Impressions about Janáček as an autodidact and dilettante especially in the field of music theory have been formerly quite common.185 The reasons behind these erroneous impressions have partly stemmed from Janáček himself and to a great extent from the lack of knowledge of the original sources and the composer‖s writings.186 It was mainly his orientation towards folklore which labeled Janáček as a composing folklorist, a lowly worker in the field of folk heritage, a primitive, a natural-born or barbarian talent etc., as Fukač (1992: 151–152) aptly has pointed out.187 In spite of his critical attitude towards Janáček‖s theory of harmony, Volek (1961)188 concedes Janáček‖s extraordinary talent for theory and rejects all speculations about him as “a brilliant dilettante” (cited in Kulka 1990: 30). Due to its peculiar characteristics (which are discussed later), Janáček‖s literary output is a challenging topic for research since it does not provide an unambiguous picture of the qualities of Janáček‖s scholarship. However, in addition to Czech musicological research,189 lately Michael Beckerman (1994) has paid attention particularly to Janáček‖s musico- theoretical output. Beckerman (1983: 388) aptly remarks, echoing the words of Jiří Fukač above, that this intellectual side of the composer has been overshadowed by the caricature of the impassioned eccentric Slav. Beckerman (1994: xi) nonetheless points to the difficulties involved in the topic by commenting that the average reader may be inclined to dismiss Janáček‖s theoretical works as muddle, and the entire enterprise as a waste of time. These frustrating impressions are not created only by the verbal peculiarities of the composer: the difficulty is often combined with disorganization, inconsistency, and at times, incoherence in Janáček‖s writings (ibid.). Nevertheless, this does not mean that a researcher who is interested in Janáček‖s theoretical thinking should be deflated. Even though Janáček‖s literary style can be rather obscure and sometimes even unintelligible, it
185 It is emblematic that already in the 1928 jubilee issue on Janáček, Otakar Nováček writes in Hudební
rozhledy that Janáček has commonly been regarded as a scientific dilettante (“Mínilo se obecně, že Janáček je vědeckým diletantem a proto se jeho teoretické názory přezíraly i snad odsuzovaly co do jejich vědecké kompetence.”). As Nováček says, Janáček‖s autodidactic features to some extent handicapped the scientific
activities in his career. However, Nováček reminds us that Janáček‖s ideas exhibit thought-provoking and sparkling originality nonetheless. (“Arciť. Ale i v tomto diletantském počínání najdete mnoho jiskrných podnětů
více méně originálních, svižných i života schopných vedle několika polovědeckých sloučenin.”) (Nováček 1928: 26.)
186 Kulka (1990: 3) considers that the shadow of misunderstanding, often bordered on ignorance, blurred Janáček‖s theoretical work. Thus a great number of his thoughts have still not been elucidated.
187 Fukač refers here chiefly to Zdeněk Nejedlý‖s well-known criticism in the 1920s and 30s on Janáček as an artistic primitive and folklorist. As discussed by Rudolf Pečman (2006: 224), Vladimír Helfert completely disagreed on this matter with Nejedlý even in the 1920s: whereas Nejedlý blaimed Janáček of naturalism, Helfert saw the essential realism in Janáček‖s works. Cf. also Kulka (1990: 15) on the claimed autodidactic features of Janáček‖s music: ‘This characterization would be quite in place, if it referred to Janáček as a scientist.”
188 Jaroslav Volek: Novodobé harmonické systémy z hlediska vědecké filosofie. (“Modern Harmonic Systems as Viewed from the Standpoint of Scientific Philosophy.”) Praha 1961.
74
is possible to find some fundamental features that unite the wide-ranging theoretical output of the composer.
In addition to its fragmentary nature and inconsistent and perplexing style Janáček literary output includes a highly original terminology. Roughly speaking these characteristics seem to apply to Janáček‖s music as well.190 These characteristics and the congruities between the composer‖s musical and literary style are discussed further in due course. Due to the unconventionality and novelty of Janáček‖s musical “grammar”, at the beginning of his career he was held as an autodidact even as a composer and as a musician. This attitude is reflected also in the revisions that Karel Kovařovic saw necessary to make in the orchestration of Jenůfa before its première in Prague in 1916. By these manoeuvres Jenůfa was to be converted into a version that would be more digestible (by the audience), more Strauss-like and more fitting to the late romantic repertoire.191 The sixty-year-old Janáček was still not acknowledged as a composer who had created a significant and highly personal style. The innovations created by him were understood rather as a deviation from the norm than an original musical content to be reckoned with.
As has been demonstrated in the previous chapter dealing with Janáček‖s musical profile, the characterization of Janáček as an autodidact is not relevant at least regarding his musical background. As we know, Janáček went through a quite thorough and extensive musical education both in practical musical subjects and in music theory and composing (not to mention his musical childhood and youth). Helfert reminds that the idea that Janáček was an autodidact is quite false and in direct conflict with historical truth. On the contrary, Janáček exhibited a degree of strict compositional technique in a manner almost unique for his time. (Cited in Beckerman 1994: 10.) When studying in Leipzig and Vienna he passed the necessary courses in a “record time” (it can be noted that he was then already a twenty-five-year-old young man). Despite a tight study schedule in Leipzig (1879–80), he had time to read up, among others, on Hector Berlioz‖s text book on orchestration192 independently, especially the part concerning brass instruments.193 (Knaus 1972: 469; Pečman 1983: 123; Racek 1968a: 12; Vogel 1997: 67.) Already in 1884 he had acquainted for the first time with Hugo Riemann‖s Musikalische Dynamik und Agogik (Leipzig 1884) and in 1896 with Tchaikovsky‖s text book Rukovodstvo k praktičeskomu izučeniju garmonii (Moscow 1891). According to Racek (1968a: 14), Janáček read Tchaikovsky‖s book again by 29 April 1904, “from a linguistic point of view”.194 As Kulka (1990: 15) points out, Janáček was largely occupied with the study of harmony. At the end of the 19th century he
190 In Jan Racek‖s (1968a: 20) words: ― . . . jeho teoretické vývody nepostrádají osobitou zákonitost a logiku,
která zase odpovídá osobité zákonitosti a logice jeho hudby‖ (“ . . . his theoretical arguments do not lack inherent
laws and logic that in turn are in accordance with the idiomatic laws and logic of his music”).
191 As Jiří Vysloužil (1963: 372) points out, from the harmonic point of view Jenůfa is among Janáček‖s first works which deviate from the ground of functional harmony. Characteristic to this breakthrough in Janáček‖s development as a composer are totally new chord progressions in which varied and dissonant tones wander from the melody to the harmony.
192 Instrumentationslehre, 2nd edition, Leipzig 1875.
193 Jakob Knaus (1984: 58) has pointed out that the first symptoms of Janáček‖s interest in the melodies of spoken language seem to be connected with Berlioz: in his letter to Zdenka on 25 November 1879 Janáček describes that in the same way as Berlioz includes in wind instruments also the voices of men, women and children, also the strains (Töne) of wind instruments continuously sound in his ears—especially the voice of his Zdenka. According to Racek (1968a: 12), Janáček‖s marginal notes between the dates 25 November 1879 and 13 January 1880 show that he did not study Berlioz‖s book systematically.
75
studied also older and traditional harmony text books, for example Gottfried Rieger‖s Theoretisch-practische Anleitung, die Generalbass- und Harmonielehre in 6 Monaten gründlich und leicht zu enlernen (Brno 1839). In addition to these works, his private library included books by Jan Kypta (Náuka o souhlasu obsahujíc nejdůležitější pravidla generálního čili očísleného basu, Brno 1861), Friedrich W. Schütze (Praktische Harmonielehre, 4th ed., Leipzig 1865), Riemann (Musikalische Syntaxis. Grundriss einer harmonischen Satzbildungslehre, Leipzig 1877), Leopold Heinze (Theoretisch-praktische Musik- und Harmonielehre nach pädagogischen Grundsätzen. Eingerichtet von Franz Krenn, 4th ed., Breslau 1891) and Arnold Schoenberg (Harmonielehre, Leipzig—Wien 1911). (Jiránek 1978: 193; Racek 1968a: 12–14.)
The subjects that interested Janáček and the scientific and theoretic literature read by him were very wide-ranging. In addition to music-theoretic writings he often consulted non-musical literature on aesthetics, psychology, physiology, acoustics, phonetics, linguistics and prosody. Interest in science became the basis of Janáček‖s role as a music theorist. Merely on the grounds of his knowledge on musico-theoretical literature and on the grounds of his own theoretical output many Czech scholars have regarded him as one of the most scholarly personalities in the history of Czech music. For example, Kulka (1985: 173; 1990: 14) states that Janáček was interested in various musicological problems through all his life and is numbered among the most educated Czech composers.195 In his introduction to Janáček‖s musico-theoretical works, Jan Racek (1968a: 9, 12) points out that Janáček was undoubtedly one of the theoretically and historically most scholarly Czech composers, who exercised his theoretico-critical interest and talent in every smallest occasion. Vladimír Helfert (1928: 23) notes that in aesthetics, in 1875–76 Janáček belonged to the most educated Czech composers. He reminds that this fact is very illuminating since Brno at Janáček‖s time was not regarded as a cultural center at all. Helfert (ibid.) points out that even in his youth Janáček proved to be far from a provincial character [another common stereotype attached to Janáček]. Equally, Bohumír Štědroň (1958: 106) disputes that Janáček even in an artistic sense would have lived in any kind of isolation. On the contrary, he followed the creative contribution of all international composers, including Richard Strauss, Claude Debussy,196 Vladimir Rebikov,197 Igor Stravinsky198 and from
195Janáček was interested in musicology during his studies at the Leipzig Conservatory, where his teacher Oskar Paul reports: “with a great praise it is to be emphasized, that Mr Janáček devotes an utmost interest in musicology and enthusiastically attends lectures in the history and theory of music at the university” (Paul‖s recommendation from 6 December 1879) (Štědroň 1946: 52). – These lectures attended by Janáček were taught by Paul himself (Drlíková 2004: 29).
196 Janáček became familiar with Debussy‖s compositions around the years 1909–10. M. Štědroň (1968/69: 146–147) presents a table of compositions Janáček possibly could have heard—though even if there had been a concert including Debussy‖s works either in Prague or Brno and the program of the concert has been preserved does not necessarily mean that Janáček was present at the concert (for example, a performance of
La Mer in Prague in 1910 by the Czech Philharmony, conducted by Vilém Zemánek [LD2: 137]). However,
there are documents that Janáček was involved in the arrangements of an evening of Debussy‖s songs in Brno in 1909 (ibid. 145). The second time he obviously studied Debussy‖s works closer was in the beginning of the 1920s. He wrote an analysis of Debussy‖s La Mer (a manuscritpt from 11.3.1921) and studied the suite
Children‖s Corner, which has Janáček‖s marginalia notes (1920–21). Even though there is no direct evidence of
Debussy‖s influence on Janáček, the opera The Cunning Little Vixen (1923) with its wholetone structures and impressionistic features in its orchestration point to this interrelationship (ibid.).
76
Czech composers such as Vítězslav Novák (1870–1949) and Josef Suk (1874–1935). In his lectures for masterclasses of compositions (that have recently been published in critical editions of Janáček‖s literary and theoretical works) one can encounter familiar names of contemporary music, even a notion about Italian futurism (LD2: 163). As a preparation for his own Complete Theory of Harmony (1920), Janáček announces that he has been studying the latest harmony books during the last year (Štědroň 1964: 239).199
From physiology and acoustics Janáček studied the book of Leonard Landois, Lehrbuch der Physiologie des Menschen (11th ed., Berlin 1905), but only the pages concerning the physiology of ear. Already earlier Janáček had been studying Hermann von Helmholtz‖s Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen als physiologische Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik (Braunschweig 1870, 3rd ed.) and Otakar Hostinský‖s Die Lehre von den musikalischen Klängen (1879).200 In the second decade of the 20th century he plunged into Wilhelm Wundt‖s Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie (Leipzig 1874, 6th edition of the three volumes published in 1908, 1910 and 1911).
In 1888–89, Janáček started to show an interest in phonetic and prosodic problems of Czech language (this professional literature has been preserved in his private library). (Pečman 1983: 125; Racek 1968a: 17.) Among books concerning these topics are Otakar Hostinský‖s O české deklamaci hudební,201 František Sušil‖s Krátká prosodie česká,202 Oldřich
197 Rebikov (1866–1920) visited Brno in December 1906 when his works were performed in the Beseda house. From Janáček‖s article Moderní harmonická hudba (“Modern harmonic music”, Hlídka XXIV/1907, 6– 14) it is evident that he knew Rebikov‖s style. (Štědroň B. 1958: 106.)
198 Janáček became acquainted with Stravinsky‖s music at the festival of the International Society for Contemporary Music (ISCM) in Venice in September 1925, where he heard Stravinsky perform his Piano Sonata (1924). Janáček was presented at the festival by his 1st String Quartet (“Kreutzer Sonata”, 1923), performed by the Zika Quartet. According to Štědroň (1998: 118) Venice is the only probable occasion where these two composers could have met, but there is not evidence of it, as in the case of Schoenberg, R. Strauss or Bartók. Acquaintance with Stravinsky‖s music (Janáček may well have been present for the performances of Stravinsky‖s Three Pieces in Prague 2 October 1925 and Petrushka in Brno 15 May 1926, and he bought the score of Sacre du Printemps in October 1926) could have influenced Janáček‖s instrumentation and tone color in certain compositions, such as his Concertino for piano and chamber orchestra (1925), Nursery Rhymes (Říkadla, 1925–26) and Capriccio for piano (left hand) and chamber orchestra (1926). Štědroň (ibid.: 118) points to the use of clarinet and some changes Janáček made to its part in Nursery Rhymes and Concertino. However, Štědroň (ibid. 116) remarks that unconventional instrumental grouping or preference for small ensembles was not foreign to Janáček even before, but getting to know Stravinsky may have strengthened Janáček‖s willingness to compose for untypical chamber ensembles. Janáček wrote about his impressions on the festival and Venice in his feuilleton Basta! in Lidové noviny 8 November 1925.
199 A letter to the director of Universal Edition, Emil Hertzka, dated 14 September 1920. In this letter Janáček tells Hertzka that for his work he has studied all works on harmony, from Reicha to “Schönberger”. However, as Štědroň (1964: 241) remarks, Janáček could not study Schoenberg‖s Harmonielehre earlier than after March 20 1920, that is, when he got the book (after his own request) from Universal Edition. As for Reicha (Czech-born composer Anton Reicha [1770–1836]), it is difficult to say, which parts of Reicha‖s extensive theoretical output Janáček studied, probably the part dealing with melody (ibid. 241).
200 According to Kulka (1990: 15), Janáček‖s studies on Helmholtz took place in 1876, which means directly after reading Durdík, and according to Racek (1955: 17; 1968a: 12) in 1878. Helfert (1928: 24) notes that Janáček studied Helmholtz from August 1877 to January 1879 and that he returned to Helmholtz later in 1924. Blažek (1968a: 22) mentions only that Janáček studied Helmholtz carefully over three years. This is in accordance with Janáček‖s own records to Max Brod in 1924, according to which he had diligently studied Helmholtz‖s work from 16 February 1876 until 22 January 1879 (Beckerman 1983: 397).
201 “On Czech Musical Declamation” (Prague 1886/Dalibor 1882). 202 “Brief Prosody of Czech” (Brno 1863).
77
Kramář‖s O původu časomíry,203 Josef Chlumský‖s Pokus o měření českých zvuků a slabik v řečí sovislé,204 Jan Gebauer‖s and Václav Ertl‖s Krátká mluvnice Česká205 and František Novotný‖s Historická metrika,206 where Novotný quotes Janáček (page 16). (Helfert 1928: 24; Kulka 1990: 16; Racek 1968a: 17–18.) Janáček studied also the works of the Norwegian Slavonist Olaf Broch (Slawische Phonetik: Sammlung slavischer Lehr- und Handbücher),207 Jean Pierre Rousselot (the founder of experimental phonetics), and Czech Antonín Frinta. He was acquainted with D. J. Blaikley‖s summary The musical nature of speech and song of the article Nature et Origine du Language humain by Richard Paget (Institute of General Psychology, Paris 1925, Nos. 1–3) (Nováček 1928: 26; Pečman 1983: 125–126.) In a letter to Janáček on 23 January 1923208 the Czech physicist Dr. Vladimír Novák describes in detail the actual situation of world and Czech experimental physics and phonetics, especially in France (Rousselot), Czechoslovakia (Chlumský), America (Scripture, Flowers), and England (Perett). (Racek 1968a: 18.)