BOHUSLAV MARTINŮ’S NOTES ON JANÁČEK’S INTRODUCTION TO THE MORAVIAN FOLKSONGS NEWLY

This text is concerned with the commentary of Bohuslav Martinů on František Bartoš and Leoš Janáček’s Moravian Folksongs Newly Collected (1901) and its Janáček’s introduction On Musical Aspects of Moravian National Songs, which in 1954–5 Martinů outlined in letters to Zdeňek Zouhar (16 November, 1954), Jaroslav Procházka (8 January, 1955) and Polička (6 January, 1955). These serve to demonstrate the origins of Bohuslav Martinů’s essay On Janáček. Miloš Šafránek, the editor, thus entitled the 8 January letter to Procházka when he reproduced it in the book of B. Martinů’s texts called Home, Music and the World (1966).


BOHUSLAV MARTINŮ'S NOTES ON JANÁČEK'S INTRODUCTION TO THE MORAVIAN FOLKSONGS NEWLY COLLECTED (NÁRODNÍ PÍSNĚ MORAVSKÉ V NOVĚ NASBÍRANÉ). 1
"Novák is not my thing and never was.Janáček however I adore." 2 In this tactless and curt manner, Bohuslav Martinů rounded off his letter of 16 February,  1935 to Miloš Šafránek, written in Polička, his family home in the Czech Republic until 1938.He was equally dismissive of Darius Milhaud and Francis Poulenc, whilst according Igor Stravinsky a place next to Janáček.Bohuslav Martinů waxed more lyrical on Janáček elsewhere in his writing.In numerous articles and letters Martinů extolled the exclusivity of this Moravian composer, whose compositions he had studied, and whose scores he himself owned.Even though the two differ on compositional poetics, one of Bohuslav Martinů's major idioms is likewise linked to Janáček, the harmonic connection known as "Mährische Kadenz" (the Moravian cadence) 3 , or "Julietta's connection" 4 , and this despite the fact that it references (as noted by Jan Trojan) 5 Dvořák's New World Symphony.This, which Martinů valued above all in Janáček, was the reason why in his compositions he reacted to Moravian musical folklore, how he differentiated himself from other 19th and 20th century composers in his approach to it, and simultaneously how "unsentimental" and "unpathetic" he was in drawing from them.As to the rest, Martinů formulated his own nationalist conception of Czech modern music and its links with folklore based on that of Janáček, which he had laid out in his 1941 autobiography.Martinů got to know Leoš Janáček as a folklorist in far greater detail in late 1954 when -as he himself testified not for the first time -he came across the Moravian Folksongs Newly Collected 6 with its introduction by Janáček, the evidence for which comes from Martinů's text entitled On Janáček. 7 We are made aware not only of the inspiration Martinů drew from the aforementioned foreword, but also how many of the findings he presented as his own were predicated on judgments of Janáček's. 8 This manifest most clearly in a comparison of two letters from the turn of 1954-5, to then-conductor of the OPUS choir and later University library music section head in Brno, Zdeněk Zouhar (1927-2011), and to musical publicist Jaroslav Procházka (1918-1992).This essential comparison is above all due to the fact that the Procházka letter is identical to the text of On Janáček by Martinů.For Miloš Šafránek the letter was the source for text of the book Home, Music and the World.This is perhaps also the reason why certain "deductive trails" can be traced back to the Procházka letter.
First, however, let's take a little sidetrack.In the segment of the Bohuslav Martinů library held in the Paul Sacher Stiftung in Basel, there are only three Janáček compositions, Taras Bulba (with the motive of the Halbreich "Moravian cadence" comment) the 1925 Břetislav Bakala arrangement for piano duet; and two piano cycles, On an overgrown path and In the mist.Along with the duet version of Taras Bulba, Martinů was very familiar with the full score of that piece, as the composer's notes make clear. 9Although both the Basel institution and the Bohuslav Martinů Centre in Polička contain no other works by Janáček, the Martinů correspondence makes it clear that in the 1950s he was greatly interested in Janáček's male voice choral works, particularly with reference to preparations for the cantata The Mountain of Three Lights H. 349.In 1954 he wrote to Karel Šebánek requesting that he should send him "Janáček's male voice choral compositions, at least the major works (Klekánica etc.) Send the Mass air mail, the rest can take their time." 11A week later, Martinů wrote again for the male voice choral compositions, but this time just Janáček's."Send me the Janáček male voice choral compositions and the Field Mass." 12 Even if further correspondence fails to clarify if Martinů obtained the works from Šebánek, it is evident he was thoroughly familiar with them.When he completed The Brigand's Songs H. 361, he excused the demands on tenors with a Janáček comparison, "I must apologise to the tenors (as well as in the rest of the collection for PT), they are high ranged, but I could not avoid it, after all, they are used to it from Janáček." 13 The second cycle of The Brigand's Songs Martinů dedicated to the Moravian Teachers' Choir, who were themselves well versed in Janáček.
Less than two months after Martinů's urgent requests to Šebánek, other publications came his way from Moravia.On 6 September, 1954 he wrote to Brno conductor Zdeňek Zouhar, "Now, if it isn't too much trouble for you, what I would actually like to have is the Janáček, namely, if I am not mistaken, the second volume of Janáček's Moravian Songs published by the Czech Academy, which contains religious songs." 14He had in mind the Moravian Folksongs Newly Collected by Janáček and František Bartoš, published in 1901 by Franz Josef the Czech Academy of Science, fine literature and arts.Here likewise, it was part of his search for an appropriate text for preparing The Mountain of Three Lights.Even though Martinů modified the collection himself and recalled that he had owned it, 15 but his later statements sounded as if he were studying it for the first time.He wrote to Zouhar, "It's a pity that I did not know this collection before" 16 and later, in a similar spirit, he wrote to Jaroslav Procházka, "I myself, for example, have come to know the Bartoš book (Czech Academy)  me." 17 The folk song collection and Janáček's introduction had a great impact on Martinů, as is evident from letters to Zouhar (16 November, 1954) and Procházka  (8 January, 1955).The former being quoted by the recipient in a 1957 volume on Martinů 18 .The latter has been better known for 40 years, at least in essence, as Martinů's essay On Janáček, as it was titled by Miloš Šafránek in his 1966 edition of Bohuslav Martinů: Home, Music and the World. 19Before we launch into a detailed side-by-side comparison of the two letters with On Janáček, let's track back another of those "deductive trials".
It was at the Brno colloquium in 1978 that Jaroslav Procházka clearly and publicly revealed the roots of On Janáček, and that it had been partially published in 1955 in the programme for the Prague pre-premiere of B. Martinů's cantata The Opening of the Springs H. 354.In his Brno report, Procházka identified the "guilty party" as Miloš Šafránek 20 .He didn't fail to emphasise that: "Šafránek came to my flat, while I was ill, to get the letter!He printed it in full, omitting only the name and address, the date and origin: Nice, 8 January 1955!In its place he appended the following mystifying identification, 'Sborník  Valašsko 1954/55' [Wallachian Volume], where it evidently wasn't printed!" 21 It becomes clear that, from the writing in On Janáček, it cannot be shown that these topics first arose in Martinů's responses to a questionnaire from Jaroslav Procházka on Moravian folklore.The only source cited here is "Sborník Valašsko 1954/55".However, from a comparison of the correspondence with Procházka is becomes clear that this was the only thing for which Šafránek was responsible.Procházka's indignation is perfectly understandable, though from his footnote it emerges that Martinů's responses were sent to, for him, at the time, an unknown author.Said author sent the questionnaire via Polička, from where it was sent on by sister Marie Martinů, rather than direct to the composer himself in Nice, where the composer lived at the time.Bohuslav Martinů himself noted on 6 January, 1955 in a letter to Polička, "I've just received your letter and the questions from Wallachia.I'll answer it directly, as I'm curious about a theme I've written to Zouhar

about, the need to do something to preserve the roots of song and dance on record to save transcription; the others are purely academic examples of harmony." 22
Even the envelope of Procházka's fifth letter is not without interest.This was sent by Martinů on 11 June, 1955, to "J.Procházka / Valašsko / Náměstí Krasnoarmějců 80 / Praha I", whereas earlier correspondence was sent to Procházka's home address.
Procházka himself, in the Brno report recalled that a mildly amended quote from Martinů was printed in 1955.Jan Seidel "commissioned the editing and printing of the programme" 23 for the composer's 65 birthday.On the reverse side a slightly abridged extract was printed which, in the Prague of that time, and above all in the context of the Composers' Association, could have been taken in a different manner to Martinů's intention.Even today it could strike as paradoxical lip service to social realism in the name of Janáček: "Throughout my long stay abroad our national songs have never been far from my thoughts and soul, and I'm grateful to you for your notes on my passionate relationship with our songs and above all Moravian ones.[…] Our man-made music is a natural outgrowth of our national song and dancing, which are the soul of the nation.In every beat and bar of our masters we see its tracks and influence.Our creations have gone out into the world in every possible way, but national song has never lost touch with its roots.Moravian song, its originality and ardency, has great influence on the development of man-made music and is a self-renewing source of possibilities.They are sound, unsentimental songs.I know of nothing healthier than Moravian song.In this case we have the example of Janáček, who employed it and opened up a distinctive path, where music grows not from imitation, but straight from national song and language, and speak to the heart of man Bohuslav Martinů obviously put his emphasis elsewhere than might appear from this out-of-context extract.As he wrote to Polička, his primary interest in the Procházka questions arose from the matter of authentic folk music.Here, as earlier in his letters to Zouhar, the paramount concern was with the harmonic exclusivity of Moravian folk songs, and how their authentic harmonised form is preserved and accessible, as it is in the case of the melody of genuine folk music.To both correspondents he recommended the formation of authentic harmonised folksong collections and their preservation on records.It is clear that he experienced Bartoš's third collection of Moravian songs with its Janáček preface far more intensively than ever before.The hidden leitmotif of both letters was Janáček's warning, "Such an error in determining song keys can occur if we do not hear a song in its entirety and harmonic explicitness, i.e. if we do not hear a song also played by folk musicians. 25he harmonic layering was Martinů's focus in both letters.To Zouhar he went on to echo Janáček's observation, "When looking merely at a melody notation, I myself am often bewildered as to what exactly the song requires and what is the authentic harmonisation.Harmony also changes with songs accompanied by bagpipes and cymbalom." 26And obviously he also alerted Procházka to the fact that "when I read through the Bartoš collection, I gathered that, in six out of ten cases, I was confused as to how to harmonise, and I was convinced that I was close to an authentic version, suitable to the originality of these songs.And I myself grew up near your area, and the songs around me were Moravian." 27With the previous mention of variation in the harmonisation of songs with the addition of bagpipes and cymbalom 28 , Martinů links up to Janáček, who described the effect of "gajdy" (bagpipes) 29 , "cymbál" (cimbalom) 30 and "husle" (violin) 31 "on speech-melody of songs" 32 .Likewise, in the letter to Procházka, we find "[…] for harmonisation there is a great difference if the dance was accompanied by violin, cimbalom or 'gajdy' (bagpipes)." 33This was similarly opined without reference to Janáček's preface, as though it were the original thoughts of Martinů.A number of other motifs from the Janáček text are, in a comparable manner, redressed as the musings of Martinů.The composer did not employ the term "Moravian modulation", but in the spirit of Janáček he describes to Zouhar the characteristic, "I mean by this transitions to the VII scale degree, as well as the sharpened fourth." 34To Zouhar he likewise explained, "There are many details, such as the Moravian sharpened fourth, the jump to the VII scale degree, which do not occur anywhere in world literature." 35e only made oblique reference to the Janáček text, when, in the Zouhar letters, he demonstrated several variations in the harmonisation of the songs Musicians, what are you doing, On the hill at Tvrdonice and Johnny's heading to the valley. 36ven here, he quickly and clearly returns to the Janáček preface.
Even with the repeated paraphrases of Janáček, Martinů, in both letters, pointed out Janáček's use of specific terminology.To Zouhar he writes, "As regards terms, there is a lot I do not understand but it is an illuminating read and should (with minor modifications of terms) be published separately so as to be available." 37He shares a similar experience with Procházka: "His personal terminology obviously makes it quite difficult, and often even incomprehensible to me, since I am not fully conversant with his terms.I believe this text should be published separately, obviously with only the essential musical examples, which testify to the originality of the songs and their formulation.It will be important to push for greater awareness of harmonisation in songs." 38Janáček's introduction to the Janáček-Bartoš folk song collection from 1901 was released in the text collection 33 "[…] pro harmonizaci je velký rozdíl, zdali tanec byl doprovázen houslemi, cimbálem nebo gajdou."Letter to Jaroslav Procházka dated 8 January 1955, IBM, Pro 1955-01-08; compare  MARTINŮ, Bohuslav.On Janáček.In MARTINŮ 1966, p. 355