Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století:
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Czech |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Olomouc
Univ. Palackého, Filozofická Fak.
2008
|
| Ausgabe: | 1. vyd. |
| Schriftenreihe: | Monografie
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Operas written by Zdeněk Fibich during the 1890s |
| Beschreibung: | 350, XII S. Ill., Notenbeisp. |
| ISBN: | 9788024421919 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV035502486 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20150311 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 090522s2008 agl| |||| 00||| cze d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788024421919 |9 978-80-244-2191-9 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)608756925 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV035502486 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a cze | |
| 049 | |a DE-703 |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a LP 63780 |0 (DE-625)107408: |2 rvk | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kopecký, Jiří |e Verfasser |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století |c Jiří Kopecký |
| 250 | |a 1. vyd. | ||
| 264 | 1 | |a Olomouc |b Univ. Palackého, Filozofická Fak. |c 2008 | |
| 300 | |a 350, XII S. |b Ill., Notenbeisp. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 0 | |a Monografie | |
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Operas written by Zdeněk Fibich during the 1890s | ||
| 600 | 1 | 7 | |a Fibich, Zdeněk |d 1850-1900 |0 (DE-588)117749443 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 1890-1900 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Oper |0 (DE-588)4043582-9 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Fibich, Zdeněk |d 1850-1900 |0 (DE-588)117749443 |D p |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Oper |0 (DE-588)4043582-9 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Geschichte 1890-1900 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung UB Bayreuth |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017558688&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017558688&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-017558688 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 780.9 |e 22/bsb |f 09034 |g 4371 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804139122063835136 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | Obsah
1
Úvod
..........................................................................................................9
2
Zdeněk Fibich
..........................................................................................11
2.1
Devadesátá léta
19.
století
.................................................................11
2.2
Národní skladatel, wagnerianismus, českost
......................................24
2.3
Sociální vazby
...................................................................................39
2.3.1
Betty Fibichova
.....................................................................39
2.3.2
Jaroslav Vrchlický
..................................................................44
2.3.3
František Adolf Šubert
...........................................................49
2.3.4
František Augustin Urbánek
..................................................56
2.3.5
Otakar Hostinský
..................................................................58
2.3.6
Žáci, Antonín Dvořák
...........................................................68
2.3.7
Anežka Schulzová
..................................................................76
3
Opery
.......................................................................................................98
3.1
Bouře, op.
40.....................................................................................98
3.2
Hedy, op.
43....................................................................................156
3.3
Šárka, op.
51...................................................................................197
3.4
PádArkuna, op.
55, 60...................................................................254
4
Doslov
....................................................................................................302
5
Přílohy
...................................................................................................304
Resumé
.......................................................................................................305
Prameny a literatura
....................................................................................323
Jmenný rejstřík
............................................................................................344
Resumé
Operas written by
Zdeněk Fibich
during the
1
890s
During the 1890s,
Zdeněk Fibich
(1850-1900)
wrote operas on libretti by
Jaroslav Vrchlický
(1853-1912)
and
Anežka Schulzová
(1868-1905).
As a result
of discovery and adaptation of international works of art by
Lumír
movement,
Czech culture turned toward subjectivity and lyricism during the 1890s.
Vrch¬
lický, Fibich
and
Schulzová
did not entirely follow this trend. However, Vrch-
lickys libretto for Fibich s opera
Ће
Tempest is certainly tailored to the plot of
William Shakespeare s Tempest (for example, the chess-game scene with Fibich s
stimulating use of musical material taken from his piano cycle Moods, Impressions
and Reminiscences), as the magician
Prospero
compels those around him to take
the virtuous path of fidelity and forbearance. Although
Vrchlický
kept in contact
as artist and friend with other composers as well
(Antonín Dvořák, Leoš Janáček
and others), his relationship with
Fibich
was exceptional.
Vrchlický
himself re¬
putedly wrote the monologue of Tantalus which appears in the first act of
Ће
Atonement of Tantalus for
Fibich
on the embankment along the Vltava river. It is
not by chance that some of the most significant works in Fibich s
oeuvre
owe their
genesis to
Vrchlický.
In the genre of concert melodramas, I am thinking primarily
oí
Hakon
rather than Queen Emma or the translation of the poem The Revenge
of the Flowers which were also set to Vrchlicky s texts. The cantata A Springtime
Tale and the overture for Vrchlicky s play The Night in
Karlštejn
Castle brought
Fibich
such unusual popularity that theater director
Jaroslav Kvapil
acknowl¬
edged Fibich s capability in
1913
by using his incidental music for Vrchlicky s
play The Midas s Ears. Fibich s cycle for piano From the Mountains uses Vrchlicky s
mottos.
Fibich
returned to the genre of opera after ten years with The Tempest,
which is still in the repertory today. The climax of this artistic collaboration
was Hippodamia, a trilogy of scenic melodramas in which the point of contact
for
Fibich
and
Vrchlický
is reinforced by mutual understanding: preference for
themes from antiquity, eroticism, tendency toward art for art s sake. Hippodamia
portrays the climax of Czech late Romantic dramaturgy through elements of real¬
ism, naturalism and psychological drama. It brought
Fibich
international recogni¬
tion and was Vrchlicky s last great theatrical success along with The Tempest. The
victorious twentieth-century campaign for Hippodamia nullified the turn which
interpretative art had made, around
1900,
away from that rhetorical, rationally
based pathos
(Černý, Klosová,
red.
1977,
p.
333)
to sober utterance. This turn
had contributed to reservations about Fibich s operas, which abound in gestures
of pathos, fateful meetings and strong emotions.
305
The literature about
Zdeněk Fibich
passes over the last ten years of his mar¬
ried life in uneasy silence. Despite a separation, his marriage was never officially
ended. Betty
Fibichova
(1846-1901)
had provided favorable conditions for
Fibich
to compose.
Fibich
was strongly and naturally drawn to the theater, although he
was not employed in that profession. It is not insignificant that Betty gave him
contact with everyday theatrical experience; an integral part of the
Fibich
library
was the music from which she rehearsed her roles. The memory of her substan¬
tial, delightful alto voice must have continued to influence Fibich s compositions
during the 1890s. Betty Fibichovas musical accomplishments were reflected in
Fibich s fondness for searching for reminiscences: In his seminal compositions,
he frequently and skillfully referred to the memories which no artist can evade.
(Fibich,
R.
1940).
Betty
Fibichova
performed principal roles in his operas and
supported his music in foreign lands. For example, she substituted for her hus¬
band as rehearsal director for the first part of the staged melodrama Hippodamia
in Antwerp in March
1893
(The Atonement of Tantalw was presented in December
ofthat
year). Betty often expressed satisfaction that composition came easily to
Fibich,
for example: We are greatly pleased that your ,Tempest is progressing
in every way. Perhaps Dr.
Hostinský
could arrange with
Hölzer
[stage designer of
the National Theater in Prague] that everything would go splendidly. (FD; Betty
from Doxany to
Fibich
in Prague,
19
August
1894).
At the end of August
1894,
Fibich
quite naturally informed Betty: Mrs
Schulzová,
who is arriving tomorrow,
wrote from Karlovy Vary that Labicky told the professor that I am said to be the
best living symphonist; that my symphony had tumultuous applause; and that
I should send everything that I wish for the next season, for doing so would give
everyone very much pleasure. (FD; from Prague to Doxany,
29
August
1894).
The Fibichs spent their last holidays together in the Alps in
1892.
Fibich
went
to Attersee for the first time with
Anežka Schulzová
and other members of her
family in
1896.
By
1894,
his relationship to
Anežka Schulzová
had become so
intense that Betty
Fibichova
began to become defensive.
Fibich
left his family on
17
September
1897.
His wife closed a chapter in her life that day, as a letter to
her son Richard reveals: My dearest Richard, tell Father that I have been devoted
to him in other respects. If he could only forgive me everything. I fought out of
overwhelming love, but to no avail [,..]My requests. A wooden coffin, for a metal
one is so cold; and no one steering the wheels of the wagon. Everything was lost on
17
September
1897.
(Rektorys, red.
IL,
1952,
pp.
658-659).
Fibich s intimate relationship with his student
Anežka Schulzová
(piano, mu¬
sic theory) accelerated the tempo of his work. The richness of this almost inex¬
haustible source of inspiration is preserved most of all in his piano cycles Moods,
Impressions and Reminiscences. The close collaboration between
Fibich
and the
accomplished theater critic and translator caused the breakup of his marriage in
306
1897.
Life and work were so intertwined that artistic creation became part of
everyday life; however, they did not fall into the
fin de siècle
decadence
-
resigna¬
tion blended with mockery; reverent tradition blended with concessions; expres¬
sive utterances with impressive expanses. The role of work in their life together
cannot be determined unambiguously.
Fibich,
with his previous experience and
remarkable cultural perspective, surely had influence on the libretti. The ambi¬
tious
Schulzová
adapted to the realities of the time in her endeavors to gain public
favor for her master. She took charge of Fibichs correspondence and arranged
matters connected with performances of his works. Fibichs student
Otakar
Ostral
(1879-1935)
and
Anežkas
brother
Bohuslav
Schulz (1873-1951)
also enabled
Fibich
to compose more rapidly.
Anežka Schulzová
had a remarkable education. She had the leisure and intel¬
ligence to orient herself well in her own time. She was an emancipated woman,
and as a feminist she had to accustom herself to the absurd attitude of her time
towards women s issues. She had suffered a spinal injury in her youth. Although
she recovered enough to walk, she suffered from painful, lingering aftereffects
which worsened at times. As long as
Schulzová
had an adversary (such as public
prejudice or illness) and a goal (such as work or advocating Fibichs composition),
her life had meaning and her efforts bore remarkable fruit. She lost her sense of
purposeful direction after Fibichs death. Although she was able to devote herself
to literary activity and promoting Fibichs work, the strength of her adversaries
increased intolerably. Her interest in
Fibich
met with public indifference and the
apathy of cultural institutions. The atmosphere of the Prague conservatory was
pro-Dvořák;
the new chief of the opera at the National Theater
Karel Kovařovic
was Fibichs student and had certainly proved himself as an excellent director, but
unfortunately his conduct revealed his ambition and weak character.
Schulzová
was regularly employed as a critic for
Květy
and
Zlatá Praha,
and
also translated French, English, and Danish. In her writings for the literary world,
she expressed herself very well through extensive reflections directed toward novel,
fashionable trends. Even when edited, her reviews can be regarded as eclectic
reportage. Although they were based on a wide-ranging perspective, they suf¬
fered from vague opinion
(Novale,
Α.,
Novák, J. V.
1995,
p.
1073).
It is true that
she praised many a successful moment in her review of
Maryša
by the
Mrštík
brothers
(Schulzová
1894,
p.
323).
She found a strong core in
Jejípastorkyňa
by
Gabriela Preissová (Schulzová
1890b,
s.
754)
but on the whole, she criticized
it for poorly motivated action and insufficient psychological development. She
found
Její pastorkyňa
too brutal ( an aggressive, naturalistic failure ), a work which
evoked hostility rather than edifying the reader as, for example, the
oeuvre
of Lev
Nikolayevich Tolstoy did. She described the stance of the
Mrštík
brothers as primi¬
tive, uncomplicated, outside of the stream and direction of modern thought and
307
generally reproved
Maryša
thus:
[...]
up to now, our domestic drama, almost as
a rule, serenely reflects still lifes of worn-out thatched roofs, whose idyllic peace is
not disrupted by the lather of chronological torrents.
(Schulzová
1894,
p.
323).
Schulzová
especially liked authors from France and northern lands (Paul Bourget,
Georg Brandes, Gustave
Flaubert,
Anatole
France, Edward Rod, Bj0rnstjerne
Bj0rnson, August
Strindberg,
Hermann
Sudermann, Suren
Kierkegaard,
Henrik
Ibsen, Gerhard
Hauptmann,
L. N.
Tolstoy), and was very interested in women s
issues
-
complex, fanatical, passionate. Her collaboration with
Zdeněk Fibich
enabled her to attain the pure artistry in her field that she had desired as an am¬
bitious writer.
Schulzová
had to depend on a proven, analogous precedent when
writing libretti, and
Fibich
followed suit. The finale-duet of
Šárka,
for example,
bears a clear resemblance to the end
oí
Eugene Onegin.
Schulzová s
musical talent blossomed in proximity to
Fibich.
She prepared
the four-hand piano arrangements of the symphonic poems The Tempest ana To¬
man and the Wood Nymph
(1897),
Quintet in
D
major and the ballet music from
the opera
Hedy
(1896).
An undated letter from
Karolína Schulzová
addressed
to her son
Bohuslav
and his wife, sent from Attersee to
Žofín
(undoubtedly in
1896),
displays
Schulzová s
prowess once again:
[...]
I also must tell you that
Anda
already knows orchestration. She orchestrated a piece from
Šárka
today. As
her health improves, she is beginning to eat lunch without unfortunate results.
(ZS
9).
She prepared the last series of Fibich s Moods, Impressions and Reminis¬
cences, op,
58
for publication after Fibich s death. She wrote her first libretto in
German for
Karl Weis
s
cantata
Der Triuniphator (1886).
Schulzová
took her work
on the libretti for
Hedy, Šárka
and TheFallofArkona very seriously, and devoted
much effort to it. For example, she made a journey with
Fibich
to the island of
Rügen in
the Baltic Sea, whose northern shore includes the promontory of Arkun
(Schulzová
1952,
pp.
188-189).
If
Fibich
had not unexpectedly died in
1900,
there would undoubtedly have
been more operas on libretti by
Schulzová.
Two leaves
oí
Die
Heimkehr. Oper in
5
Aufaügen
are preserved in the Czech Museum of Music. The phrase sketches
for a future operas! is written on the title page (S
80/502).
More extensive are
the three parts
oí
Eine tragische
Idytte.
Oper in 4 Aufzügen.
The phrase
Musik von
Zdenko Fibich
on the title page has been crossed out (S
80/508).
Although they lived among people who disapproved of their relationship,
Anežka
and
Fibich
did not doubt that they could achieve an increasingly favorable
response for their work. They were not defeated by simple resignation;
Schul¬
zová
in particular used every opportunity when she had a task to do.
Schulzová
and
Fibich
evidently followed the strategy: If it won t go here, perhaps it will
somewhere else. Although they did not reject their Czech surroundings (as
Šárka
clearly demonstrates) it is clear that they deliberately turned to foreign countries,
308
primarily those where German was spoken. More precisely said,
Schulzová
and
Fibich
attempted to write simultaneously for the National Theater in Prague and
for German-speaking venues. The dangers of being caught between opposing
nations had impelled
Dvořák
to write in internationally acknowledged genres
of absolute music such as the symphony and string quartet. Unfortunately, this
position was disastrous for
Fibich
as an opera composer; he was not permanently
accepted in either place. Since their collaborative work had become a strong, per¬
haps the strongest bond of their relationship, both partners wanted to legitimize
it. The travel motives
οι
Moods, Impressions and Reminiscences could
-
somewhat
awkardly
—
give actual shape to the composer
s
stream of thought while writing
specific compositions
(Nejedlý
1948,
pp.
268-279).
Thanks to these piano pieces
it is possible to trace the transition from the passionate explosion characteristic
of The Tempest and
Hedy
to the balance of personal experiences and external per¬
spectives, which chronologically corresponds to his work on
Šárka.
The two-part
opera The Fall ofArkona emerged at the while
Fibich
definitely was leaving his
family, critically evaluating his work to date, and spending most of his time with
Schulzová.
They must have been struggling with unfavorable public opinion as
well as their own states of health.
Fibichs
oeuvre
was often criticized for being overly dependent on Richard
Wagner, for incomprehensibility, and for not being Czech enough. Today it is
rarely heard on concert programs or as a permanent part of the repertory of the
operatic stage. Although
Fibich
is regarded as one of the three founders of Czech
music
(Smetana, Dvořák,
and
Fibich), Dvořák, Janáček
and others reflected and
were in confrontation with his creative work. The premieres of Fibich s operas
in the National Theater during the 1890 s were intently observed. They are rep¬
resentative of their author, Prague, and their time. The reproaches that
Fibich
faced from non-Czechs are almost typical of the era, which treated new person¬
alities thus. After
Smetana
appeared on the scene, the music of
František Škroup
began to demonstrate his lack of Czech qualities. To use the words of
František
Pivoda, the composer of the opera
Dalibor
Wagner was forced to demonstrate
his Czechness. Despite
Smetanas
well-known aloofness toward folk inspiration,
the intonation of folksong was integral to his musical thought.
Smetana
delib¬
erately decided to develop his own characteristic style.
Fibich
did not mature in
the same way, even though his music does have personal traits (balladic nature,
the melody of spring, appropriately depicted characters, intense and expressively
concise gesture). The fact remains that
Fibich
was and remained aloof from the
educated Czech public. In his underappreciated work, in a certain embarassment
about his appearance,
Fibich
seems symbolically to appear at the threshold like
Václav Jan Tomášek
(1774-1850),
the Prague composer with a Central European
viewpoint who flourished during the first half of the nineteenth century. On
309
the other hand,
Smetana
was indisputably accepted as a Czech composer by the
1890s, and was deliberately and constantly remembered in events in Vienna dur¬
ing
1892.
In this context it would be appropriate to take note of an address about
Fibich
and his melodramatic compositions: And thus we can say that this form
began with a Czech, and a Czech conquers this form.
(Schütz 1902,
p.
371).
Glorious work could be more easily accepted as Czech. The artists who attained
international triumph such as
Oskar Nedbal
and
Dvořák
became national heroes
like gods of antiquity.
Some critics defined Czechness in musical works at an overly simplified level,
and their discussions ended in adjectives such as songlike, balanced, tender, reso¬
lute, healthy (especially statements by
Zikmund Kolešovský
and Josef Leopold
Zvonař).
The audience responded enthusiastically to folksong, as well as ensem¬
ble scenes with dance and chorus as well as to lyrical passages
(Ottlová, Pospíšil
1979).
During the 1870s, Max
Konopásek
made realistic comments about the
idealized
Ruthenian kolomyjka
which are almost comic. Nevertheless, Fibich s
Swing Quartet in
G
major from
1878,
for example, is a relatively successful at¬
tempt to cope with folk material, and
Fibich
did master this technique in later
works. By
1900,
presentations of Czechness as local color were still characterized
by a distinct inertia
-
with simplicity, modesty, accessibility, as well as preference
for voice and melody over instrumental composition.
The Czech press chronicled the creative work of Czech authors as well as pro¬
grams of soloists and singing groups. The effort for pure Czech repertory and
interpreters compensated for German indifference: For German art,
Fibich
is
lifeless and will remain so for the forseeable future. The reasons are, as is known,
political rather than artistic. Since the Czechs in Prague have closed minds, it is
simply impossible to ask that German artists could perform among them at all.
(concerning a translation of part of a review by M.
Steuer
of a book about
Fibich
by
C. L.
Richter,
published in Die
Musik; Dalibor,
14
June
1902,
Vol.
24,
No.
25,
p.
202).
Richard Batka explained the issue in terms suitable for the general pub¬
lic: You readers of this journal, who rightly support the national position but
turn to a broader view
-
to foreign lands
-
in order to gain recognition, you will
understand at times that it is not only our fault that the international position
of Czech music must be achieved slowly, step by step.
(Dalibor,
12
July
1902,
Vol.
24,
No.
28,
p.
221).
Michael Beckerman enumerated specific musical traits
as a direct result of his search for Czechness in music: accenting the first beat,
syncopation, and fluctuation between major and minor tonalities. The composer
can provide important information when providing an explicit declaration about
Czech music (Beckerman
1986).
Fibich
issued an unequivocal proclamation of
this sort about his opera
Šárka.
Moreover, he made an indispensable contribution
by creating a purposeful Czech-German symbiosis and imbedding it in the Cen-
310
trai European cultural scene,
the universally recognized repertory of the theater,
even though the influences of Italian and French music were not reflected among
Czech composers with such interest, and Czech discourse about music contained
antagonistic reactions, for example in response to Wagners works.
Wagnerianism itself had a negative as well as a positive connotation. The term
Wagnerism was inherently associated with poorly defined content as well as syno¬
nym substitution (see the relevant slogans in
Slovník české hudební kultury; Lébl,
Ludvová
1983,
pp.
288-289).
Otakar Hostinský
described
Wagnerianism
in
his article
Wagnerianismus a česká národní opera (Hudební listy,
1870)
with the
catchword national music in a progressive state of modern art
(Procházka
1871,
p.
69).
Vladimir Helfert took pains with terminological purity as he explained
the difference between Wagner s principles (wagnerianism) and Wagners music
(wagnerism) using
Hostinský s
concepts. He linked Wagnerianism with resist¬
ance to Italian and Meyerbeer s operas, the work of
Smetana,
with Wagner s writ¬
ings on reform, but not with his music:
[...]
if opera were drama, it would not
consist of a folksong concert and similar events. (Helfert
1911,
pp.
168-169).
However, Helfert s effort to clarify concepts during the era of the fight against
Dvořák
did not correspond to the conditions in which
Fibich
lived. By the end
of the century, the sharp boundary between
Smetanian
polemics and the Italian
and German models for Czech national opera dissolved, and these positions ap¬
proached each other so closely that they almost merged.
Hynek
Palla
wrote of
Verdi s
Otelio: Otelio
appeared as mighty conjurer under whose power the ghost
of Wagnerism substantially lost its terror, the more so since it was already such
an unsafe national trait in musical artistry.
(Palla
1888,
p.
81).
Coming to terms with Wagner was not easy for Czechs, even though his music
had found very fertile soil in Czech lands. Along with the rise of the national
music of Russia, Wagnerism forms a great chapter in the history of Italian opera
and French music of the nineteenth century. Of the Czech composers,
Zdeněk
Fibich
was the one who most systematically came to terms with the work of
Richard Wagner during the 1880s and 1890s. It is sufficient to point out that
Fibichs teacher
Zikmund Kolešovský
was one of the organizers of the Wagner
concert held on
8
February
1863
(Holeček
1958,
p.
19).
From the composition
of The Bride of Messina to his death,
Fibich
was considered to be
a Wagnerian;
during this time, knowledge of Wagner
s
operas was necessary and unavoidable for
European composers.
Dvořák
and
Karel
Bendi
as well as
Fibich
attended the Ger¬
man theater in Prague. While pursuing an analysis of Tristan and Isolde in
1895,
Janáček
wrote that
[...]
every Czech musician must know Wagners works
[...]
even though he had doubts of the Czeclmess of Wagnerianism, which could con¬
sist of eccentric reduction of open-ended movements and periods
(Janáček
2003,
p.
61).
Fibichs contemporaries had only a second-hand, unsystematic knowledge
311
of
Wagners
creative work, but
Fibich
had access to Wagner s complete
oeuvre.
The work of Czech experts on Wagner subsequently laid the groundwork for the
Czech public
s
opinion about Wagner himself; in this sense, one can form an opin¬
ion of Fibichs works in the 1890s, or at least to abstract an image of the Czech
version ofWagnerianism at the end of the century. Fibichs concept of Wagner
was also strengthened by contacts with
Bayreuth
director Hans
Richter.
A different responsive stance toward so-called Wagnerism emerged in the
Czech lands at the end of the nineteenth century
-
an unresolved,
naïve
collec¬
tion of poorly organized opinions gleaned from
Smetana, Fibich,
and
Dvořák.
Vladimír Karbusický
categorized
these diverse
ideas in six concepts of increasing
intensity:
1.
Wagner as a danger to national music; attacking Wagner
s
works after hearing
them
(František Ladislav
Rieger, Pivoda).
2.
Evaluating Wagners works as discourse, and thus approaching him as a master
of dramatic authenticity and a model for national music, primarily through
selective listening
(O. Hostinský).
3.
Critical acceptance of Wagner, principally with respect to listening for form
and structure
(Smetana)
.
4.
Wagner as a reactionary mystic, while recognizing an unambiguous superi¬
ority of
Smetana
over Wagner; negative listening with selective emphasis
(František V. Krejčí).
5.
Wagner as the guide to new paths, the revolutionary Romantic, the mytholo-
gized Wagner who was unfurled in German popular literature during the
first half of the twentieth century, and influenced Marxist-Leninist herme-
neutics; selective listening with pragmatic objectives
(Zdeněk Nejedlý, Jaroslav
Jiránek).
6.
Hearing something idealistic and transcendental in Wagner s music, particu¬
larly in Lohengrin and Parsifal, free from nationalistic issues, for the
salce
of
complete mastery of the work of art (Julius
Zeyer).
The inconsistency of these concepts with the reality of the music itself is, for
example, better explained by
Janáčeks
attitude toward Wagner s Sprechmotivik
then by the unstable, stressed
Wagnerian
tendencies in Fibichs Hippodamia
(Kar¬
busický
1989).
Zdeněk Fibich
was understandably drawn to the second and fifth
concepts, but his work demonstrates the third and sixth.
Karbusický
characterized
the last concept as a working hypothesis, requiring additional effort to grasp
-
on
the basis of an understanding of Prague s connection with Central European
centers of art. The inaccurate interpretations of Fibich s works are closely related
to the writings of
Otakar Hostinský
(1847-1910).
312
Hostinský
brought theory to praxis on the basis of a programmatic approach.
His domain was the intersection of the various genres of art, where art itself ap¬
proaches the praxis of life (socialist art and so forth).
Fibich
wrote two works
while in frequent contact with
Hostinský
-
The Bride of Messina and Hippoda-
mia. They demonstrate high artistic value while transcending their own time;
they stand in Czech music history as isolated landmarks.
Fibich,
more advanced
than
Hostinský,
sought the destiny of modernism like Arnold
Schönberg
did,
but a few decades earlier;
Schönberg
evoked more interest in theory and music
history than dramaturgy. Fibich s operas from the 1890s were intended for live
performance. Although they were written with regard for a high level of artistry,
they also display reflections on the possibilities of a sensible compromise with the
requirements of the contemporary operatic audience rather than the goals of pure
art. With such concessions,
Fibich
did not evade the style of his time; nevertheless
he retained, for the most part, his experiences and opinions of the 1880s, and
used the services of
Hostinský.
Hostinský s
research in the area of early Czech
secular folksong stands directly behind
Ctirad
s song
in the second act of
Šárka.
Fibich
learned about correct declamation from leading theorists and advocates of
accented prosody while composing The Bride of Messina, and combined it with
abundant melody. When
Fibich
accepted Smetana s program of aspiration for
national and modern music, he also accepted
Hostinský s
interpretation of Wag-
nerianism:
[...]
based on definite fundamental aesthetics which can be fulfilled
even without Wagner s personal features.
(Hostinský 1885b,
p.
159,
Hostinský
was discussing orchestration, harmony and primarily setting of text.).
The origins of modern Czech music are unthinkable without the tense po¬
larization between the positions exemplified by
Smetana
and Pivoda;
Hostinský
and Knittl;
Fibich
and
Dvořák;
the periodicals
Lumír
and
Ruch;
modernity and
tradition, folk character. If there had been only the first of these positions, Czech
opera would have fallen into the conservative French and Italian stereotypes with
imitation folk dances and songs. If the second position had not existed, Czech
opera would have been threatened by musical dehumanization (minimalized
function of entertainment, suppression of melodic technique, stress on the tragic
genre) and would have declined into the treacherous epigonism of Wagner s
music drama.
Hostinský s
views were unfortunately brought to a head by his student
Zdeněk
Nejedlý
(1878-1962).
The death of
Fibich
and the neglect of his (and not only
his) creative work led directly to
Nejedly
s
decision to dedicate himself to musi-
cology
(Nejedlý
1948,
p.
11).
Fibich s students have a similar significance as ad¬
vocates for
Fibich
as
Dvořálcs
students have for
Dvořák
(observe the members of
the Czech Quartet).
Karel Kovařovic
(1862-1920)
studied with
Fibich
from
1878
to
1882;
the popularity of his opera
Ђе
Logheads later overshadowed
Fibich
s
313
Šárka.
Still more decisively, the international success that
Fibich
had sought was
attained by
Karel
Weis (1862-1944)
with his stage works The Polish Jew and The
Government Inspector, largely because of the inartistic preferences of opera-go¬
ing audiences. Richard Batka rightly included among Fibich s students
Emanuel
Chvála
(1851-1924)
and
Ludvík Vítězslav Čelanský
(1870-1931;
Batka
1906,
p.
87),
about whose directing capabilities the Fibich-dramaturg of the National
Theater wrote a favorable review (Rektorys, red. II
1952,
p.
90-91).
Fibich s
most
gifted
famulus was indisputably
Otakar Ostrčil,
who was with
Fibich
from
1895.
Ostrčil
learned directly from Fibich s compositions; his participation in
orchestration and copying The Fall ofArkona is documented.
Ostrčiľs
personal
style was formed around
1910.
It can be inferred from sources concerning
Fibich
and
Dvořák
that the so-
called fight against
Dvořák
began as early as the 1890s. With respect to its origins,
it is interesting to note that Dvoraks popularity (Dvoraks very name operated
as a magnet;
Šubert
1900,
p.
51)
even in America as early as the 1880s it was
used to suppress the works of young American composers and to seek criticism.
While in America,
Dvořák
was well informed about activity in Prague.
Fibich
is
mentioned in his correspondence. For example, the assistant conductor of the
National Theater
Mořic
Anger informed
Dvořák:
When you consider that
Fibich
occupies your place at the conservatory, it may anger you that he is writing an op¬
era
-
an incomplete opera has been booked
—
he is also writing a second one
-
and
has already composed the second act
—
and begun to orchestrate it.
—
I am im¬
mensely curious about ,The Tempest ; the rank and file do not expect anything,
thus no success.
-
The premiere must take place on
1
March, the director has
work to do.
(Kuna,
red.
7 1999,
pp.
362-363;
letter written February
1895
from Prague to New York). The direct relationship between
Fibich
and
Dvořák
is not sufficiently documented. The composers apparently respected each other,
but
Dvořák
did not enter Fibich s circle during the 1890s, nor did
Fibich
enter
Dvorak s circle. The authenticity of Hostinsky s memoirs of conversations of
Dvořák
with
Fibich
during the second half of the 1880s, written during the time
of their relationship, cannot be doubted
(Nejedlý
1911).
Although the choice
of subjects in these memoirs reflect
Hostinsky
s
interests, it is quite evident that
both composers knew each other s works well and that they repeatedly discussed
Wagner. If
Dvořák
had doubts about Fibich s creative work, he did not raise them
in the spirit of this healthy debate. Fibich s operas were the only possible Czech
models for
Wagnerian
opera. Despite pointed opinion, it is not possible to ignore
the fact that Fibich s Symphony No.
2
encroached on Dvorak s territory, and that
Dvořák
did not hesitate to point out that he knew as much as
Fibich
did about
opera. Dvorak s evolutionary work on operas and symphonic poems during the
second half of the 1890s can be interpreted as a reaction to The Tempest,
Hedy,
314
Šárka
and The Fall ofArkona as well as to Hostinskys music criticism. The con¬
cept of progress which was then in vogue implied a search for a single correct
developmental line, and
Hostinský
sketched that very convincingly. The flattery
which accompanied Dvorak s success could lead to blind adoration which, for
example, was not compatible with many aspects of
Hostinsky
s
fair and stimulat¬
ing reviews of Dvoraks operas.
Fibichs creative work during the
1
890s enabled Wagnerianism to be viewed as
a guarantee of high art, and gave
Fibich
a relatively clear entree to Czech music.
However, a brittle affinity to preserving the basis of Wagner arose, blurring
the boundaries between creative inspiration and forgery; it consisted of superfi¬
cial resemblance to outward appearance. For every Czech composer
-
especially
Fibich
-
that enduring, difficult-to-define Czechness continually receded from
the artistic bankruptcy which threatened post-Wagnerian opera at the turn of the
century: Here in Bohemia, Wagnerism is well understood by our composers;
they accept the undeniably correct opinions of the Master of
Bayreuth,
but do
not forget their origin. (Knittl
1895).
Fibichs inclination toward Wagner and
the infection of the
Wagnerian
model of other
schemas
may have grouped
him with composers such as Felix Draeseke,
Engelbert Humperdinck, Wilhelm
Kienzl, and
Karl Goldmark.
By the end of the century, Wagnerianism had become so broad a term that
it had lost its sharp definition. Certain works by important composers brought
their own stamp into the 1890s; despite the striking changes of style, this stamp
was merely achieved by means of reformulation with the aid of modifiers with
contradictory meanings, producing a lack of clarity. A vague silence satisfied those
who had not changed their opinions, as well as those who disagreed with Wagne¬
rianism and those such as Pivoda who reopened disagreeable problems from the
1870s.
Hostinsky
s
apriori
basis for discussing Wagner unilaterally stressed the
declamation of Czech words, and support for opera as spoken drama.
František
Pivodas opinions were understood to be conservative foolishness
-
his justifi¬
able plea for Italian and French opera changed to a superficial explanation about
imitating national folk songs.
The first and second performances of The
Tempesterete
held on
1
March and
3
March
1895.
The motives which led
Vrchlický
and
Fibich
to adapt Shakespeare s
Tempest are not clear. Celebrations of the anniversary of
Friedrich
Schiller were
held in
1859
in Germany and Bohemia. Since the
1864
Shakespeare celebrations
demonstrated the viability of these works in Czech art, the authors assumed that
an adaptation of The Tempest would appeal to the Czech public. The choice of
subject may be indirectly disclosed in the memoirs of Josef
Bohuslav Foerster;
the
intimate resemblance to the corresponding persons
(Fibich
-
Fernando, Schul-
zová
-
Miranda) issues from
Vrchlickýs
favorite joke: He played various jests
315
accompanied by wit and sometimes fearless remarks. The poet s magic wand
proved itself as an instrument to perform all sorts of metamorphoses and sur¬
prising reversals. The master with his long hair, comfortable in his wide, colorful
robe, wears a high hat ornamented with secret runes on his head, emerging from
a covered table as
Prospero!
(Foerster 1942b,
s.
382).
Fibich
may have been fully free from ordinary problems while working on The
Tempest. He could have immersed himself into this naive fairy tale which threatens
no danger, thanks to
Prósperos
omnipresent control. Relegating the representatives
of evil to the background,
Vrchlický
defined only Caliban,
Stefano andTrinkulo
as negative characters. In Shakespeare s play, it is
Stefano
with Calibans help who
makes an attempt on
Prospero
s
life.
Vrchlický
depicted Caliban, the harmless
monster who had attempted to rape Miranda as a child, as
Prospero
s
principal op¬
ponent while preserving his
comedie
nature. Vrchlickys translation of Shakespeare s
play clearly suggests a text destined for opera.
Prósperos
speech at the end of the
second act after giving Ariel orders was created by the poet to show living images
which gradually form a noble tableau, displaying familiar and new characteristic
motives of
Prospero
and his festive procession; of the lost shipwrecked persons and
Prospero s curse; as well as of Prospero s introductions of Miranda, Caliban and the
elevation of
Gonzalo.
The interchange of musical material between The Tempest
and the love diary (Moods, Impressions and Reminiscences) becomes so extensive
that certain figures cross the above-mentioned boundaries. While working with
characteristic motives,
Fibich
did not neglect the significance of independent,
structurally important melody. He created the exotic local color of the island fairy
tale with the aid of Prospero s spirit (rapid passages and figurations, diminished
seventh chords, the flute, harp, and so forth), the genre of comedy supported the
use of the eighteenth-century legacy, particularly that of opera
buffa.
Study of
eighteenth-century music enabled
Fibich
to incorporate song forms, periods, and
two-measure symmetric forms in the through-composed texture, so that he could
seem
Wagnerian
to
Schulzová
while emancipating elements of musical composi¬
tion
( das musikalische
Element ;
Richter 1900,
p.
137).
Mozart is said to have
considered an adaptation of Shakespeare s Tempest,
Fibich
may have deliberately
paid homage to the Magic Flute while supporting the Mozart cult in Prague
(Caliban and Monostatos harass Miranda and Pamina respectively; Caliban and
Papageno long for children;
Prospero
and Sarastro prepare the trials of Fernando
and
Tarnino;
the spirit and genius crown victorious virtue).
The opera
Hedy,
based on Byron s
Don juan, was
premiered on
12
Febru¬
ary
1896.
It well deserved to receive the name of Czech Tristan; Fibich s rich
chromatic musical discourse was combined with the local color of Greece. The
marriage celebration provided the impetus for a third-act ballet; the composer
ended the next-to-the-last act with an ensemble entrance with chorus.
Fibich
316
was a great admirer not only of Wagner but also of Wolfgang
Amadeus
Mozart.
The very course of the opera is anticipated by the plot of the opera of operas,
Don Giovanni;
Fibich
quoted Mozart s music when describing Juan. Song forms
usually belong to the most valuable part of Fibich s libretti, for these musical
forms guaranteed immediate audience response.
Fibich
built a monumental finale
concertato
at the end of the first act of the second part of The Fall of Arkona (the
first part is the one-act opera
Helga,
which is separated by an extensive overture
from the second part, the three-act opera Dargun). Despite spectacular declara¬
tions by
Fibich
and his friends about cheap Meyerbeerism, musicians did not
avoid the style of French grand opera at the end of the nineteenth century. The
premiere of Fibich s last operatic work was held on
9
November
1900,
shortly
after Fibich s sudden death. The blind Nietzchean hero Dargun is reminescent
of Alberich and Wotan. The leading female roles,
Margit
(or
Helga)
and
Radana,
are typical representatives
οι
femme
fragile and
femmefatale, but
Radana,
like the
sublime Briinnhilde, chooses voluntary death in the end.
A relatively long time elapsed between the completion
oí Šárka
and the be¬
ginning of the composition of The Fall of Arkona. At the end of
1897,
Fibich
moved to a new address and destroyed many of his youthful works. While com¬
posing the suite Impressions from the Country at the beginning of
1898,
he fell
seriously ill, causing the cancellation of a planned composer
s
concert with the
Czech Philharmonic on
22
March
1898.
Fibich
did not underestimate his own
need for convalescence. He spent the spring months in the level countryside of
Polabí,
in Trebestovice near
Sadská.
He finished Impressions from the Country
and the Symphony No.
3
there
(23
March-
19
July).
Fibich
and
Schulzová
made
an excursion to
Rügen in
June. Slavonic themes took precedence over other
plans. Varied information appeared in the journals.
Národní listy
reported on
17
September
1896
that after
Šárka, Fibich
would begin to work on an op¬
era called The Water Goblin
(Národní listy,
Vol.
36,
No.
257,
p.
4;
letter from
F.
A. Urbánek ČMH,
S
80/69).
On
5
February
1897
it announced that
Fibich
was preparing an opera called A Frozen Flower.
[...]
whose material is drawn
from the fairy-tale treasure of our people and has been adapted by
Schulzová.
(Národní listy,
Vol.
37,
No.
36,
p.
4).
On
26
March
1898,
the journal stated that
Fibich
had recovered and wished him success in composing the operas An Atheistic
Woman and
Oldřich
and
Božena (Dalibor,
Vol.
20,
No.
22,
p.
165).
Fibich
had
already considered a Czech mythical theme with
Hostinský
(as well as a staged
melodrama; see
Hostinský
1909,
p.
138)
and the success of the Czech
Šárka
hastened this decision. The only one of these planned works to be composed was
the overture
Oldřich
andBoèena
(spring
1898).
The intention of the authors of
Ш
Fall of Arkona may be revealed by the fol¬
lowing quotation, which
Schulzová
must have written for the published edition of
317
Šárka.
Let us also remember that the introduction of the book
Zdenko Fibich.
Eine
musikalische Silhouetteis,
dated I October
1898: Die engen Schranken des sub-
jectiv aufgefassten nationalen Charakters hat sie hoch überflogen, um zu jenem
künsderisch objectiven Gipfel zu gelangen, wo die Kunst zum internationalen,
gemeinschaftlichen Gute der ganzen gebildeten Menschheit wird. (Richter 1900,
p. 209).
At die end of the book,
Schulzová
compared Impressions from the Country
to
Edvard
Grieg s Peer Gynt Suite, taken from his stage music for Ibsen s play of
the same name. She reminded the reader of the origin of the opera:
Meine Be¬
wertung
fur
das, was ich von diesem Werke zu hören bekam, kann ich nicht besser
ausdrücken, als wenn ich es mit Goldmark s Königin von
Saba
in Vergleich stelle.
(ibid., p. 255).
Contemplations
of die end of national-international dualism may
have already appeared in connection with the above-mentioned themes of The
Water Goblin and A Frozen Flower. Dvorak s
Rusalka
shows that the fairy-tale
migratory motif can resolve this problem, it felicitously, closely combines Eu¬
ropean tradition with a Czech setting (Dahlhaus
1989,
p.
308).
Fibich
set out on
another path. iheFallqfArkona clearly demonstrates Czech opera as die result of
creative adaptation of international and domestic influences, that despite (or per¬
haps because) of the effort toward national specification, it belongs to the stream
of
Internationalisierung der Oper
of the second half of the nineteenth century
(Döhring, Henze-Döhring 1997).
Ε Α.
Šubert
concluded a search for operatic
material; he understandably favored the commercially safe Die
Königin von
Saba.
His path, and wanderings produced quite varied ideas and adventures. Sketches
for
Rujana,
Wittow a Arkona.
O původu a významu těchto jmen
were made in
1898
in which the author mentions two visits to
Rügen.
Unlike The Bride of Messina,
The Fall of Arkona did not arise from a definite concept, but under the direct
influence of operatic production. Such an approach might well offer hope for
success, but it also could significantly disrupt artistic value. This very successful
work became part of Fibich s profile. But it was overly calculated in effect and
glitter and remained, for die most part, a work of its own time.
Differing views of
Ће
Fall of Arkona clearly illuminate traits which would
have appealed to its audience. It lies between possibilities; it is an attempt to
achieve all requirements, and at the same time to remain in the ambiguous state
of everywhere and nowhere.
Fibich
was unable to attain the realm of Meyer¬
beer s operatic theater
(Ottlová, Pospíšil
1993,
p.
153);
he did not write for the
cosmopolitan Paris audience. Nevertheless, a historical event led him to a solution
from grand opera: the crushing defeat of the heathen Slavs by the Christian Danes
in
Rügen
in
1168,
with its contraposition of two cultures and nations.
Fibich
followed the course of drama rather than conventional opera with choruses and
a mechanical sequence of scenes, but he also satisfied the opposing faction by
writing a mixed chorus for soldiers
-
which would have been an improper course
318
of
action
for The Bride of Messina. The two-part opera is an epic historical fresco
in which every character almost uncontrollably gains importance for the libret¬
tist, but
Schulzová
also preserved the theatrical distinction between principal and
subsidiary roles. She was as comfortable with theatrical and operatic styles as with
dry reflections and descriptions.
Schulzová
evidently relied on the idea that every
libretto has its own meter. In
Šárka
as well as The Fall ofArkona, the line, here
unrhymed iambic pentameter, is significantly interleaved in certain passages with
song forms. The librettist may have wanted to equal the achievement of Julius
Zeyer,
and may have used blank verse in iambic pentameter in imitation of the
much admired Shakespeare. In any case, she definitely uses heightened impres¬
sions to demonstrate an effort to attain the elevated style of the
Lumír
movement
(primarily, to attain the facility of
Vrchlicky
s
poetry). For
Fibich,
this meter
produced a heightened tendency to give a clear accent to the upbeat or pause on
the first beat. The FallofArkona is entirely natural in the German translation that
was written at the same time. It can not serve to contradict the impression that
the authors were inclined
nach Westen.
These libretti by
Schulzová
are comparable to the expressive creative work of
Jaroslav
Hubert. His drama A Guilt, influenced by Ibsen, was an enormous suc¬
cess at its premiere in May
1896
at the National Theater.
Huberts
hero
Falkenštejn
is blind like Dargun. The critics were embarassed by this drama. The Czech au¬
dience was unable to accept Dargun; a hundred years later,
Jaroslav Jiránek
also
could not accept it: Thus the Slovanic heathen Dargun falls
-
not because he
loved life and worshiped the living God, but because he instead refused life and
served God as an ascetic, whereas the German Christian conquered with devout
love and life! But that is not actually true or historic, but psychological!
(Jiránek
2000,
p.
161).
Fibich
took significant pains with characters depicting
différent
competing worlds (or worldviews). He created an extensively developed net of
motives in Hippodamia linked to concepts (power
-
destructive strength
—
death,
love
-
disarming purity
-
life) and worked toward a motivic interconnection
which tends toward monothematicism.
Fibich
did not economize with the closed
forms which he created to conform to specific characters (for example,
Helga -
ballad,
Jaroměř
-
love song). Nevertheless, The Fall ofArkona did not attain the
monumental solidity of
Šárka.
Reviews of the opera
Šárka
had explicitly praised
passages resembling Moods, Impressions and Reminiscences, and there are many
such passages in The Fall ofArkona. But in the end, it was thought that
Fibich
had simply filled out a predetermined mold, doing no more than repeating an
earlier experimental form which was merely motivic.
Helgas
motive is reminis¬
cent of Grieg s Peer GynP, the raised fifth in the dominant seventh chord evokes
Smetana s style.
319
The link between
Hedy
and
Ће
Fall ofArkona was
Šárka
(premiered
28
De¬
cember
1897),
a masterly work in many aspects.
Schulzová
achieved a personal
transformation to the traditional verse form of early Czech myths while uphold¬
ing principles of lucid and balanced dramaturgy. In versifying the libretto, she
maintained a single basic meter with interpolations of closed forms. To depict the
Czech barbaric era,
Fibich
used modality, quoted melodies from the end of the
fifteenth century, and restricted chromatic harmonic relationships. He exploited
the possibilities of the augmented fifth, and achieved atonality within the frame of
a surprisingly pure and natural whole.
Šárka
does have superficial connections to
works by
Smetana
and Wagner
(Vlasta
—
Libuše
— Brünnhilde;
the love scenes of
Ctirad
and
Šárka
resembling those of
Siegmund
and
Sieglinde;
Šárka
was identi¬
fied as the Czech Valkyrie ).
Fibich
displays his melodic gifts and a judicious use
of characteristic motives in
Šárka.
He succeeded in creating a masterly unified
form. Fibich s knowledge of
Hostinsky
s
theory of declamation enabled him
-
as
he could not have done in the 1880s when The Bride of Messina was written
-
to
react rapidly to the emotional inflections of the character, and to create musical
phrases into melodic arches without disrupting the Czech language.
Leoš Janáček
highly esteemed Fibich s setting of the text in this work.
The popularity of Fibich s
Šárka
is largely due to the compromise reached by the
well-known competition for comedies, libretti and operas which was held by the
National Theater in
1895.
The competition had this requirement: The material
for this work must be without exception connected to Czech life and surely must
be either about the present time or the historical past. The work must be submit¬
ted by the end of May
1897.
(Dalibor,
23
November
1895,
Vol.
17,
No.
44-45,
p.
347).
The conditions were soon repeated. The worth of the prize
—
closely
associated with nationalism (blood relationship) and success
-
could not be over¬
looked by anyone concerned: For the prizes of this competition, the work can be
originally written in the Czech language or composed by Czech opera composers
[...]
The prizes will be given for works which
[...]
will also have significant suc¬
cess when performed in the theater.
(Dalibor,
4
January
1896,
Vol.
18,
No.
1-2,
p.
9).
The libretto makes full use of a Czech theme from which
Schulzová
had
removed all comic and anti-Czech material. In her interpretation, for example,
Vlasta
is the distinguished successor of
Libuše
rather than a bloodthirsty warrior,
which is not a correct reading. Fragments of ideas clearly refer to works by
Karel
Hynek Mácha, Vrchlický and Shakespeare;
for example, she obviously based the
apparitions of dead maidens on the witches scenes from Macbeth. The music does
not avoid song form.
Ariosos
in
verismo
style appear in
Šárka,
as well as in
Hedy
and the second part of The Fall ofArkona.
Zdenek Fibich
began the 1890s in full strength. He made a breakthrough in
1892
with the staged melodrama The Courtship ofPelops at international theatri-
320
cal and musical
exhibitions in Vienna; Hippodamia was performed in a theater
in Antwerp
(1893).
Important cultural authorities and influential institutions of
Prague music life, widi the exception of the conservatory, respected and supported
the composer s right to a leading position among modern founding members of
Czech music. Preference for
Zdeněk Fibich
over
Antonín Dvořák
was vehemendy
advocated, especially by
Nejedlý
Although this movement unfortunately also
caused indifference to Fibichs work, the fact remains that Prague experienced
well-rehearsed presentations of Fibichs musical-theatrical works at the end of the
nineteenth century. At this very moment, the National Theater under
František
Adolf
Šubert
(1849-1915)
rivaled the German theater under the leadership of
Angelo
Neumann
(1838-1910,
in Prague from
1885).
Despite all of his defi¬
ciencies,
Šubert
embodied the values of the Czech bourgeoisie in the 1890s,
and that which the composers around
Dvořák
esteemed: success. It is told that
when the National Theater participated in international musical and theatrical
expositions in Vienna in
1892, [...]
it returned with laurels, welcomed by the
Czech audience, like a victorious soldier coming from battle.
(Černý,
F. 2000,
p.
159).
At the same time, preparations were underway for the Czechoslovak
Ethnographic Exhibition of
1895,
in which Czechs demonstrated their national
and political emancipational efforts within the Austro-Hungarian realm. The
1895
Ethnographic Exhibition was a triumph for
Šubert;
for example, the star
of
Karel Kovařovic
as director of the exhibition orchestra shone for the first
time. As a result of this exhibition,
Fibich
became one of the diree most signifi¬
cant Czech composers, along with
Bedřich Smetana
and
Antonín Dvořák.
The
National Theater in Prague benefited from increased attendance. At that time,
Fibichs operas in the repertory included
lhe
Tempest, a new production of one
of his operas from the end of the 1870s (Bknik) was included in the turbulent
atmosphere of preparations for the exhibition
(1894);
Fibich
allowed selections
from
Hedy
to be performed in the exhibition itself. Impressions from the two
Jubilees
(1891)
and the ethnographic exhibition influenced die development of
the theme of
Šárka.
Fibichs last operatic work directly inspired F.
A. Šubert.
As
a result,
Šubert
invited
Fibich
to act as
dramaturg,
very likely saving him for die
Czechs: If even that hope had failed, no one would have been able to look me
in the face. I would have found a new home and existence in foreign lands
-
as
I would have unfortunately been compelled to do in the near future. (Rektorys,
red.
1910,
p.
342,
Fibich
to
Šubert,
17
December
1898).
The exemplary way in which die premieres of
Zdeněk Fibich
were introduced
to the public became a model for other Czech artists. The composer would work
closely with director and
regisseur;
tlie
critic would acknowledge die fundamental
stance of the creative work within the circle of their contemporaries, whedier diey
valued good structure in
α
libretto, inspired orchestration, or disliked exalted
321
theatricality, not sufficiently Czech, concessions to the public. In addition,
a well-functioning business enabled the publishing activity of the
Urbánek
family.
The public often had access to the piano edition of
a Fibich
composition before
its first performance.
Velebín Urbánek
(1853-1892)
and particularly his brother
František Augustin
(1842-1919)
with his son
Mojmír
(1873-1919)
understood
the significance of the growth of publicity. They provided information about
Fibich s creative plans and championed his compositions in the pages of the
music journal
Dalibor.
As a result of Dvoraks sojourn in America
(1892-1895)
as well as his connec¬
tions with the Berlin publishing house of Fritz Simrock and allies in Vienna (such
as Johannes Brahms,
Eduard Hanslick),
and his surprising turn from symphonic
and chamber music to
a Neoromantic
direction (music drama, symphonic poem),
two opposing factions emerged in Prague during the 1890s. One honored the
world famous
Dvořák,
said to be not overly conspicuous in Prague itself; the
other, the glorified, greatly talented post-Smetana musical dramatist
Fibich.
The
so-called fight against
Antonín Dvořák
flared up during World War I. This perni¬
cious struggle between the
Dvořák
and
Fibich
camps (and possibly the
Dvořák
and
Smetana
camps as well) replaced the previous atmosphere of calm evaluation
by significant contacts and circles providing inspiration. This situation, along
with the inadequate practical experience with staging opera works that certain
stars of the operatic stage had, led and still leads to the unsatisfactory state of
Czech music history for the era around
1900.
But it is obvious that without
Fibich
and his students (such as
Ludvík Vítězslav Čelanský, Karel
Weis,
Karel
Kovařovic, and Otakar Ostrčil),
one could hardly explain how Prague became
one of the principal centers of
avantgarde
music theater between the first and
second world wars. Fibich s opera works from the 1890s can serve as a measure
for all compositions written at the end of the long nineteenth century
-
those
by J. B.
Foerster
and
Janáček,
who sought countryside themes to find a path from
threatening
primitivism
in timeless, powerful humanism; as well as those by
Karel
Kovařovic,
whose opera The Logheads is sad evidence of a person shutting himself
up in a national-historic theme which seemed inherently, even automatically, to
involve the entire style of grand opera. In Czech lands, Fibich s operas also became
the basis for exemplary manifestations of grandiose Romanticism, for which their
young composers deliberately sought a different conceptual world. Coming to
terms with
Fibich,
whether it be in a positive or negative way, affects not only our
perceptions of
Ostrčil
and
Vítězslav Novák,
but also
Bohuslav Martinů.
Translated from
Jiří Kopecký
s
Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let
19.
sto¬
letí by
Judith Fiehler, @
copyright
on behalf of
Jiří Kopecký
by Judith Fiehler,
November
10, 2008,
Washington, D.C.
322
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Kopecký, Jiří |
| author_facet | Kopecký, Jiří |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Kopecký, Jiří |
| author_variant | j k jk |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV035502486 |
| classification_rvk | LP 63780 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)608756925 (DE-599)BVBBV035502486 |
| discipline | Musikwissenschaft |
| edition | 1. vyd. |
| era | Geschichte 1890-1900 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 1890-1900 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01882nam a2200433 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV035502486</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20150311 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">090522s2008 agl| |||| 00||| cze d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788024421919</subfield><subfield code="9">978-80-244-2191-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)608756925</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV035502486</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">cze</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-703</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LP 63780</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)107408:</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kopecký, Jiří</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století</subfield><subfield code="c">Jiří Kopecký</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="250" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1. vyd.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Olomouc</subfield><subfield code="b">Univ. Palackého, Filozofická Fak.</subfield><subfield code="c">2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">350, XII S.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., Notenbeisp.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Monografie</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Operas written by Zdeněk Fibich during the 1890s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="600" ind1="1" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Fibich, Zdeněk</subfield><subfield code="d">1850-1900</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)117749443</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1890-1900</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Oper</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4043582-9</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Fibich, Zdeněk</subfield><subfield code="d">1850-1900</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)117749443</subfield><subfield code="D">p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Oper</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4043582-9</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1890-1900</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung UB Bayreuth</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017558688&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017558688&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-017558688</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">780.9</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09034</subfield><subfield code="g">4371</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| id | DE-604.BV035502486 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-09T21:39:03Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788024421919 |
| language | Czech |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-017558688 |
| oclc_num | 608756925 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-703 DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-703 DE-12 |
| physical | 350, XII S. Ill., Notenbeisp. |
| publishDate | 2008 |
| publishDateSearch | 2008 |
| publishDateSort | 2008 |
| publisher | Univ. Palackého, Filozofická Fak. |
| record_format | marc |
| series2 | Monografie |
| spelling | Kopecký, Jiří Verfasser aut Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století Jiří Kopecký 1. vyd. Olomouc Univ. Palackého, Filozofická Fak. 2008 350, XII S. Ill., Notenbeisp. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Monografie Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Operas written by Zdeněk Fibich during the 1890s Fibich, Zdeněk 1850-1900 (DE-588)117749443 gnd rswk-swf Geschichte 1890-1900 gnd rswk-swf Oper (DE-588)4043582-9 gnd rswk-swf Fibich, Zdeněk 1850-1900 (DE-588)117749443 p Oper (DE-588)4043582-9 s Geschichte 1890-1900 z DE-604 Digitalisierung UB Bayreuth application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017558688&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017558688&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Kopecký, Jiří Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století Fibich, Zdeněk 1850-1900 (DE-588)117749443 gnd Oper (DE-588)4043582-9 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)117749443 (DE-588)4043582-9 |
| title | Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století |
| title_auth | Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století |
| title_exact_search | Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století |
| title_full | Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století Jiří Kopecký |
| title_fullStr | Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století Jiří Kopecký |
| title_full_unstemmed | Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století Jiří Kopecký |
| title_short | Opery Zdeňka Fibicha z devadesátých let 19. století |
| title_sort | opery zdenka fibicha z devadesatych let 19 stoleti |
| topic | Fibich, Zdeněk 1850-1900 (DE-588)117749443 gnd Oper (DE-588)4043582-9 gnd |
| topic_facet | Fibich, Zdeněk 1850-1900 Oper |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017558688&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=017558688&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kopeckyjiri operyzdenkafibichazdevadesatychlet19stoleti |