Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T10:00:18.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Operas and Melodramas of Zdeněk Fibich (1850–1900)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1982

Jan Smaczny
Get access

Extract

In a monograph entitled Zdenko Fibich published within a year of the composer's death, the musicologist Zdeněk Nejedlý asked the following question: ‘And who was more versatile than Fibich?’ The answer as far as Nejedlý was concerned was: ‘No one in the whole of the nineteenth century.’ Many of Fibich's contemporaries were quite certain that he occupied a position equal to his more internationally successful colleague Antonín Dvořák. Evidence of his contemporary standing is abundant, and his position in the firmament of Czech composers was characteristically summed up by William Ritter in 1896 when he described Fibich as the ‘Son’ in the ‘Holy Trinity’ of Czech music, in which Smetana was, naturally enough, the ‘Father’ and Dvořák the ‘Holy Spirit’. In an obituary article the critic Emanuel Chvála had no hesitation in putting Fibich next to Dvořák as ‘… the most eminent of our contemporary composers’. Nejedlý's assertion concerning Fibich's versatility is not entirely unworthy of examination. He contributed to many genres and expanded the scope of his theatrical activities with his cultivation of scenic melodrama. As a composer of opera Fibich stood aside from his Czech contemporaries in his deliberate avoidance of folk-orientated material and his compulsive interest in theatrical experiment. His intellectual demeanour led to collaborations with the finest Czech librettists of the time, and a close identification with the views of the aesthetician Otakar Hostinský (1847–1910). Believing strongly in the role of experiment in art, 4 and with a firm commitment to the principles of Wagnerian music drama, Hostinský was an ideal partner for the composer in the opera The Bride of Messina, the work which set the seal upon Fibich's position as an innovative force in Czech musical theatre.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association , Volume 109 , 1982 , pp. 119 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 The Royal Musical Association and the Authors

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Zdeněk Nejedlý, Zdenko Fibich, zakladatel scénického melodrama [Zdenko Fibich, the Founder of Scenic Melodrama] (Prague, 1901), 21.Google Scholar

2 William Ritter, Národní listy (Prague, 8 April 18%); repr. A. Rektorys, Zdeněk Fibich: sborník dokumentß a studií [Zdeněk Fibich: Collection of Documents and Studies] (henceforth AR) (Prague, 1951–2) i, 189–90.Google Scholar

3 Emanuel Chvála, ‘Za Zdeňkem Fibich’ [‘To Zdeněk Fibich’], Národní politika (Prague, 21 October 1900); AR, i, 256–61.Google Scholar

4 Otakar Hostinský, ‘O estetice experimentální [‘Concerning Aesthetic Experiment’], Česká mysl (1900).Google Scholar

5 AR, op. cit.Google Scholar

6 Compiled from: V. A. J. Hornové, Čaká zpěvohra [Czech Opera] (Prague, 1903); Jan Němeček, Národní Divadlo v období Karla Kovařovice [The National Theatre in the Time of Karel Kovařovic] (Prague, 1968); The author's own list of repertoire in the Provisional and National Theatres.Google Scholar

7 O. Hostinský, Vzpomínky na Fibicha [Reminiscences of Fibich] (Prague, 1909), 8.Google Scholar

8 Jaroslav Jiránek, Zdeněk Fibich (Prague, 1963), 21.Google Scholar

9 Z. Nejedlý, Čská moderní zpěùohra [Modern Czech Operas] (Prague, 1911), 19–20.Google Scholar

10 Eliška Krásnohorská, ‘O české deklamaci hudební’, Hudební listy, ii (1871), 1–3.Google Scholar

11 O. Hostinský, ‘Wagnerianismus a česká národní opera’ [‘Wagnerianism and Czech National Opera’], Hudební listy, i (1870).Google Scholar

12 O. Hostinský, Vzpomínky na Fibicha (Prague, 1909), 8.Google Scholar

13 From MS particelle in the possession of the Museum of Czech Music, formerly in the possession of the National Theatre Archive (N. D. A 54).Google Scholar

14 O. Hostinský, Vzpomínky na Fibicha (Prague, 1909), 9–10.Google Scholar

15 For further information See Clapham, J., ‘The Smetana-Pivoda Controversy’, Music and Letters, iii (1971), 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 J. Jiránck, op. cit., 51.Google Scholar

17 Fibich, Z., Blaník (Prague, ? 1897), 136–7.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., 135–6.Google Scholar

19 E. Krásnohorská, Blaník (? 2nd edn., Prague, 1926), 46.Google Scholar

20 AR, ii, 641: letter to Betty Fibichová after premiere of Blaník.Google Scholar

21 O. Hojonský, ‘Wagnerianismus a česká národní opera’, Hudební listy, i (1870).Google Scholar

22 O. Hostinjký, ‘O estetice experimentální’, Čtská mysl (1900).Google Scholar

23 Schiller, op. cit., author's translation.Google Scholar

24 Zdcněk Fibich, Nevěsta Messinská [The Bride of Messina] (7 May 1882), MS vocal score, sketch, in the possession of the Museum of Czech Music, Tr. B 335.Google Scholar

25 O. Hosrinský, VzpomíNky na Fibicha (Prague, 1909), 81.Google Scholar

26 Hostinský had touched on the question of the declamation of Czech in ‘Wagnerianismus a česká národní opera’, op. cit., and ‘Několik poznámek o českém slovu a zpěvu’ [‘A Few Observations Concerning Czech Words and Music’], Dalibor, iii (1875), nos. 24–31. He put his case more fully and systematically in O české deklamaci hudební [Concerning Czech Musical Datamation] (Prague, 1886); repr. from Dalibor (1882), nos. 1–8, 10–12, 18.Google Scholar

27 Zdeněk Fibich, Nevěsta Messinská (3rd edn., Prague, 1922), 11.Google Scholar

28 V. J. Novotný, “Nevěsta Messinská”, Pokrok, 89 (1884); repr. AR, i, 90–6.Google Scholar

29 E. Chvála, Politik (30 March 1884); repr. AR, i, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 A. Schulzová, ‘Zdenko Fibich: hrstka upomínek a intimních rysů’ [‘Zdenko Fibich: a Handful of Reminiscences and Intimate Outlines’], Květy, xxiv (1902); repr. AR, ii, 181.Google Scholar

31 O. Hostinský, ‘O melodramatu’ [‘Concerning Melodrama’], Lumír, iv-v (1885), 55–57, 71–74.Google Scholar

32 A. Schulzová, op. cit.; repr. AR, ii, 185.Google Scholar

33 O. Hostinský, Vzpomínky na Fibicha (Prague, 1909), 128.Google Scholar

34 C. L. Richter (pseudonym of A. Schulzová), Zdenko Fibich: Eine musikalische Sillhouette (Prague, 1900), 70.Google Scholar

35 Zdeněk Fibich, Námluvy Pelopovy [Pelops' Courtship], ed. L. Boháček and J. Jindřich, Zdeněk Fibich Society (Prague, 1950), 114.Google Scholar

36 E. Chvála, ‘Námluvy Pelopovy’ [‘Pelops’ Courtship'], Národní Politika (22 February, 1890); repr. AR, i, 131–133.Google Scholar

37 Karel Knittl, Světozor, xxiv, no. 16 (7 March 1890), 191; repr. AR, i, 139–40.Google Scholar

38 Z. Nejedlý, Zdeňka Fibicha milostný denik [Fibich's Erotic Diary] (Prague, 1925/1948); see also G. Abraham, ‘An Erotic Diary for Piano’, Slavonic and Romantic Music (London, 1968).Google Scholar

39 376 pieces published in four volumes as Nálady, dojmy a upomínky [Moods, Impressions and Reminiscences], op. 41 (1894), op. 44 (1895), op. 47 (1896), op. 57 (1902).Google Scholar

40 John Tyrrell, ‘Fibich, Zdeněk’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London, 1980), vi, 520–6.Google Scholar

41 A. Schulzová, op. cit.; repr. AR, ii, 186.Google Scholar

42 Ibid, AR, ii, 188.Google Scholar

43 Zdeněk Fibich, Hedy (2nd edn., Prague, ? 1922), 173.Google Scholar

44 J. Vrchlický, Mythy (Prague, 1880), ii.Google Scholar

45 Knittl, K., Dalibor, xx, nos. 10–11 (8 January 1898) 71–2; repr. AR, i, 215.Google Scholar