
it is
structurally
dissonant
piece
entirety
finale,
of the
Quartet. Janacek
passage
of
movement I in the
finale,
and
by doing
tonic of the
Quartet
of the
piece's
place
in bars 121-6.
In
conclusion,
Quartet
is
untypical
of its
supposed period
of
composition
suggest
that it was
newly composed
in 1923
written,
the
preliminary
draft of the
piece
is even more
likely
to have been
partly
a
transcrip-
tion of an earlier
composition.
CONCLUSION
Janacek's
First
String Quartet,
Sonata,
has
always
extraordinary
burst of creative
genesis
states that it
was
completed
course,
even
though
the
autograph
of the
Quartet
is dated 30 October
-
7 November
1923,
the
first draft was
piece
cannot have been
composed
(see p.
247
above).
But if the
is examined in
detail,
it
255 255 255 255 255
256 PAUL WINGFIELD
becomes obvious that the
only
reason
why
the work
appears
to have
been finished so
quickly
is that two movements of its first version were
transcribed
directly
from the
composer's
earlier Piano Trio with the
same subtitle. As a
result,
the
genesis
of Janacek's First
Quartet,
far
from
representing
an almost miraculous burst of
inspiration, actually
spanned
a
period
of
nearly
17
years,
from 1908
(when
the first notes of
the Trio were
written)
until
1925,
the
year
of the
Quartet's publi-
cation.
King's
College,
Cambridge
256 PAUL WINGFIELD
only
reason
why
the work
appears
to have
been finished so
quickly
transcribed
directly
from the
composer's
same subtitle. As a
result,
the
genesis
of Janacek's First
Quartet,
far
from
representing
spanned
a
period
of
nearly
17
years,
from 1908
(when
the first notes of
the Trio were
written)
until
1925,
the
year
of the
Quartet's publi-
cation.
King's
College,
Cambridge
256 PAUL WINGFIELD
only
reason
why
the work
appears
to have
been finished so
quickly
transcribed
directly
from the
composer's
same subtitle. As a
result,
the
genesis
of Janacek's First
Quartet,
far
from
representing
spanned
a
period
of
nearly
17
years,
from 1908
(when
the first notes of
the Trio were
written)
until
1925,
the
year
of the
Quartet's publi-
cation.
King's
College,
Cambridge
256 PAUL WINGFIELD
only
reason
why
the work
appears
to have
been finished so
quickly
transcribed
directly
from the
composer's
same subtitle. As a
result,
the
genesis
of Janacek's First
Quartet,
far
from
representing
spanned
a
period
of
nearly
17
years,
from 1908
(when
the first notes of
the Trio were
written)
until
1925,
the
year
of the
Quartet's publi-
cation.
King's
College,
Cambridge
256 PAUL WINGFIELD
only
reason
why
the work
appears
to have
been finished so
quickly
transcribed
directly
from the
composer's
same subtitle. As a
result,
the
genesis
of Janacek's First
Quartet,
far
from
representing
spanned
a
period
of
nearly
17
years,
from 1908
(when
the first notes of
the Trio were
written)
until
1925,
the
year
of the
Quartet's publi-
cation.
King's
College,
Cambridge

1987, Wingfield - Janaček's 'Lost' KS

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1987, Wingfield - Janaček's 'Lost' KS

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Janaek's 'Lost' Kreutzer Sonata

Author(s): Paul Wingfield

Вам также может понравиться