Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
(b Litomyšl, 2 March 1824; d Prague, 12 May 1884). Czech composer, conductor
and critic. The first Czech nationalist composer and the most important of the
new generation of Czech opera composers writing from the 1860s. His eight
operas established a canon of Czech operas to serve as models for Czech
nationalist opera and have remained in the Czech repertory ever since. Such
was the force of his musical personality that his musical style became
synonymous with Czech nationalist style, his name a rallying point for the
polemics which were to continue in Czech musical life into the next century.
1. Youth and training, 1824–47.
2. At the beginnings of a musical career, 1848–56.
3. In search of recognition abroad: Sweden, 1856–61.
4. In national life, 1862–74.
5. Final years, 1874–84.
6. Operas.
7. Orchestral works.
8. Chamber music.
9. Piano works.
10. Posthumous reputation.
MARTA OTTLOVÁ (1–5, 7–9, work­list), MILAN POSPÍŠIL (bibliography), JOHN
TYRRELL (6, 10)
Smetana, Bedřich
1. Youth and training, 1824–47.
As a master brewer Smetana's father František (Franz) Smetana (1777–1857)
was a comparatively rich man with cultural pretentions which included domestic
music­making as a member of a string quartet. He initiated his son into the
elements of music when he was four. Soon, however, he entrusted him to the
care of a tradesman Jan Chmelík (1777–1849), who organized musical events
for the owner of the estate, Count Waldstein, from whom Smetana's father rented
the Litomyšl brewery. At first Smetana learnt the violin, but the piano took his
fancy even more. He demonstrated his talent publicly at the age of six at a
student concert in Litomyšl, where he played a piano arrangement of the
overture to Auber's La muette di Portici. His father, however, had different plans
for his son and so, after finishing his main schooling, Smetana continued at the
gymnasium. He attended several: in Neuhaus (now Jindřichův Hradec) 1834–5,
Iglau (Jihlava) 1835–6, Deutschbrod (Havlíčkův Brod) 1836–9, and finally in
Prague 1839–40. Here his not very successful studies culminated in his
abandoning school altogether, attracted as he was more to the social and
cultural life of Prague. With fellow students he played in a quartet for which he
arranged pieces heard at promenade concerts by military bands. The
seriousness which even then he brought to bear on his musical activities is
attested by the first list of compositions which he entered in his diary in 1841,
although only one of these pieces survives intact: his Louisen­Polka for piano.
After the inevitable break with his father, Smetana was saved from a career as a
clerk by his older cousin, Josef František Smetana, a Czech patriot and teacher
at the Premonstratensian Gymnasium in Plzeň, where, under his watchful eye,
Smetana completed his studies. An enthusiastic dancer, who liked entertaining
a whole company, Smetana composed mainly dance and salon pieces for piano
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
at that time ‘in total ignorance of a spiritual musical education’, as he later noted
on the Overture in C minor for four hands. But he also recorded his aims in his
diary (23 January 1843): ‘By the grace of God and with his help I will one day be
a Liszt in technique and a Mozart in composition’. With the agreement of his
father he returned to Prague in October 1843, having decided to devote himself
only to music.
In view of his father's worsened financial circumstances Smetana was unable to
depend on help from home and his plans changed into worries over his very
existence. However, fortune smiled on him at the beginning of 1844 when, on
the recommendation of the director of the Prague Conservatory Johann Friedrich
Kittl, he acquired a place as music teacher to the family of Count Leopold Thun.
Furthermore Anna Kolářová (Kolar), mother of his later wife Kateřina (Katharina),
whom Smetana had worshipped from his time in Plzeň, introduced him to
Joseph Proksch, with whom Kateřina was studying the piano and who now
accepted Smetana as a private composition pupil. Proksch's musical institute
belonged to the most important in Prague, his teaching methods were the most
modern in Europe. He taught composition from the second edition (1841–2) of
the latest textbook, Die Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition by Adolf
Bernhard Marx, which, in line with Proksch's views, was based mainly on
Beethoven but also drew from Berlioz, Chopin and the Leipzig circle and
exerted a huge influence on Smetana's development as a composer. Smetana
did indeed start from scratch. A fine series of assignments survives
demonstrating a systematic development from simple harmonic exercises to a
mastery of forms, crowned in 1846 by the Piano Sonata in G minor. He proudly
showed the piece to Robert and Clara Schumann, who were giving concerts in
Prague in January 1847 but, as we read in their diaries, they disapproved of it as
being too Berlioz­like. Naturally Smetana did not confine himself to set
assignments. He wrote piano pieces inspired by the refined salon and virtuoso
output of the time (Henselt, Chopin, Schumann) and his first piano cycle,
Bagatelles et impromptus. In the middle of 1847 Smetana completed his studies
with Proksch and almost at the same time (1 June 1847) ended his teaching at
the Thuns. The reason for his departure from the Thuns is given in his diary for
1847: ‘I wanted to travel the world as a virtuoso, accumulating money and
gaining a public position as a choirmaster, conductor or teacher’. He also
planned to organize his own orchestra.
Smetana, Bedřich
2. At the beginnings of a musical career, 1848–56.
Smetana wished to secure an independent existence as a musician for himself.
He tried making a living as a virtuoso, but the concert tour (to western Bohemia)
of an unknown pianist with a most demanding programme (Beethoven,
Mendelssohn, Chopin and Liszt filled out with his own piano fantasy Böhmische
Melodien) ended in failure. So on 28 January 1848 he requested permission
from the Provincial Government to open a music institute: his main concern was
to acquire the financial means to open it. In straitened circumstances he wrote a
letter to Liszt (23 March 1848), who was known for his support of young artists,
asking him to accept the dedication of his piano cycle Six morceaux
caractéristiques op.1 and help find a publisher for it. He also asked for the loan
of 400 gulden. Liszt encouraged Smetana with words but no loan. He accepted
the dedication and, after a reminder in December 1848 when Smetana looked
him up on his way through Prague, Liszt recommended op.1 to the Leipzig
publisher Kistner, who published it in 1851.
At the beginning of the summer, permission for the institute was granted and on
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
8 August 1848 it began its activities. Smetana supplemented his income from
the generally prospering institute with fees from private lessons, especially in
aristocratic families (this included visits to the castle to play to the deposed
Emperor Ferdinand). Thanks to this he was able to start a family. On 27 August
1849 he married Kateřina Kolářová, who bore him four daughters, three of
whom, however, died by 1856. The public concerts of the pupils from the
institute, with Smetana's participation, became a respected part of Prague
musical life. In addition Smetana took part in the musical life of the town as a
chamber player and as an organizer of chamber concerts. In 1854 he
participated in the Beethoven celebration, in 1856 in the even grander Mozart
celebrations, when his piano playing was widely praised by the critics. On 26
February 1855 he organized his first and successful independent concert where
he made his début as a conductor, giving the première of his Triumf­Sinfonie.
Smetana was drawn into public events especially by the group of Prague artists,
Concordia, founded in 1846. And it was more an attempt to attract attention to
himself than a wish to manifest deeply felt political convictions which led him to
the production of occasional pieces in the revolutionary year 1848. He dedicated
two piano marches to two quite different organizations, the National Guard
(organized by the state to protect persons and property) and to the radical
student legion, which was ultimately banned by the state. His unison march with
piano Píseň svobody (‘Song of Freedom’), his only piece up to 1860 with a
Czech text, did not, however, come before the public. After the marches, which
were his first compositions to be published and one of which also appeared in
editions orchestrated by the bandmaster Jan Pavlis, followed the publication in
Prague of his Trois polkas de salon and Trois polkas poètiques. These initiated
a whole series culminating at the end of the 1870s with the České tance (‘Czech
Dances’), which tended towards a type of idealized dance ‘in the manner of
Chopin's mazurkas’, he noted in his diary in 1859. He also contributed to the
fashionable genre of albumleaves, which he later arranged in cycles. Smetana
hoped for a response to his work and sent some of his pieces for an opinion to
his models Clara Schumann and Liszt.
After his first substantial orchestral work, the Jubel­Ouverture (1848–9), he
completed his first and only symphony in 1854. This Triumf­Sinfonie, however,
intended to be dedicated to the marriage of Franz Joseph I with Elisabeth of
Bavaria, is also just another example of his attempts to attain artistic and social
prestige. His finest work at this point in his life was his Piano Trio in G minor.
Smetana was hurt by the lack of comprehension among the Prague critics after
the première. All the more satisfaction, then, he derived from Liszt's recognition
of this work. At last he had occasion to get to know him personally over a longer
period when Liszt was in Prague rehearsing his Missa solemnis zur Einweihung
des Basilika in Gran, which he conducted in September 1856. By that time,
however, Smetana had decided to leave Prague and take up the offer mediated
by the pianist Alexander Dreyschock to become a music teacher in the Swedish
town of Göteborg.
Smetana, Bedřich
3. In search of recognition abroad: Sweden, 1856–61.
‘Prague did not wish to acknowledge me, so I left it’, Smetana informed his
parents in a letter of 23 December 1856, two months after his arrival in Sweden
(16 October 1856). Although he had not fared badly financially in Prague,
teaching in Göteborg, a commercially rich town, brought him more money. Apart
from private lessons, immediately on his arrival he opened a music institute, and
one year later a ladies’ singing school. In the mid­1840s Prague was a city of
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
culture which fêted Berlioz, Liszt and the Schumanns and with a theatre which,
in the 1850s, was a meeting point where all types of opera (Meyerbeer, Verdi
and Wagner) were performed. In comparison Göteborg was merely provincial.
‘People are here continually firmly trapped in antediluvian artistic opinions.
Mozart for them is the subject of unbounded admiration but at the same time they
don't understand him. They are frightened of Beethoven, they proclaim
Mendelssohn as indigestible and they are unaware of any more recent
composers' (Smetana to Liszt, 10 April 1857). He added: ‘Here I have a splendid
opportunity to work for progress and to cultivate the taste of the people and there
is an impact which I could never have achieved in Prague’. In the period of neo­
absolutism after 1848 in which run­of­the­mill institutionalism reigned, Prague
could provide no new job opportunities. However, Göteborg to some extent
fulfilled Smetana's goal of becoming a conductor. As director he had at his
disposal the music society Harmoniska Salskapet, through which, despite its
being amateur, he could promote his artistic orientation. This is evident from the
very names of the composers whose works he performed both at concerts of
vocal­instrumental music and at the chamber cycles he initiated. His
programmes included the works of Handel, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven,
Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Liszt, Wagner, Verdi, Rubinstein,
Gade and not surprisingly Smetana. It was Franz Liszt who drew Smetana out of
the artistic isolation which he suffered in Göteborg. The relationship of teacher
and pupil, which Smetana maintained towards Liszt all his life, was no doubt
strengthened by Smetana's two visits to Liszt in Weimar. Smetana's direction
was determined by Liszt's ideas and above all by the quantity and character of
the music which he now had the opportunity of getting to know. On the way to
Göteborg for a second season Smetana visited Liszt in Weimar, where he heard
the first performance of Liszt's Faust Symphony. ‘Regard me as your most
passionate supporter of our artistic direction who in word and deed stands for its
holy truth and also works for its aims’, he wrote to Liszt on 24 October 1858, a
year after this first trip to Weimar. Shortly before a second visit to Liszt in Weimar
(where he heard the Tristan prelude for the first time), Smetana was among the
participants at the Künsterversammlung in Leipzig in June 1859 celebrating the
25th anniversary of the founding of Schumann's Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, an
occasion where the Allgemeines Deutsches Musikverein was founded and the
‘Neudeutsche Schule’ was proclaimed. In the years 1858–61 Smetana returned
intensively to his work as a composer, exploiting ideas from these trips, and
writing his first three symphonic poems, Richard III, Walensteins Lager and
Hakon Jarl. Their orchestral performances had to wait until his return to Prague.
During his stay in Sweden there were important changes in Smetana's personal
life. The northern climate had badly affected the tuberculosis of his wife
Kateřina, who died in Dresden on 19 April 1859, on the way home to Bohemia.
During a holiday in Bohemia Smetana became acquainted with Bettina
(Barbara) Ferdinandi (the sister­in­law of his brother Karel) and returned to
Sweden already with the promise of marriage. These circumstances
strengthened his ties to his homeland and so, after his second marriage (10 July
1860), he set off in the autumn of 1860 with Bettina and his surviving daughter
Žofie to Sweden for a final season. It was not only personal reasons which drew
Smetana back to his homeland. Throughout all this time he had carefully
followed events at home (he read the Prague newspaper Bohemia) and the
news which especially interested him was that of the imminent formation of a
permanent Czech professional theatre, the Czech Provisional Theatre. Hopes
appeared of new possibilities of employment, strengthened by political
developments arising from the promises made in the emperor's October Diploma
of 1860. In any event the pettiness of Göteborg's environment had already
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
become unbearable. ‘follow other goals. … I cannot bury myself in Göteborg. … I
must attempt finally to publish my compositions and create for myself the
opportunity to gain new ideas. … Therefore up into the world and soon!’ (diary,
31 March 1861). After the financial failure of two final attempts at the career of a
travelling piano virtuoso (Stockholm, Norrköping, Cologne, Leiden), Smetana
returned home to Bohemia for good.
Smetana, Bedřich
4. In national life, 1862–74.
In order to draw attention to himself Smetana organized two concerts in Prague
in January 1862, a piano recital and an orchestral concert. The latter, at which
the premières of the symphonic poems Richard III and Wallensteins Lager were
given, demonstrated that his name was still not familiar enough to fill what was
then the largest concert hall in Prague, on the Žofín island, which he had hired
for the occasion. In the spring of 1862 he went once again for almost three
months to Göteborg (March to May 1862). In October 1863, together with his
friend the experienced teacher Ferdinand Heller, he opened a music institute in
Prague, which was active until 1866. Vigorously Smetana set about making a
new artistic existence for himself in Prague. Through his pupil and later
propagandist Jan Ludevít Procházka he was initiated into Czech society of the
Měšťanská Beseda (Townspeople's Society) and made his views and new
ideas known in discussions at the regular Tuesday meetings of the Czech élite
in the home of Rudolf Thurn­Taxis. During Smetana's youth, teaching in the
Austrian higher education system was given exclusively in German. Smetana's
education, like that of all Czechs of his generation, had consequently been in
German with the result that he expressed himself more naturally in German. The
decision to engage in Czech national life and identify with the aims of the
national movement made him aware of his linguistic inadequacies. Surviving
exercises in Czech grammar demonstrate his attempts at remedying this and he
now began writing in Czech as a matter of course. He commented in this diary:
‘In the newly growing self­awareness of our nation I too must also make an effort
to complete my study of our beautiful language so that I, educated from
childhood only in German, can express myself easily, in speech and in writing,
just as easily in Czech as in German’.
Smetana's position in Czech society slowly became more secure. In 1863 his
biography was published, for the first time, in the music periodical Dalibor. In
1863–5 he worked as choirmaster of the recently established Czech choral
society Hlahol, the body for which most of his choral works were written. In
1864–5 he worked also as the music critic of the most important Czech daily
newspaper, Národní listy. In 1863 he was chosen as first chairman of the music
section of the artists’ society Umělecká Beseda (Artistic Society), which had
recently been founded to promote Czech artistic culture. Smetana's first
important action here in the season 1864–5 was an attempt to establish
subscription orchestral concerts. Partly for financial reasons and partly through
lack of interest by audiences more used to the so­called mixed programmes,
only three concerts took place. The most prominent event of the Umělecká
Beseda in 1864 was the celebration, on 23 April, of the 300th anniversary of the
birth of Shakespeare, at which Smetana conducted Berlioz's dramatic symphony
Roméo et Juliette and his own march for orchestra for a procession of 230
characters from Shakespeare. On 20 April 1866, at Liszt's behest, he conducted
the latter's oratorio Die Legende von der heiligen Elisabeth at a concert
organized by the Umělecká Beseda.
Not all of Smetana's attempts at establishing himself were crowned with
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
success. In 1865 he failed to be chosen as director of the Prague Conservatory
in succession to Kittl; nor was he awarded the Austrian state scholarship he
applied for. However, on 15 September 1866 he won the position that he longed
for most: after political changes in the theatre administration he was appointed
principal conductor of the Royal Provincial Czech Theatre known as the
Provisional Theatre, the first permanent Czech professional stage, which had
begun its activities in the autumn of 1862. Smetana was able to take further the
work of his predecessor, the conductor Jan Nepomuk Maýr, who in a relatively
short time had built up an ensemble and a permanent orchestra for this new
Prague stage. And like Maýr, Smetana had to make compromises because of
the theatre's precarious finances and the taste of the Czech theatrical
community. Occasionally he had to descend from the lofty attitudes he had
espoused earlier in his position as music critic of the Národní listy. Nevertheless
he managed to expand the repertory, and to continue to perform classics of
operatic literature (Gluck, Mozart, Beethoven) as well as Slavonic operas
(Glinka, Moniuszko). Understandably he performed a large number of new
works by Czech composers (Blodek, Bendl, Rozkošný, Šebor and others)
inspired by the existence of the theatre. In 1872 he was also able to establish a
singing school attached to the theatre. For eight years he worked in the theatre,
for the last two as artistic director. The position of conductor with an orchestra at
his disposal allowed him to realize his ideal of subscription orchestral concerts.
These he began on 5 December 1869 with his theatre orchestra. Later he was
able to create a larger body for this purpose by combining the orchestras of the
Czech and German theatres (from 1873 as the orchestral association
Filharmonia), taking turns at the podium with the conductor of the German
theatre Ludwig Slansky.
Smetana was well aware of the crucial role which Czech opera could play in
national life and realized that a permanent professional stage would need a
body of new Czech operas. With a few exceptions none so far existed. This
need had also been foreseen by Count Jan Harrach, who in February 1861
announced a competition for the best two Czech operas, comic and serious.
Smetana began his search for a libretto and in 1862–3 composed his first opera
Braniboři v Čechách (‘The Brandenburgers in Bohemia’). He entered it
anonymously in the Harrach competition under the motto ‘Music – the language
of feeling, word – the language of thought’, and, after three years of deliberations
by the jury, it was eventually declared the winner, on 25 March 1866. By then,
however, Smetana had already rehearsed and given its première at the
Provisional Theatre (on 5 January 1866), thus marking his début as an operatic
conductor. Its success with a public eager for Czech original operas led to the
theatre's immediately accepting a second opera by Smetana, Prodaná nevěsta
(‘The Bartered Bride’), which was already complete by that time. Although the
work went through many modifications after its unpromising première on 30 May
1866 (overshadowed by the impending war with Prussia) it began to be
gradually accepted by the public as a model Czech opera fulfilling the ideal of
opera as representative of the nation; as a comic opera, however, it was
sometimes felt to be too lightweight for such a serious purpose.
The première of a third opera by Smetana, Dalibor (16 May 1868), took place as
part of the celebrations for laying the foundation stone of the National Theatre,
the building planned to replace the tiny Provisional Theatre. The lack of success
of the opera and of his later revision in 1870 is testimony to the fact that the
Czech public could not identify with the Czech tragic hero of his opera: Dalibor
was considered too passive and did not correspond to the contemporary ideal of
the Czech knight and the historical awareness of the times. The opera was
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
castigated as an exemplar of Wagnerian polemics which, as it flooded through
Europe, affected the Czech lands in its full intensity at the beginning of the
1870s. After the first decade of uninterrupted freedom of Czech opera on the
professional stage and with the prospect of the opening of a grand new
permanent Czech theatre, the National Theatre (which, however, did not take
place until 1881), this was a time of heightened interest in the future of Czech
national opera, a time of stock­taking. The variety of types in Czech operas
(drawing on French, Italian and German traditions), a variety also evident in
Smetana’s first operas, did not make any easier the decisions of the Czech
musical public in their search for a Czech operatic style. Furthermore, Smetana
who was by no means accepted at the time as a national composer, brought no
new operas of his before the public for six years after Dalibor.
In these polemics the aesthetician Otakar Hostinský was an adherent of
Wagner. For him as an adherent of the idea of progress Wagner now
represented the most advanced stage in the evolution of opera. He wanted
Czech national opera to be created on the basis of Wagner's theories (which he
regarded as supranational) and thus go to the forefront of European musical
development. At the same time the declamatory style of Wagner's voice parts
suggested to him that correct declamation of the text could provide an
opportunity for a national element in opera since he regarded speech as a
distinctive and exclusive characteristic of the nation. He saw Smetana's Dalibor
as the beginning of this ‘correct’ direction. The position of the anti­Wagnerians
was formulated by the singing teacher František Pivoda. He defended the
principle of Italian opera in which the chief dramatic means was the expression
of the human voice in song. Wagner's operas, he contended, lacked this
particular resource on account of the through­composed role of the orchestra,
which undermined the dominance of the human voice and, according to him,
negated the principles of opera as such. Wagner he regarded as unsuitable as a
model for Czech national opera and the orchestra in Smetana's Dalibor seemed
to him Wagnerian.
Used in arguments both for and against Wagner, Smetana defended his
viewpoint with an unshaken faith in his own originality as an artist. He described
this in a letter to the conductor Adolf Čech (4 December 1882): ‘I do not write in
the style of any famous composer, I admire only their greatness, taking for myself
everything that I recognize as good and beautiful and above all truthful in art.
You have known this of me for a long time but others do not and think that I am
introducing Wagnerism!!! I've got my hands full with Smetana­ism, as long as
this style is honest’. At the time of the sharpest polemics he composed the
ceremonial opera Libuše (1869–72), followed by the salon opera Dvě vdovy
(‘The Two Widows’, 1873–4). Polemics in the daily and specialist press were
not of course only purely artistic affairs but also reflected different cultural and
political preoccupations of the time and even personal aversions. In the quarrels
about his position as conductor of the Czech theatre Smetana received support
from colleagues and the public. In 1872 a petition of Czech artists was drawn up
in favour of his continuing in the theatre. Smetana was finally reappointed, now
as artistic director, with an increased salary. After the première of The Two
Widows on 27 March 1874 his adherents ceremonially handed over a decorated
baton. But the dénouement was unexpected and for Smetana fateful. The
sudden loss of his hearing in September 1874 meant that he was forced to give
up his place in the theatre. In his letter of resignation (7 September 1874) to the
deputy chairman of the theatre board Antonín Čížek, Smetana traced the course
of his loss of hearing. What began as extraneous noises in his ears in June
1874 became a permanent buzzing in July and soon he was unable to
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
distinguish individual sounds. At the beginning of October he lost all hearing in
his right ear, on 20 October in his left. Treatment, based on quiet and isolation
from all sounds, did not help. His former aristocratic pupils organized a concert
in 1875 whose takings enabled him to travel to consult foreign specialists
(Smetana later thanked them with the piano cycle Rêves); a collection was also
organized by his friends in Sweden. But this trip similarly brought no positive
Smetana, Bedřich
5. Final years, 1874–84.
Smetana was granted an annual pension of 1200 gulden by the theatre
consortium in exchange for permission to stage his operas without payment. In
order to reduce his expenses the whole family moved in June 1876 from Prague
to live with Smetana's oldest daughter Žofie, married to the forester Josef
Schwarz, in Jabkenice near Mladá Boleslav. Josef Srb­Debrnov became a self­
sacrificing intermediary in various negotiations in Prague, acting as a type of
personal secretary until the end of Smetana's life. Contact with the theatre was
made principally through the conductor at the Provisional Theatre, Adolf Čech.
Deafness in no way crushed Smetana's spirit or diminished his musical
imagination; on the contrary, throughout all the final decade of his life, he took
advantage of being able to compose undisturbed. Immediately after becoming
deaf, while still in Prague, he completed the first two movements, Vyšehrad and
Vltava, of his symphonic cycle Má vlast (‘My Fatherland’); the remaining four
movements were written in Jabkenice over the next five years. During his final
decade he also wrote the two string quartets (the first of which, subtitled ‘Z mého
života’ – ‘From my Life’, movingly portrays the onslaught of deafness), both
series of Czech Dances for piano, and the song cycle Večerní písně (‘Evening
Songs’). Choruses of the period include the demanding Píseň na moři (‘Song of
the Sea’) and two pieces written for the 20th anniversary of the Prague Hlahol,
Věno (‘The Dowry’) and Modlitba (‘Prayer’). Most importantly, there were three
more operas: Hubička (‘The Kiss’, 1875–6), which at its première on 7
November 1876 immediately won an overwhelming ovation, Tajemství (‘The
Secret’, 1877–8) and Čertova stěna (‘The Devil's Wall’, 1879–82).
In the Czech musical and cultural world Smetana gradually became recognized
as the chief representative of a Czech national music. This process of equating
Smetana's personal style with a national style was consolidated through the
second half of the 1870s and continued after his death. He himself was fully
aware of the role which some of his works had begun to fulfil; the more this
awareness grew among the Czech public, the greater became his sense of
obligation. A characteristic attitude can be found in a letter to Ludevít Procházka
of 31 August 1882, when he refused to compose a comic insertion for The Two
Widows requested by the German arranger of the opera:
I must seek to keep that honourable and glorious position which
my compositions have prepared for me among my people and in
my country. – According to my merits and according to my efforts I
am a Czech composer and the creator of the Czech style in the
branches of dramatic and symphonic music – exclusively Czech.
… I cannot work with such a frivolous text; such music disgusts me
and, if I were to do it, I would only prove to the whole world that I
write whatever they want from me for money.
Smetana began to acquire various honours. He was made an honorary member
of many musical societies, and at the beginning of the 1880s Czech society
began to prepare several significant celebrations as a sign of artistic recognition.
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
On 4 January 1880 in memory of the 50th anniversary of his first appearance as
a performer a gala concert took place with the premières of the symphonic
poems Tábor and Blaník (the two final parts of Má vlast) and Evening Songs. In
September 1880 Smetana's birthplace organized the ceremonial unveiling of a
plaque. On 5 May 1882 an exceptional event in the history of Czech opera took
place – the 100th performance of The Bartered Bride. Its success was so great
that a second ‘100th performance’ had to be given. Similarly celebratory and
exceptional events included the first collective performance of the symphonic
cycle Má vlast on 5 November 1882. For Smetana, however, a particular
satisfaction was the ceremonial opening of the National Theatre on 11 June
1881 with his Libuše, which had won the competition for this purpose. Although
he had finished it in 1872, Smetana had patiently waited for the completion of
the theatre and not allowed it to be performed before then. After the fire which
demolished the theatre soon after its opening he too, despite his age and
condition, took part in fund­raising activities. His concert in Písek on 4 October
1881 in aid of the rebuilding of the theatre was his last appearance as a pianist.
The theatre reopened with Libuše on 18 November 1883. In the following year
celebrations for Smetana's 60th birthday began to be prepared, the gala concert
and the banquet in his honour however took place without him. His worsening
health meant that in April he had to be transferred to the Prague Lunatic Asylum,
where he died on 18 May 1884. The orchestral cycle Pražský karneval (‘The
Prague Carnival’) and the opera Viola based on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night
(which he had begun in 1874 before The Kiss and resumed in 1883) remained
incomplete at his death.
Smetana, Bedřich
6. Operas.
Smetana is regarded as the ‘father of Czech opera’ (and indeed of Czech
‘modern’ music) not because he was the first composer to write operas in Czech,
but because his operas were the first to stay in the Czech repertory and thus
form the basis for a continuous tradition which has lasted to this day.
Professional composers such as František Škroup wrote operas in Czech from
the 1820s onwards (Škroup himself was preceded by half a century of semi­
amateur attempts), but apart from Škroup's The Tinker none was given more
than a couple of times.
The opening of the Czech Provisional Theatre in 1862 provided the greatest
incentive towards the establishment of a permanent Czech operatic tradition.
The first opera given there was Cherubini's Les deux journées – there was no
suitable Czech piece – but 19 years later when the Czech National Theatre was
finally opened, it was with Smetana's Libuše (1881). In between these dates all
but one of Smetana's completed operas were performed at the theatre or its
summer alternatives. Smetana was not alone in taking advantage of the new
possibilities. Even before his first opera The Brandenburgers had been staged
in 1866 a German opera by his older contemporary Skuherský had been
translated into Czech and given at the Provisional Theatre, and The Templars in
Moravia by Smetana's younger contemporary Šebor had narrowly anticipated
Smetana's première. As well as Šebor, other Czech composers of the new
generation such as Bendl, Rozkošný and Blodek were all enthusiastically
composing operas – their premières mingled with those of Smetana – but of their
operas only a single one, Blodek's unassuming one­acter In the Well, has
managed to maintain a place in the Czech repertory. It is the canon of Smetana's
eight completed operas which dominate the early history of Czech opera and
consciously provided models for his contemporaries and successors.
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Smetana's eight operas fall into three groups: three serious operas based on
Czech history and myths (The Brandenburgers in Bohemia, Dalibor and Libuše);
two comic operas conceived as opéras comiques (The Bartered Bride and The
Two Widows) – the spoken dialogue was later adapted to recitative; and the
three final operas all to librettos by Eliška Krásnohorská. Libuše, with its static
monumentality, is best described as a sort of musical tableau vivant (a popular
genre in Prague at that time). Paradoxically the other two overtly nationalist
operas are the nearest to common European patterns: The Brandenburgers in
Bohemia a rather clumsy French grand opera, and Dalibor a straightforward
tragedy with the death of hero and heroine at the end.
The five other operas share a common thread. All are comedies, the later ones
increasingly serious, and all concern the healing of a central relationship. This
relationship has been soured either by a failure of communication (Jeník and
Mařenka in The Bartered Bride), or by the passing of years – Smetana's later
central couples are distinctly middle­aged, one of them usually a widow or a
widower, or long unmarried. Healing is achieved in The Two Widows by shock
treatment, but in the Krásnohorská operas it is internal, and suggested by
physical metaphor: in the deep forest (The Kiss), the dark tunnel (The Secret) or
by a perilous crossing of the swollen waters of the Vltava (The Devil's Wall).
Such plots have little to do with contemporary operatic models and much more
to do with Shakespeare's comedies and romances or with Mozart's Die
Zauberflöte: the Viennese musical, magical ‘quest’ plays transplanted easily to
the Prague stage and their Czech successors were a dominant strain in Czech
theatre of the generation before Smetana and Krásnohorská.
Smetana's mission to create a canon of Czech operas did not prevent his
drawing on existing traditions of European opera. His attitude towards these can
be inferred from the reviews that he wrote in Národní listy (1864–5) and from the
repertory he maintained and introduced at the Provisional Theatre during his
time there as chief conductor. Most of the objections in his reviews were to the
Italian repertory, which he found faded and dramatically inept. German opera –
in the language of the oppressor – was understandably unpopular (and was
anyway available in Prague at the German opera house), so Smetana sought to
move towards the inclusion of more Slavonic repertory and, despite the cramped
resources, tiny chorus and orchestra, towards the French repertory.
There is some echo of French grand opera particularly in his early works. The
Brandenburgers in Bohemia, for instance, is based on the Scribe­Meyerbeerian
canvas of large­scale historical events against which the characters enact their
own dramas. The build­up of atmosphere of Act 1 scene ii, with its genre
choruses, ballet and ‘revolutionary chorus’, has similarities with Auber's La
muette de Portici rather than with later Meyerbeer works. There is for instance no
exploitation of double­chorus confrontations which the plot would suggest (in
fact, apart from a single soldier, no musical depiction of any Brandenburger).
Most of these ‘French’ traits in The Brandenburgers, however, can be traced
back more to the librettist than to the composer.
Where Smetana made compositional choices he seems to have taken Italian
rather than French models. There are several cantabile–caballetta arias and
duets in The Brandenburgers, and the outer acts both make use of the
concertato–stretta formula. Indeed such traits are sometimes present in
Smetana's later operas: Act 1 of Smetana's most advanced opera, Dalibor,
concludes with a cabaletta duet, and there are elements of the concertato
reactive ensembles in all his later operas. Even when, in the later operas, the
repetitions characterizing a cabaletta structure disappear, the slow–fast
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
cantabile–cabaletta design underlies some of the solo arias and duets. Such
survivals are puzzling in view of Smetana's stated aversions, but can be partly
explained by the conditions in which he worked. Most of the singers at the
Provisional Theatre were trained in the Italian school and felt more comfortable
with its traditions. Smetana, furthermore, regularly complied with their requests
for extra arias. Thus Act 3 of The Brandenburgers, dramatically far from clear, is
further confused by two specifically requested insert arias. The first, for the
baritone Josef Lev (as Jan Tausendmark), showed off Lev’s cantabile legato so
well that there was a danger of this villain appearing too sympathetic.
Such habits cannot be dismissed as the composer's lack of assertiveness at the
beginning of his operatic career: in the Hamburg revisions to The Two Widows
(1882) he added a cabaletta ending for Anežka's aria as requested; by The
Secret he was still adding music for Josef Lev, for instance the 115­bar
expansion to his Act 2 aria added after the première. Smetana's admiration for
Lev's especial gifts, which were wholly lyrical and undramatic, and his tailoring
of leading baritone parts to them, meant that after The Brandenburgers baritone
villains virtually disappeared from his operas. Similarly the fact that the
Provisional Theatre lacked dramatic sopranos and Heldentenors as permanent
members of the ensemble, meant that Smetana generally avoided writing for
these heavier voices in his operas: he learnt his lesson in Dalibor. And for all his
reservations about italianate traits he included coloratura when appropriate to
the singer. The leading Czech prima donna Eleonora z Ehrenbergů did not hide
her contempt for a part she was allocated in The Bartered Bride (Mařenka) with
no scope for her talents. Thereafter Smetana made sure to give something to
please her (such as Jitka's melismatic flourishes over the Act 2 soldiers' chorus
in Dalibor or the trill­laden part of the First Reaper in Libuše). This also accounts
for the presence in The Kiss of Barče's ‘lark song’, written expressly for the
coloratura soubrette talents of Marie Laušmannová. The small and fairly stable
group of singers assembled at the Provisional Theatre during Smetana's time
there had a lasting effect on his future voice typing – even in his final opera The
Devil's Wall he was writing with their specific voices in mind. In general
Smetana confined himself to light, lyrical voices; and after the unfieldable
demands of The Brandenburgers (three tenors, including a Heldentenor) and
Dalibor, he and his last librettist Eliška Krásnohorská were careful to write for
what was on hand.
The role of Krásnohorská as Smetana's last librettist was a particularly dominant
one. She chose the subjects of his last three completed operas (two of them her
invention), determined the voice types and the conventions. She believed in
ensembles (as she wrote forcefully to Fibich when negotiating a libretto of Blaník
with him), and consequently included many in her librettos. She determined
where there was duet writing, where there were formal solos. Smetana took
what was given him (he mentioned that he had left out only four lines of Act 1 in
The Secret) and, apart from obliging favoured singers, made no specific
requests other than for more ‘comedy’ in the final opera.
Most of their work was done when Smetana was at his most vulnerable – deaf,
and with rapidly deteriorating health – so that it is not surprising that he was so
passive. However, the scanty evidence available suggests that Smetana was no
more assertive in his relationships with earlier librettists. The texts for Dalibor
and Libuše were written ahead of any commission; similarly it would seem
Smetana had no great say in the subject matter of the two texts he received from
Karel Sabina, The Brandenburgers and The Bartered Bride, apart from
specifying a comic opera of the latter and, for the former, a serious historical
opera that would comply with the conditions for the Harrach competition.
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Conventions of ensemble and simultaneous singing tended to vary with the
librettists. Sabina, lacking the time, patience and skills for the equal­length lines
needed, provided little usable material for ensembles. Thus The Bartered Bride
has few ensembles (compared, for instance, to The Two Widows, which
benefited from Emanuel Züngel's much greater experience as an opera
translator and versifier), and those in The Brandenburgers had to be eked out
from scanty and unpromising material. Dalibor has so few ensembles that one
suspects that its librettist, Josef Wenzig, conceived it originally as a play. Only in
monumental Libuše did Wenzig attempt to provide material for ensembles.
Smetana wrote opera in a medium that was politicized almost the moment he
began. In his preamble for his Czech opera competition, Count Harrach had
suggested that use should be made of Czech country life and ‘old chorales’ to
establish a Czech identity. This was a position which became associated with
the conservative faction of Czech politics (the staročeši), whereas Smetana
belonged to the progressive wing (the mladočeši) and was against the quotation
of Czech folksong. Accordingly there are almost no direct quotations in his
operas and the few that he employs – for instance the pastorella lullaby in The
Kiss – are there for specific reasons. There are, however, pseudo­folksongs
and/or choruses in all of Smetana's operas. The suggestion of folksong was
usually made by the use of strophic structures, repetitive tunes and variable
metres or tempos (a slow, ruminative beginning accelerating into a more regular
and faster continuation, e.g. Ludiše's ‘folksong’ in The Brandenburgers).
Smetana may well have decided that his ‘progressive’, Lisztian orientation
(which resulted for instance in the near monothematic construction of Dalibor)
was not compatible with the quotation of folk music. But a crucial factor was that
the music he imbibed in his youth was popular dance music from the town rather
than genuine Czech folk music from the country. It is dance rhythms rather than
folk tunes that provide the closest link between Smetana and vernacular music.
A number of dances are specifically named, for instance the skočná and the
furiant in The Bartered Bride. He also made frequent use of the sousedská (a
ländler­type waltz), but the most common dance of all in his operas was the
Polka, whose rhythms most clearly mirrored the stress patterns of the Czech
language. Thus fast 2/4 pieces with well stressed beats and polka­like rhythmic
figures underlie many of Smetana's operas from The Bartered Bride onwards.
Lukáš's ironic serenade to Vendulka in The Kiss is ‘à la polka’. When the
countryfolk celebrate at the end of The Two Widows, it is with a named polka,
but many unnamed polkas (specifically allowed for in the predominantly trochaic
libretto), can be heard throughout the opera, most noticeably in the Act 2 prelude
and the associated duet for the two widows.
Other sources of ‘Czechness’ reside in the setting of the Czech language itself
but, at least in Smetana's early operas, this is compromised by his poor word­
setting (only by his fourth opera Libuše did he manage to avoid mis­stressings),
and by the fact that in two operas, Dalibor and Libuše, the Czech text follows the
rhythms and metres of the German originals. Although in the later operas the
word­setting is fully idiomatic, Krásnohorská's penchant for high­style iambics
(alien to Czech's distinctive first­syllable stress) led to less natural­sounding
word­setting than Smetana achieved with the trochees in The Two Widows. If
from the mid­1870s Czech audiences perceived Smetana's operas musically as
particularly ‘Czech’ it may not merely be because of the use of dance rhythms or
idiomatic setting of the Czech language but because familiarity with The
Bartered Bride led to Smetana's personal voice being taken as the clearest
expression of ‘Czechness’ in music.
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Smetana, Bedřich
7. Orchestral works.
When in 1848–9 Smetana wrote his first extended orchestral composition, the
Jubel­Overture, he was aware of the need to extend his technique in this
medium. Copies have survived that he made of passages from various scores
with interesting orchestration (Beethoven's symphonies nos.2 and 9 and
Leonora no.1 Overture op.138, Mendelssohn's overtures Die schöne Melusine
and Meerestille und glückliche Fahrt, Weber's Jubel­Overture and overture to
Der Freischütz and Berlioz's arrangement of Meyer's March marocaine) as well
as symphonic fragments and sketches culminating in the composition of the
Triumf­Sinfonie in 1853–4. Known during this period as a teacher and chamber
player, Smetana longed above all to be recognized as a composer by fellow
artists and society. The external stimulus for the symphony was the marriage of
Emperor Franz Joseph I with Elisabeth of Bavaria, and Smetana sought,
unsuccessfully, official acceptance for the dedication of the composition at the
Viennese court. The celebratory intent was underlined by his use of Haydn's
melody for the Austrian National Anthem of the time. For future performances of
Smetana's only symphony this turned out to be a fatal decision in view of the
various political meanings which became attached to the anthem in the course
of time. In the first half of the century hymns were used as the basis for variations
or overtures. Smetana, however, wanted to show off his craft in the elevated form
of the symphony. He employed the melody of the hymn as a solution to a
compositional problem: to unify the four movements of the symphony including
the monumental climax of the finale. Haydn's tune first emerges in a brief hint at
the conclusion of the development of the first movement; its first strain is lyrically
transformed as the second subject of the slow movement; its full version is
displayed in the grandiose coda of the finale. While its identity as a melody is
preserved, all the movements have their own independent logic. Smetana
performed the symphony at his début as a conductor on 26 February 1855 and
for the second time in Göteborg in 1860. It was performed in 1882 by Adolf
Čech, at whose instigation Smetana, who continued to value the work, revised it
and gave it the Czech title of Slavnostní symfonie.
Smetana's return to orchestral music in the years 1858–61, during his time in
Sweden, brought a change of direction in the composition of symphonic poems.
He wrote three: Richard III, Wallensteins Lager and Hakon Jarl, based
respectively on plays by Shakespeare, Schiller and Oehlenschläger. This
direction in his composition, however, is also evident in the piano sketch
Macbeth, the unfinished piano sketches for Cid, the plan to elaborate an earlier
fragment as Wikinger­Fahrt and in the unrealized plan to compose a
Wallensteins Tod (after Schiller); it also possibly explains the musical sketches
designated ‘Maria Stuart’. A powerful stimulus for this new orientation came from
Smetana's visit to Liszt in Weimar 3–7 September 1857, during which time not
only the strength of Listz's thoughts but also his music left an indelible
impression on him. It was here that he heard the premières of Liszt's Faust
Symphony and his tone poem Die Ideale as well as other pieces in piano
arrangements. Also available at the time were Listz's first six symphonic poems,
which had been published a year earlier by Breitkopf & Härtel. Liszt had
presented him with one of these, Tasso, during his stay in Prague in September
1856. Smetana's response was all the more powerful since some of Liszt's
compositional devices were already emerging as tendencies in Smetana's
earlier music. Such shared features include unity within a variety of character,
thematic transformation and the triumphal conclusion of large forms. Decisive for
the whole of Smetana's output is the notion that a poetic thought or programme
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
is changed into a completely musical form (in Richard III and Hakon Jarl on the
basis of the sonata principle, with Wallensteins Lager on the basis of a
symphonic cycle) always with its own autonomous musical logic. It is interesting
that Smetana did not at first designate these pieces symphonic poems. Of
Richard III he wrote to Josef Proksch on 9 September 1858 that is was ‘a
composition in one movement, neither an overture nor a symphony: in short
something still to be named’. After completing the first two, Smetana tried hard to
get them performed, but Liszt did not keep the promise given to him on his
second visit to Weimar in June 1859. Richard III and Wallensteins Lager were
performed only during Smetana's first orchestral concert on 5 January 1862, on
his return to Prague (as ‘fantasies for large orchestra’); Hakon Jarl was given (as
a ‘symphonic poem’) on 24 February 1864.
Occupied by operatic work, except for occasional pieces, Smetana returned to
orchestral music only in the middle of the 1870s with Má vlast. With the
‘Swedish’ poems Smetana had espoused the Lisztian idea of a symphonic
poem centred on the expression of striking musical ideas and their mutual
relationships; the thoughts behind the existing literary or graphic masterpieces
which inspired them are taken further as part of a new synthesis rather than as
the basis for mere musical illustration or a musical duplication of the programme.
When he began composing Má vlast, however, Smetana had been serving
Czech national emancipation for more than ten years and, in accordance with it,
formulated his own programme for the cycle. The first traces of the conception go
back to 1872, to a time when he was completing his opera Libuše. Although
Smetana's conception crystallized only gradually, the basic idea did not change.
This was of a cycle of symphonic poems celebrating the homeland headed by
Vyšehrad and Vltava (respectively a rocky promontory in Prague with mythic
associations, and the Bohemian river that runs through Prague). These two
pieces were completed in full score in the second half of 1874, i.e. shortly after
the composer went deaf. Another pair, Šárka (the name of a female warrior, well
known from early Czech legends) and Z českých luhů a hájů (‘From Bohemian
Fields and Groves’), followed a year later (see fig.5). After some years, in 1878–
9, Smetana returned to what had seemed a closed tetralogy, expanding it with
two more symphonic poems, Tábor and Blaník (respectively the names of the
Hussite town and the magic mountain in which Czech warriors, according to
legend, wait to come to the rescue of their homeland). Both were a celebration of
Hyssitism (the Czech Hussite chorale ‘Kdož jste boží bojovnící – ‘Those who
are Warriors of God’ – was used both as building material and emblematically),
which nationally aware Czechs of the time regarded as one of the historical
periods which could serve as a basis for a contemporary, nationally charged
ideal. With this Smetana completed the monumental cycle which is a unique
musical apotheosis of the homeland, of the country in which the existence of the
nation is rooted, and a celebration of the countryside which for the emergent
Czech nation was filled with mythical and historical reminiscences all bound up
with a vision of the future. The individual movements of Má vlast were first
performed separately. The cycle was heard as a whole for the first time on 5
November 1882 and as such was acclaimed by the Czech musical public as
representing Czech national style. Smetana dedicated the cycle to the city of
Smetana's thoughts for a further symphonic cycle can be found in the year 1880
in a letter to Ludevít Procházka (25 February): ‘I would write … orchestral
symphonic poems under the title “Böhmischer Karneval” or “Prager Karneval”, in
which not only Czech dances would occur but also small scenes and
characters, for example from my operas, as masques’. In 1883 he began
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
composition, but managed to complete only the first section, the Introduction and
Smetana, Bedřich
8. Chamber music.
Not many of Smetana's works were inspired by real incidents in his life but it
was chamber music that became for him the area which, as an intimate
conversation between instruments, belonged to the private sphere. The first of
these works, the Piano Trio in G minor, arose, according to Smetana in 1855, as
a reaction to the death of his first­born child, the musically talented daughter
Bedřiška (Friederike). The three­movement composition sums up the
composer's musical thoughts in a large­scale form which, before the
composition of Smetana's first symphonic poems, was represented at the time
only by the student Sonata in G minor for piano of 1846 and by the Triumf­
Sinfonie. Thematic variation work, thematic affinities and transformation ensure
the unity of the work as a whole as well as the unity of music of contrasting
characters within individual movements. The trio was performed on 3 December
1855 with the composer at the piano. For contemporary critics the work's
‘rhapsodic’ nature went against the aesthetic ideal for chamber music of the time
but nevertheless its reception was not as unfavourable as Smetana and later
commentators would have us believe. In May 1857 Smetana reworked the first
and third movements and performed the trio in a new version for the first time in
1858 in Göteborg.
The impulse for the creation of a further chamber work, Smetana's First String
Quartet ‘Z mého života’ (‘From my Life’), written in 1876 and thus 20 years after
the Piano Trio, came most probably from Ludevít Procházka. Procházka, a
tireless promoter of Smetana's music, was one of the founders of the permanent
institution for chamber concerts in Prague, the Czech­German Organization for
Chamber Music, at whose first concert on 19 February 1877 Smetana's work
was announced. ‘I wanted to depict in music the course of my life … the
composition is almost only a private one and so purposely written for four
instruments which, as in a small circle of friends, talk among themselves about
what has oppressed me so significantly’, Smetana wrote to Josef Srb on 12
August 1878 in a letter in which he supplies the first of the five extant outlines of
his programme for the work. Thus arose a work that is almost unique in the
tradition of chamber music by virtue of its subjective nature and its use of a
programme, something which was hitherto the domain of symphonic work.
Against the background of the Classical plan for individual movements Smetana
created poetic pictures through the play of individualized musical characters
which have their own autonomous musical logic and which, together with their
programme (which can be described as reminiscences of the state of mind at
important junctures of Smetana's life) are capable of providing rich starting
points for associative listening. Instead of a scherzo in the outer parts of the
second movement there is a polka, following the precedent of Fibich’s and
Dvořák's string quartets. In Smetana's case, for instance in his symphonic and
operatic work, he used it as a symbol of Czech country life and Czech local
colour. Here it is a reminiscence of his passionate devotion to dancing in his
youth. In the coda of the finale, before the reminiscence of the lyrical theme from
the first movement, a very high sustained note (E''') is heard as a fateful
proclamation of Smetana's deafness. ‘I allowed myself this little trifle because it
was so crucial for me’ (Smetana to Srb, 12 August 1878). The work was finally
performed publicly at the concert of Umělecká Beseda on 29 March 1877 and
during Smetana's life received several performances abroad (in 1880 in Weimar
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
on Listz's initiative, but also in Hamburg, Vienna, Meiningen, Magdeburg, Paris,
Dresden, Moscow and overseas).
The external stimulus for Smetana's last important work, the Second String
Quartet in D minor, can also be traced to Procházka's efforts to promote
Smetana's music. The quartet arose in the years 1882–3, when, on account of
his worsening state of health, Smetana was able to compose only in snatches.
This fact has influenced the view of many commentators on this work, going, as
it does, against the more stable norms of the genre. Smetana's quartet is
characterized by its remarkable shortwindedness, its aphoristic character and
the density of its musical expression (for instance the first movement is a
carefully thought out miniature double­function form) and looks forward to such
tendencies of the future. It is significant that a comment by Arnold Schoenberg
(although not substantiated) has been handed down in Smetana literature from
the 1920s that it was this quartet which ‘opened the world to him’.
Smetana, Bedřich
9. Piano works.
As far as quantity is concerned, piano works take up a dominant position in
Smetana's works of the 1840s and 50s. In his self­taught period standard dance
genres predominate, above all polkas; there are also attempts at the lyrical
piano piece. During his studies with Josef Proksch this field developed in
parallel with his exercises and compositional studies, with Smetana's first piano
cycle Bagatelles et impromptus appearing at the beginning of 1844. It points to
the various ways forward taken in his future works: salon pieces as a type of
poeticized study and song without works linked with the names of Mendelssohn
and Henselt but also with the poetical music of Schumann. For Smetana's
orientation the French titles of the compositions are themselves eloquent in this
respect, and he continued to use them frequently. It was only the further cycle of
Six morceaux caractéristiques which he designated as his op.1, among other
reasons to add weight to the dedication to Liszt. The plan to compose a cycle of
albumleaves in all 24 major and minor keys also arose during this period. But it
remained incomplete and in the end Smetana grouped some of the albumleaves
into his opp.2 and 3 and into the Skizzen opp.4 and 5, which he dedicated to
Clara Schumann. In the continuing composition of polkas, stylistic tendencies
appeared to be modelled on Chopin, a characteristic which deepened in 1848–
54 in the Trois polkas de salon op.7 and the Trois polkas poétiques op.8. The
culmination of this attempt at idealized dances is the Souvenir de Bohême en
forme de polkas opp.12–13 (1859–60). Besides reviews and reminiscences of
his contemporaries Smetana's virtuoso composition tell us about his technical
abilities. He wrote most of these pieces, for instance the transcription of
Schubert's song Der Neugierige from Die schöne Müllerin, or the concert étude
Am Seegestade – eine Erinnerung, or the cadenzas for Mozart's and
Beethoven's piano concertos, for his own use at a time when he saw this as a
major part of his role as a musician coming from his career as a piano virtuoso.
He initiated this line with the fantasia Böhmische Melodien and closed it with the
Fantasie na české národní písně (‘Fantasia on Czech Folksongs’), which he
wrote in 1862 for concerts in the aid of the National Theatre.
After his return to Bohemia Smetana's works were bound up with musical
genres considered as representative of national music and he returned to piano
works only after 13 years with the cycle Rêves (1875). Its various movements
were dedicated to his former aristocratic women pupils who in 1874 organized a
benefit concert for his trip to foreign ear specialists. The whole cycle
nostalgically harks back to the famous era of the characteristic piano pieces of
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
the 1840s and to Smetana's models, Schumann, Chopin and Liszt. Quite
different aims are represented by the two series (1877 and 1879) of Czech
Dances with a claim to large­scale concert forms. About the first series, polkas,
he wrote to his publisher Velebín Urbánek on 2 March 1879; ‘My title “Polkas” is
important, for my efforts are directed towards idealizing the polka in particular, as
Chopin did in his day with the mazurka, and these four polkas are a continuation
of those published years ago.’ And the aim of placing in the concert hall the
stylization of further Czech Dances in the second series of the cycle Smetana
formulated polemically in a letter also to Urbánek a month later: ‘I suggest
publishing folkdances under the title Czech Dances. Every dance under its own
name, e.g. “Furiant”, “Skočná”, “Rejdovák and Rejdovačka”, “Sousedská”,
“Hulán” … etc.… Whereas Dvořák gives his pieces just a general name
“Slawische Tänze” with people not knowing which they are, and whether they
exist at all, we would show which dances with real names we Czechs have’.
Smetana, Bedřich
10. Posthumous reputation.
Smetana's achievement as a composer is the composition of a canon of Czech
opera where none before existed and the creation of a personal style, both in his
operas but also in his symphonic and chamber works, which came to be
equated with the Czech style of the time. This achievement has been
complicated both by the fact that his sudden deafness at a crucial time has led to
the Romantic image of artist­as­hero (and a vein of sentimental protectiveness in
some writings about him) and by the close connections with Czech nationalism,
which have monumentalized him into a figure where criticism of aspects of his
life or work was discouraged. Thus Smetana's syphilis, which resulted in his
deafness, madness and death, is not generally acknowledged by Czech
sources. German aspects of his life, perfectly natural for the time, have until
recently been airbrushed out of the picture. In his music there has been careful
control over which influences are conceded in his mature works: those of Liszt
and Wagner are made much of, being ‘progressive’; those of other figures such
as Rossini, Donizetti, Verdi, Meyerbeer or Offenbach are dismissed.
Furthermore and often quite destructively, Smetana became, in the hands of his
proselytes, the starting­point for a prescriptive view of Czech music which
excluded figures such as Dvořák, Janáček and Suk. Since critical writings are of
their time and quickly superseded none of this might have mattered were it not
for the fact that the sympathetic and zealous advocacy of his contemporaries
such as Otakar Hostinský turned in the next generation into dogma, most wilfully
in the hands of the masterly polemicist, Zdeněk Nejedlý. Furthermore, the
political developments which brought Nejedlý, as an old but powerful man, into
the postwar communist administration of Czechoslovakia as minister of
education, atrophied attitudes almost to the end of the 20th century.
Much of this is a source of bemusement for foreign commentators, who generally
find Dvořák a more substantial composer. Such attitudes have halted scholarly
work on certain areas of Smetana's life or on the interesting minor figures around
him such as Šebor, Bendl or Rozkožný. And, for all the adulation, several major
scholarly tasks in connection with Smetana remain to be done. It is perhaps not
surprising that Nejedlý’s grandiosely conceived biography only reached volume
7 (taking Smetana to 1843). But there is still no published thematic catalogue of
his works: Bartoš's was incomplete at his death; Berkovec's, whose new
numbers are supplied in the work­list to this article, may at last remedy this. For
the biographer it is especially infuriating that there is no complete edition of
Smetana's letters and no edition at all of his diaries, despite the generous
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
provision for scholarly ventures by the communist administration. It presumably
did not help that the diaries were kept in German up to 1860, and that both they
and the letters may occasionally disturb the sanitized view that generations of
Czechs have had of their hero. A Czech 21st­century view of Smetana will
perhaps be rather different.
Smetana, Bedřich
Editions: Z pozůstalých skladeb Bedřicha Smetany [Compositions from Bedřich Smetana's
estate], i–xiii, ed. O. Hostinský, J. Löwenbach and others (Prague, 1903–12) [PS]Souborná
díla Bedřicha Smetany [Smetana's collected works], i, ed. Z. Nejedlý (Prague, 1924), ii–iv, ed.
O. Ostrčil (Prague, 1932–6) [SD]Studijní vydání děl Bedřicha Smetany [Study scores of
Smetana's works], i–xv, ed. F. Bartoš, J. Plavec and others (Prague, 1940–77) [SV]Klavírní
dílo Bedřicha Smetany [Smetana's piano works], i–v, ed. M. Očadlík, H. Séquardtová and
others (Prague, 1944–73) [KD]B. Smetana: Písně [Songs], ed. J. Plavec (Prague, 1962) [P]
Facsimile editions: Zápisník motivů Bedřicha Smetany [Smetana's notebook of motifs], ed. M.
Očadlík (Prague, 1942)Prodaná nevěsta: klavírní výtah dle originálu Bedřicha Smetany [The
Bartered Bride: vs according to Smetana's original], ed. J.B. Foerster (Prague, 1923)Prodaná
nevěsta: první náčrtek Bedřicha Smetany [The Bartered Bride: Smetana's first draft], ed. M.
Očadlík (Prague, 1944)Ouvertura k opeře Prodaná nevěsta: klavírní výtah [Overture to the
opera The Bartered Bride: vs], pf 4 hands, ed. M. Očadlík (Prague, 1950)
Printed works were published in Prague unless otherwise stated; principal manuscript source in
CS­Pnm; titles have been taken from manuscripts or first edition. Where titles were not in Czech
originally, Czech titles supplied by the composer or editors are given in parentheses. Where
different versions of compositions exist only those which differ substantially from one another are
listed. The list does not include sketches for finished compositions and a few tiny fragments of
unfinished compositions.
JB — nos. from J. Berkovec's MS catalogue; B — nos. from Bartoš catalogue (by
1973 [MS frags. to May 1868]); T — nos. from Teige catalogue (1893); PT —
Provisional Theatre
piano solo
other keyboard
compositional studies
Smetana, Bedřich: Works
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
all first produced in Prague
First Performance :
PT, 30 May 1866
First Performance :
PT, 29 Jan 1869
First Performance :
PT, 1 June 1869
Composed Publication Edition
Braniboři v
op, 3
Čechách [The
in Bohemia]
K. Sabina
vs (1899)
SV ix
124 90
First Performance :
PT, 5 Jan 1866
nevěsta [The op
Bartered Bride]
1st version
2nd version
3rd version
4th (definitive) 3
vs (1872); fs SD ii–
iv, SV
op, 3
1st version
J. Wenzig
[Ger.], Cz.
trans. E.
2nd version
vs (1884)
SV v
vs (1881)
SV vi
First Performance :
PT 25 Sept 1870
First Performance :
New Town, 16 May 1868
First Performance :
PT, 2 Dec 1870
107 Libuše
festival Wenzig [Ger.], 1869–72
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
op, 3
Cz. trans.
E. Züngel,
after P.J.F.
Mallefille: Les
deux veuves
First Performance :
National, 11 June 1881
First Performance :
PT, 27 March 1874
vs (1914)
SV vii
unauthorized version
vs (1880)
SV iii
addns for 1st
publication of
Ger. version
folk op, E.
after K. Světlá
118 Tajemství [The comic
op, 3
Krásnohorská 1877–8
vs (1892)
SV x
129 Čertova stěna comic­ Krásnohorská 1879–82
[The Devil's
op, 3
vs (1903)
SV xii
vs (1903)
First Performance :
concert perf., 15 March 1900;
stage, National, 11 May 1924
2nd (definitive)
115 Hubička [The
First Performance :
New Czech, 29 Oct 1882
1st version
First Performance :
New Czech, 18 Sept 1878
First Performance :
PT, 7 Nov 1876
op, 2
109 Dvě vdovy
[The Two
First Performance :
PT, 15 March 1878
Viola, frag.
romantic Krásnohorská, 1874–5
after W.
Twelfth Night
Smetana, Bedřich: Works
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Píseň svobody
[Song of
Freedom] (J.J.
Kolár), unison vv,
pf, 1848; PS xii,
SV ii
Zdráv budiž
Josefe (Hymna ku
cti českého krále)
[Hail Joseph
(Hymn in Honour
of the Czech
King)] (H.
Poděbradský [V.
Pok]), sketch, ?
Píseň česká
[Czech Song] (J.
z Hvězdy [J.J.
Marek]) [op.17],
1860; SV ii
Tři jezdci [The
Three Riders]
(J.V. Jahn),
TTBB, 1862
(1862); SV ii
Odrodilec [The
Renegade] (A.L.
Metlińskij, trans.
F.L. Čelakovský),
1st version,
1863 (1864); SV ii
Odrodilec [The
Renegade], 2nd
version, T, T, B,
B, TTBB, 1864,
ed. (1923); SV ii
[Farming] (V.
TTBB, 1868
(1869); SV ii
Česká píseň
[Czech Song] (z
Hvězdy), SATB,
pf, 1868 (1870);
SV ii
Slavnostní sbor
Chorus] (E.
Züngel), TTBB,
1870 (1871); SV ii
Píseň na moři
[Song of the Sea]
(V. Hálek), TTBB,
1876–7 (1881);
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
SV ii
Smetana, Bedřich: Works
Sbory trojhlasné
pro ženské hlasy
Choruses for
Women's Voices],
SSA, 1878 (1881);
SV ii: Má hvězda
[My Star] (B.
Peška), Přiletěly
[Return of the
Swallows] (J.V.
Sládek), Za hory
slunce zapadá
[The sun sets
behind the
Česká píseň
[Czech Song] (z
1878, ed. (1923);
SV ii
Věno [The Dowry]
(J. Srb­Debrnov),
TTBB, 1880
(1881); SV ii
Modlitba [Prayer]
TTBB, 1880, ed.
(1909); SV ii
Heslo [Motto]
(Srb­Debrnov), 2
settings, TTBB,
1882, (?1884); SV
Naše píseň [Our
Song] (Srb­
Debrnov), TTBB,
1883, ed. (1924);
SV ii
all for solo voice and piano
Der Pilgrim
(Poutník) (F. von
Schiller), 1840,
unfinished, lost
Hymne zum h.
Johannes von
Nepomuk, 1841,
Schmerz der
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Trennung (Bolest
odloučení) (C.M.
Wieland), 1846
(London, 1883); P
(Vyzvání) (J.G.
Jacobi), 1846; PS
xii; P
Nehleď bolně
dívko na mne
[Don't look, my
girl, painfully at
me], Smutně
včela v poustí
[Sadly the honey­
bee in the desert],
Když se slunko
zas usmívá
[When the sun
smiles again]
(F.B. Květ), ?
1848–9, sketch,
(Jaro lásky) (F.
Rückert), 1853,
Humoristické listy
(1885), suppl.28;
Song for tragedy
Baron Goertz (E.
Bozděch), 1867–
8; P
Večerní písně
[Evening Songs]
(V. Hálek), 1879
(1880); P: 1 Kdo v
zlaté struny
zahrát zná [He
who can play the
golden strings], 2
proroky! (Do not
stone the
prophets!), 3 Mně
zdálo se [I once
dreamed], 4 Hej,
jaká radost v kole
[O what joy when
dancing], 5 Z
svých písní trůn ti
udělám [I'll build
you a throne from
my songs]
Smetana, Bedřich: Works
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Minuet, B , ?
1842; SD i, SV
Bajaderen Galopp
(Galop bajadérek)
(Kvapík bajadér),
C, ?1842; SD i,
SV xiii
Overture, d,
sketch, frag., ?
1847; SV xiii
Marsch (Pochod
národní gardy),
frag. of vn 1, 2,
1848; SV xiii
(Velká předehra)
[Grand Ov.],
[Ceremonial Ov.],
Jásavá ouvertura
[Celebratory Ov.],
D, op.4, 1848–9,
rev. 1883; SV xiii
Ouverture, later
title Vikinger­
Fahrt (Plavba
Vikingů), c, ?
1850 sketch,
frag.; SV xiii
Synfonie, a, ?
1850–53, sketch,
mit Benützung
der österreich.
symfonie), E,
op.6, 1853–4,
rev. 1881; SV xi
untitled work, c, ?
1854/6 sketch,
frag.; SV xiii
Richard III, sym.
poem after W.
op.11, 1857–8,
ed. pf 4 hands
(1891), fs (Berlin,
1896); SV iv
tábor), sym.
poem after F. von
Schiller, op.14,
1858–9, ed.
(Berlin, 1896); SV
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
125/i, ii
Hakon Jarl, sym.
poem after A.
op.16, 1860–61,
ed. (Berlin, 1896)
[orig. op.15]; SV
Doktor Faust,
prelude to puppet
play by M.
Kopecký, small
orch, 1862, ed.
(1945); SV viii
Polka [called
Našim děvám [To
Our Girls] in
1880], D, c1863,
arr. pf (1888); SV
xiii [performed as
Třasák Svoboda
[Freedom] in
Oldřich a
Božena, prelude
to puppet play by
M. Kopecký,
small orch, 1863,
ed. (Brno, 1924);
SV viii
Pochod k
[March for
Festival], E,
op.20, 1864, pf 4
hands (1864); SV
Fanfáry k
Richardovi III
[Fanfares for
Richard III],
brass, timp,
1867; SV viii
prelude], C, 1868,
ed. (1919); SV
Der Fischer
(Rybář), music to
tableau vivant
after Goethe,
hmn, hp, str,
1869, ed. (1923);
SV viii
Libušin soud
music to tableau
vivant after poem
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Smetana, Bedřich: Works
MS, 1869, ed.
(1923); SV viii
Má vlast [My
cycle of sym.
poems, SV xiv
1 Vyšehrad,
c1872–4, pf 4
hands (1879), fs
2 Vltava
(Moldau), 1874,
pf 4 hands
(1879), fs (1880)
3 Šárka, 1875, pf
4 hands (1880),
fs (1890)
4 Z českých luhů
a hájů [From
Bohemian Fields
and Groves],
1875, pf 4 hands
(1880), fs (1881)
5 Tábor, 1878, pf
4 hands (1880),
fs (1892)
6 Blaník, 1879, pf
4 hands (1880),
fs (1894)
untitled work, d,
1874–8, frag.; SV
Venkovanka [The
Woman], polka,
1879, pf arr.
(1880); SV viii
Pražský karneval
[The Prague
introduction and
polonaise, 1883;
PS xi (pf 4
hands); SV viii
Grosse Sinfonie
Viola als Muster,
sketch, 1884,
frag., fs (1924)
Polka, str qt, ?
1839–40, lost
str qt, ?1839–40,
String Quartet, d
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
96, 104
Smetana, Bedřich: Works
, ?1839–40, lost
Waltz, F, str qt,
1840; SD i; SV
xv [1st vn part
Overture, str qt,
1840, lost [written
‘according to
Mozart's method’]
Fantasia on
opera motifs, str
qt, ?1840, frag.;
SD i, SV xv
Fantaisie sur un
air bohémien, g,
vn, pf, 1843; SD
i, SV xv
Composition for
ob, pf, F, ?1846–
7, frag.; SV xv
String trio, B , ?
1850, frag.
Piano Quartet, A,
?1852–3, sketch,
frag.; SV xv
Piano Trio, g,
op.15 [MS op.9],
1855, rev. 1857
(Hamburg, 1880);
SV xv
String Quartet
[no.1] ‘Z mého
života [From my
Life], e, 1876
(1880); SV xv
Z domoviny
[From the
Homeland], 2
pieces vn, pf,
1880 (1881): 1 A,
2 g; SV xv
String Quartet
no.2, d, 1882–3,
parts (1889),
score (Berlin,
1896); SV xv
piano solo
Waltz, c1829–31,
Galop, c1829–31,
Galopp (Kvapík),
D, inc., c1831; SD
i facs.
untitled works,
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
11:10, 12
16, 18
1:4, 5, 6
E , 1840; SD i,
KD ii
(Jiřinková Polka)
[Dahlia Polka], D,
1840; SD i, KD ii
Galopp di
bravoura, B ,
1840; SD i, KD v
Variationen über
ein Motiv aus der
Oper Montecchi e
Capuletti (Variace
na thema z
Belliniho opery
Montecchi e
Capuletti), 1840
inc.; SD i
Adagio, A, ?1839–
1841 inc.; SD i
(Mariina Polka), F,
1841, frag.; SD i,
KD ii
Grosse Polka
(Velká Polka)
(Polčinka), b ,
1841, inc. sketch;
SD i, KD ii [orig.
composition lost]
[2] Waltzes, both
A , 1841, lost
Galop, B, 1841,
1841, lost
Galopp, F, 1841,
6, 7, 11 [3] Impromptus, e
30, 110
c1835–40, lost
Variations on a
theme from I
Capuletti ed i
Montecchi, 1839–
40 inc.; SD i
(Louisina Polka),
, b, A , 1841–2;
SD i
Duo sans mots
(Duo beze slov),
E, 1842; SD i
Etüde, c, 1842,
inc.; SD i
Aus dem
(Ze studentského
života), polka, C,
?1842, rev. 1858;
PS xiii, SD i, KD ii
Quadrille (Kadryla,
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Čtverylka), B ,
1843; SD i
(Rhapsodie), A ,
1843, frag.; SD i
Quadrille, F,
c1843–4, SD i
Erinnerung an
(Vzpomínka na
Plzeň), polka, E ,
1843; KD ii
capriccio), c#,
1843–4, frag.; PS
Walzer (Valčíky),
1844; PS xiii: 1
c/E , 2 A , 3 E
/G, 4 c, 5 A ?
Bagatelles et
(Bagately a
1844, ed. (1903);
KD i: 1
(Nevinnost), C, 2
(Sklíčenost), a, 3
Idylle (Idyla), G, 4
Le desir (Touha),
e, 5 La joie
(Radost), D, 6 Le
conte (Pohádka),
b, 7 L'amour
(Láska), A 8 La
discorde (Nesvár),
40 ?48
D8, 9
untitled, B , C,
1844, inc.; KD iv
untitled, A , 1844,
In ein Stammbuch
der Fräulein
Josephine Finke
Finkeové), E,
1845; KD iv
untitled, F, f,
1845; inc.; KD iv
Moderato (Lístek
do památníku
Kateřině Kolářové)
[Albumleaf for K.
Kolářová], B,
1844, ed. (1924);
KD iv
Ins Stammmbuch
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
dem Jean Kunz
(Jeanu Kunzovi),
C, 1845; KD iv
In ein Stammbuch
dem Ulwer
Ulverovi), e ; PS
xiii, KD iv
Pensée fugitive,
d, 1845, ed.
(1954); KD iv
Allegro (Alžbětě
Felicii Thunové),
A , 1845, ed.
(1907); KD iv
Polka, E , 1846;
PS iv, KD ii
Lesní city a
dojmy: nocturno
Feelings and
Impressions], f,
1847, rev. 1883
(1883) [org. title
(Romance), B , ?
1847, rev. 1883;
PS ix
Rondo capriccio
capriccioso), b, ?
1847; PS ix, KD v
Fantasie na
narodní písně
[Fantasia on
National Songs],
E, 1847 frag.; KD
skladba), C ,
1847–8; PS xiii,
KD i
Six morceaux
skladeb), op.1,
1847–8 (Leipzig,
1851); KD i: I Im
Walde (V lese), C,
2 Erwachende
vášeň), c, 3 Das
(Pastýřka), G, 4
Die Sehnsucht
(Touha), g, 5 Der
Krieger (Válečník),
D, 6 Die
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
2:23, 24
(Zoufalství), d
Caprice, g, 1848,
frag.; PS x, KD v
[orig. title
Marsch der Prager
Studenten Legion
(Pochod pražské
studentské legie),
F, 1848 (1848)
Marsch (Pochod
národní gardy), D,
1848 (1848)
Polka, f, 1848; KD
ii [orig. version
op.7 no.2, cf 1:60]
Polka, C, 1848,
frag.; KD ii
Polka, e, sketch,
1848–9, frag.; KD
(lístky do
památníku), both
D, ?1848–9, inc.;
KD iv
(lístky do
památníku), G, g,
b, ?1848–9; PS i,
KD iv
(Svatební scény),
1849, ed. (Berlin,
1898); KD i: 1 Der
(Svatební průvod),
C, 2 Das
Brautpaar (Ženich
a nevěsta), A , 3
Hochzeitsfest: der
Tanz (Svatební
veselí: tanec), A
Übungen in den
Bildungen, C,
Acht rhythmische
Übungen, C,
Thema mit
G, c1844–9
Fingerübungen auf
der Grundlage der
Tonleiter, C,
[16] Höhere
Bildungen, c1845–
1:45, 46
2:25, 26, 22
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
9 [nos.1–12 lost]
albumleaves, A
[orig. version op.5
no.1, cf 1:5], B ,
1849, ed. (London,
1958); KD iv
(lístky do
památníku), d, G
, F#, ?1848–50,
frag.; KD iv
(Poklad melodií)
[i], c1849–50, ed.
(1923): I
Preludium, C, 2
Capriccio, a, 3 G
(Poklad melodií)
[ii] 1849–50, ed.
(1967): I
Moderato, C, 2 G,
3 Toccata, D, 4
Moderato, A, 5
Tempo di marcia,
Blätter (Lístky do
památníku). op.2,
1849–50 (Leipzig,
1851); KD iv: I
Prélude, C, 2
Chanson, a, 3 G,
4 c, 5 D, 6 b
untitled albumleaf
(lístek do
památníku), b , ?
1848–52; PS i, KD
untitled albumleaf
(lístek do
památníku), g, ?
1849–54, frag; KD
Toccatina, B, ?
1849–54, rev.
1883; PS i, KD iv
[orig. albumleaf]
untitled albumleaf
(lístek do
památníku) e , ?
1849–54; PS i, KD
Trois polkas de
salon (Tři) salonní
polky), op.7,
1848–54 (1854–5);
KD ii: (1 F#, 2 f, 3
Trois polkas
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
poétiques (Tři
poetické polky),
1848–54 (1854–5);
KD ii: I E , 2 g, 3
97, 79
100, 82
101, 81, 83
Andante, E ,
1849–52 (1856);
KD iv [incl. 1st
Polka, f, 1853–5;
PS iv, KD ii
3 Stücke (Tři
skladby) (Lístky
do památníku),
op.3, 1848–56,
nos.1–3 (Stuttgart,
1857); no.3 PS i;
KD iv [incl. 1st
version no.1]: 1
An Robert
Schumannovi), E
[cf B82], 2
Wanderlied (Píseň
pocestného), A, 3
Es siedet und
braust (Je slyšet
sykot, hukot a
svist), c# [after
Schiller: Der
Skizzen (Črty),
op.4, 1848–57
(1858); KD iv [incl.
1st versions of
nos.1, 4]: 1
Preludium, f#, 2
Idylle (Idyla), B, 3
(Vzpomínka), A ,
4 Beharrliches
Streben (Vytrvalá
snaha), g#
Skizzen (Črty),
op.5, 1848–57
(1858); KD iv: I
F#, 2 Schwermut
g#, 3 Freundliche
(Přivětivá krajina),
D , 4 Rhapsodie, f
Polka, G, c1850,
sketch; PS iv, KD
ii [used in orch,
1879, 1:115]
Polkas, E, g, A,
1850–53; PS iii,
KD ii
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
113, 108
75, 71
1:74a, b,
114, —
untitled, f, frag., ?
Polka, F#, before
1853; KD ii [orig.
version op.7 no.1,
cf 1:60]
Erinnerung an
Weimar, A , 1857
Cid campeador –
Ximene, tone
poem, sketch.,
1857–8; frag.; KD
op.10, of
Schubert's Die
schöne Müllerin,
1858: I Trockne
Blumen, lost, 2
Der Neugierige
(Zvědavý); PS vi,
KD v
Ballade (Balada),
e, sketch, 1858
frag.; KD v
Ball vision, Polka­
Rhapsodie (Vidění
na plese), a/C,
1858; PS xiii, KD
Polka, C, 1858;
KD ii [alternative
(?later) version of
(Koncertní etuda),
C, 1858, ed.
(1962); KD v [orig.
version, PS v, KD
Bettina Polka, C,
1859; 2nd version
1883, ed. (1944);
PS iv [1st
version], KD ii
[both versions]
Macbeth (Skica
ke scéně Macbeth
a čarodějnice ze
[Sketch to the
scene Macbeth
and the Witches],
1859; PS xiii, KD
Souvenir de
Bohême en forme
de polkas
(Vzpomínky na
Čechy ve formě
polek), op.12, 1 a,
2 e, op.13, 1 e, 2
E , 1859–60
(1865); KD ii
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Am Seegestade –
eine Erinnerung
(Na břehu
mořském –
concert study, g#,
1861 (1864); KD v
Grosse Fantasie
(Skladba a moll),
a, before 1862,
frag.; KD v [title
from the last rev.]
Cantabile, A, 1862
Ins Stammbuch
des Fräulein Marie
Proksch (Marii
Prokschové), C,
1862; KD iv
Fantasie na české
národní písně
[Fantasia on
Folksongs], B,
1862, (1867); KD
Rêves (Sny),
pieces, 1875
(1879): I Le
bonheur éteint
(Zaniklé štěstí), E
, 2 La
1:107, 114
112/i, ii
(Útěcha), A , 3 En
Bohême: scène
champêtre (V
vesnický výjev),
a, A, 4 Au salon
(V saloně), e, 5
Près du château
(Před hradem), B,
6 La fête des
(Slavnost českých
venkovanů), g
České tance
[Czech Dances], i,
1877 (1879): I
Polka, f#, 2 Polka,
a, 3 Polka, F, 4
Polka, B ; ii, 1879
(1880–81): 1
Furiant, a, 2,
Slepička [The
Little Hen], B , 3
Oves [Oats], A ,
4 Medvěd [The
Bear], C, 5
Cibulička [The
Little Onion], g, 6
Dupák, D, 7 Hulán
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
[The Uhlan], A, 8
Obkročák, E , 9
Sousedská, B, 10
Skočná, F [1, 6,
8–10 are names of
Andante, f, 1880,
facs. (1880); KD
(Romance), g,
1881 (1882); KD iv
for Mozart's Pf
Conc. in d, k466,
1st and 3rd movts,
1856; KD v
for Mozart's Pf
Conc. in c, k491,
1st movt, ?1856;
KD v
for Mozart's Pf
Smetana, Bedřich: Works
Conc. in B , k595,
1st and 3rd movts,
?1864; KD v
85 for Beethoven's Pf
Conc. in c, op.37,
1st movt, 1st
version, 1857–61,
ed. (1951), 2nd
version, 1872; KD
other keyboard
for piano 4 hands unless otherwise stated
Erinnerung an
(Vzpomínka na
Nové Město nad
Metují), polka,
1840, lost
13 Overture, c, 1842;
SD i
15 Overture, A,
1842; SD i
26 untitled, g, 2 pf, 8
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
hands, 1845
35 6 Preludes, C, c,
G, g, D, F, 1846,
org, ed. (1967)
47 Sonatensatz, e, 2
pf, 8 hands, 1849;
PS vii
57 Jugend­Rondo
(Rondo pro
mládež), C, 2 pf.
8 hands, 1850;
PS viii
— Sonata, E , 2 pf,
c1850, sketch
pf arrs. of the
works of Smetana
and others
Wagner), partly
Smetana, Bedřich: Works
compositional studies
3:30 A82 —
1 Komposition für Holzblasinstr. mit doppeltem Rohrblatt, 2 cls, bns, hns, 1846–7; SV
Fantasia da Mozart. Versuch einer Instrumentierung, 1846–7; SV xiii
3:31 A83 —
piano solo
29, —
harmony, counterpoint, melody, 1844–5 — first composition studies, song
form, marches, fugues, canons, 1845; KD iii [selection]
[2] Studies, 1846; PS v, KD iii: I C [in prelude form], 2 a [in song form]
variations, rondo form, sonata form, 1846; KD iii [selection]
Sonata, g, 1846, ed. (1949); KD iii
solo voice and piano
3:25 A70 32 Liebchen's Blick (Pohled mé dívky) (B. Breiger), 1846; PS xii, P
3:25 A71 33 Lebewohl! (Sbohem!) (W. Melhop), 1846; PS xii, P
other vocal
recitative, 1846
Aus Mozarts Titus: Duettino on the text of the op, 1847
Jesu meine Freude, chorale, SATB, 1846; SV ii
Ich hoffe auf den Herrn, fugue, SATB, 1846; SV ii
Lobet den Herrn, introduction and fugue, SATB, 1846; SV ii
Heilig ist der Herr Zebaoth (Isaiah vi.3), SATB, SATB, 1846; SV ii
Scapulis suis obumbrabit tibi Dominus, off, SATB, hns, str, org, 1846; SV ii
Meditabitur in mandatis tuis (Offertorium à la Händel), off, SATB, hns, str, org, 1846;
SV ii
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Smetana, Bedřich
a: catalogues, bibliographies and discographies
b: source materials
c: biographical studies
d: works, style, influences
e: performance and reception studies
f: special issues, periodicals and collections
Smetana, Bedřich: Bibliography
a: catalogues, bibliographies and discographies
K. Teige: Příspěvky k životopisu a umělecké činnosti Mistra Bedřicha Smetany,
i: Skladby Smetanovy: kommentovaný katalog všech skladeb Mistrových v
chronologickém postupu [Contributions to the biography and artistic
activities of Maestro Bedřich Smetana, i: Smetana’s compositions:
annotated catalogue of all the Maestro’s works in chronological order]
(Prague, 1893)
M. Očadlík: Smetanovská diskografie (Prague, 1939)
J. Bartoš: Smetanova hudba na gramofonových deskách [Smetana’s music on
gramophone records] (Prague, 1947)
H. Séquardtová: ‘Soupis rukopisů Bedřicha Smetany’ [List of Smetana
manuscripts], Sborník Musea Bedřicha Smetany, i (1959), 41–113
M. Očadlík: ‘Soupis dopisů Bedřicha Smetany’ [List of Smetana’s letters], MMC,
no.15 (1960) [whole issue]; see also F. Bartoš: ‘Příspěvky k soupisu dopisů
Bedřicha Smetany’ [Contributions to the list of Smetana’s letters], HV, i
(1964), 645–82
R. Budiš and V. Kafková: Bedřich Smetana: výběrová bibliografie [Smetana:
selective bibliography] (Prague, 1963)
F. Bartoš: Tematický soupis dí la Bedřicha Smetany [Thematic catalogue of the
works of Bedřich Smetana], MS frag. [to May 1868] (c1973), CZ­Pnm
J.R. Bennett: Smetana on 3000 Records (Blandford, 1974)
O. Polcarová: Bedřich Smetana: 2.3.1824–12.5.1884 (Plzeň, 1978) [list of
O. Čechová and J. Fojtíková: Bedřich Smetana (inventář fondu), S 217 [List of
sources] (Prague, 1984)
D. Vanišová, ed.: Soupis autografů Bedřicha Smetany … v archívních fondech
mimo Muzeum české hudby [A list of autographs by Bedřich Smetana … in
archival collections other than the Muzeum české hudby] (Prague, 1984)
J. Berkovec: Tematický katalog skladeb Bedřicha Smetany [Thematic
catalogue of the works of Bedřich Smetana] (MS, 1999)
O. Mojžíšová and M. Ottlová, ed.: The Bedřich Smetana Museum: a Guidebook
(Prague, 1999) [also in Cz., Ger.]
Smetana, Bedřich: Bibliography
b: source materials
Z. Nejedlý, ed.: Kresby Bedřicha Smetany [Smetana’s drawings] (Prague, 1925)
M. Očadlík: Rok Bedřicha Smetany, v datech, obrazech, zápisech a
poznámkách [Bedřich Smetana’s year in dates, pictures, reports and notes]
(Prague, 1950)
J. Plavec: Bedřich Smetana v obrazech [Smetana in pictures] (Prague, 1956,
Z. Wirth and A. Waisar: ‘Smetanova tvář’ [Smetana’s face], Sborník Musea
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Bedřicha Smetany, i (1959), 9–40
J. Kotalík: ‘Bedřich Smetana a výtvarné umění’ [Bedřich Smetana and the
visual arts], Průvodce výstavami Národní galerie v Praze, i (Prague, 2/1974)
M. Kuna: ‘Geneze Švabinského portrétu Bedricha Smetany’ [The genesis of
Max Švabinský’s portrait of Bedřich Smetana: a history], HV, xxviii (1991),
O. Hostinský, ed.: ‘Smetanovy dopisy’ [Smetana’s letters], Dalibor, vii (1885),
18–48 passim; viii (1886), 18–35 passim; ix (1887), 30–48 passim
K. Teige: Příspěvky k životopisu a umělecké činnosti Mistra Bedřicha Smetany,
ii: Dopisy Smetanovy: kommentovaný výbor šedesáti čtyř Mistrových dopisů
[Contributions to the biography and artistic activities of Maestro Bedřich
Smetana, ii: Smetana’s letters: a selection with commentary on 64 of the
Maestro’s letters] (Prague, 1896)
L. Zelenka­Lerando: B. Smetana a E. Züngel (Nymburk, 1903)
J. Löwenbach: Bedřich Smetana a dr. Ludevít Procházka: vzájemná
korespondence [Mutual correspondence] (Prague, 1914)
V. Balthasar: Bedřich Smetana, ii: Dopisy B. Smetany J. Srbovi­Debrnovovi
[Smetana’s letters to Josef Srb­Debrnov], (Prague, 1924), 93–269
A. Dolenský: Výbor dopisů Bedřicha Smetany [Selection of Smetana’s letters]
(Prague, 1928)
Z. Nejedlý and F. Ruth: Dopisy Bedřicha Smetany do Litomyšle [Smetana’s
letters to Litomyšl] (Litomyšl, 1938)
M. Očadlík, ed: Eliška Krásnohorská – Bedřich Smetana: vzájemná
korespondence [Mutual correspondence] (Prague, 1940)
F. Bartoš and and Z. Němec: Z dopisů Bedřicha Smetany [From Smetana’s
letters] (Prague, 1947)
I. Belza: ‘Pis'ma B. Smetany i St. Moniuszko k E.F. Napravniku’ [Letters of
Smetana and Moniuszko to Nápravník], Akad. nauk SSSR Inst.
slavyanovedeniya: Kratkiye soobscheniya, xiv (Moscow, 1955), 72–8
O. Pulkert: ‘Neznámé dopisy Bedřicha Smetany’ [Unknown letters from Bedřich
Smetana (to F.B. Ulm)], HRo, xii (1959), 137–40
P. Pražák: ‘Nad dopisem Žofie Schwarzové, dcery Bedřicha Smetany’ [A letter
of Smetana’s daughter Žofie], Ročenka universitní knihovny v Praze 1959
(Prague, 1961), 120–47
F. Bartoš: ‘Několik netištěných dopisů Bedřicha Smetany’ [Some unpublished
letters of Bedřich Smetana], HRo, xvi (1963), 476–80, 525–8
W. Suppan: ‘Eine Smetana­Miszelle’, SPFFBU, H4 (1969), 127–30
Z. Vokurka: ‘Ještě k vavřínům Smetanovy Hubičky (netištěný dopis Bedřicha
Smetany)’ [Once more to the laurels of Smetana’s The Kiss (an
unpublished letter of Bedřich Smetana)], OM, ii (1970), 198–203
K. Mecklenburg: ‘Caveat emptor, oder Falsche Smetana­Briefe’, Festschrift
Albi Rosenthal, ed. R. Elvers (Tutzing, 1984), 231–8
M. Kuna: ‘Žádosti Bedřicha Smetany o umělecké stipendium’ [Bedřich
Smetana’s petitions for an artist’s stipend], HV, xxv (1988), 120–31
Other letters in Dalibor, xxiii (1901), 317–8; xxv (1903), 156–8; xxx (1908), 13–
15, 69–70; xxxi (1909), 29–30, 45, 95–6, 119–20, 199; xl (1924), 128–31;
Smetana, i (1906), 221–4, 233–8, 247–50, 259–69, ii (1911), 105–8, 142–5;
Světozor, xliii (1909); HR, ii (1909), 233–46; vii (1914), 277–84; ix (1916),
546–834 passim, 193–8, 323–4, xi (1918), 150–51; Česká hudba, xxxiv/12
(1931), 67–9
diaries and personal statements
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
J. Srb­Debrnov: Z denníků Bedřicha Smetany (1856–1861) [From Smetana’s
diaries 1856–61] (Prague, 1902); orig. pubd in Dalibor, xxiii (1901), 39–45,
301–51 passim
L. Dolanský: ‘Bedřich Smetana v letech studentských, 1840–1847’ [Smetana in
his student years], Naše doba, x (1903), 241–6, 360–65 [diary extracts
Z. Nejedlý: ‘Opera Tajemství ve Smetanových dennících’ [The opera The Secret
in Smetana’s diaries], HR, i (1908), 377–9
A. Rektorys: ‘Z psaných rozmluv s B. Smetanou’ [From written interviews with
Smetana], Dalibor, xxxi (1909), 30–31
Z. Nejedlý: ‘Smetanovy politické záznamy z let 1868–73’ [Smetana’s diary
entries on politics 1868–73], Smetana, ix (1918–19), 4–6
F. Bartoš, ed.: Studentské vánoce Bedřicha Smetany r. 1840–41 [Smetana’s
student Christmasses] (Prague, 1939) [diary extracts]
M. Očadlík, ed.: Bedřich Smetana: To, co my, komponisté, jako v mlhách tušíme
(Prague, 1940) [Smetana’s statements on creating a national style]
V.H. Jarka, ed.: Kritické dílo Bedřicha Smetany, 1858–1865 [Smetana’s writings
as a critic 1858–65] (Prague, 1948)
M. Očadlík: Zápisky Bedřicha Smetany o Mladé Boleslavi [Smetana’s diary
entries concerning Mladá Boleslav] (Mladá Boleslav, 1949)
J. Kazda: ‘Smetana Bearing Testimony on the Theatre’, Interscaena: acta
scaenographica, iv/2 (1974), 35–9
V. Bokůvková: ‘Studentské deníky Bedřicha Smetany’ [Bedřich Smetana’s
student diaries], Čechy rezervoár hudebnosti: Benátky nad Jizerou 1976,
K. Honolka: Bedřich Smetana in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten
(Reinbek, 1978)
M. Očadlík, ed.: Bedřich Smetana: zápisník motivů [Notebook of motifs] (Prague,
1942) [facs. edn]
M. Očadlík, ed.: Prodaná nevěsta: první náčrtek Bedřicha Smetany [The
Bartered Bride: Smetana’s first sketch] (Prague, 1944) [facs. edn]
M. Očadlík: Závišův zpěv z náčrtku k Čertově stěně [Záviš’s (omitted) song from
the sketch for The Devil’s Wall] (Prague, 1944) [incl. transcr.]
J. Clapham: ‘Smetana's Sketches for “Dalibor” and “The Secret”’, ML, lxi (1980),
J. Smolka: ‘Nově nalezené skici Bedřicha Smetany k Mé vlasti, Viole a Snění’
[Newly discovered sketches by Bedřich Smetana for My Fatherland, Viola
and Dreams], Sborník Národního muzea v Praze, ser.A, xl/4 (1986), 171–
archive sources
J. Löwenbach: ‘Smetaniana v úředních archivech pražských’ [Smetaniana in
the official Prague archives], HR, vii (1913–14), 301–7
V. Herold: ‘Smetanova Má vlast a Praha: několik neznámých smetanovských
dokumentů z Archivu hlavního města Prahy’ [Smetana’s My Fatherland and
Prague: some unknown Smetana documents from the Prague City Archive],
HRo, xvi (1963), 711–13
M. Malý: ‘Smetanovská muzeologie’, OM, xiv (1982), 127–8
P. Daněk and J. Vyšohlídová: ‘Dokumenty k operní soutěži o cenu hraběte
Harracha’ [Documents for the opera competition for Count Harrach’s prize],
MMC, no.30 (1983), 147–55
I. Horová: ‘Operní konkursy vypsané v souvislosti s otevřením Národního
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
divadla v Praze’ [The opera competitions held for the opening of the
National Theatre in Prague], HV, xxvii (1990), 152–9
O. Mojžíšová: ‘Smetanovské prameny – stav 1994’ [The state of Smetana
source materials, 1994], HV, xxxii (1995), 19–27; Eng. trans. in Bedřich
Smetana: Prague 1994, 243–51
E. Krásnohorská: ‘K vavřínům Smetanovy Hubičky’, Ženské listy, xxii (1894),
71–219 passim
V.V. Zelený: O Bedřichu Smetanovi [On Smetana] (Prague, 1894)
Vzpomínky na Bedřicha Smetanu (Prague, 1917) [reminiscences of Smetana by
J. Schwarz, A. Heller, J. Jiránek, E. Chvalovský, E. Veil, E. Maislerová, A.
Vávra, and F. Maisler]
J. Löwenbach: ‘Studentská léta Smetanova’ [Smetana’s student years], HR, x
(1917), 304–10, 351–7
L. Dolanský: Hudební paměti [Musical memoirs], ed. Z. Nejedlý (Prague, 1918,
E. Krásnohorská: ‘Vzpomínky půlstoleté’ [Memories of half a century], Co
přinesla léta [What the years brought] (Prague, 1928), i, 5–147
E. Krásnohorská: ‘Ze vzpomínek na Bedřicha Smetanu’ [From my
reminiscences of Bedřich Smetana], Co přinesla léta, (Prague, 1928), ii, 5–
46; orig. pubd in Ruch, ii (1913–14); ‘Doplňky ku pamětem o B. Smetanovi’
[Additions to my memoirs of Bedřich Smetana], Ženské listy, xliii (1915)
J. Srb­Debrnov: Vzpomínky starého muzikanta na Smetanu a Dvořáka [An old
musician’s reminiscences of Smetana and Dvořák] (Praha, 1930)
F. Bartoš, ed.: Smetana ve vzpomínkách a dopisech [Smetana in
reminiscences and letters] (Prague, 1939, enlarged 9/1954; Ger. trans.,
1954; Eng. trans., 1955) [Ger. trans. gives orig. text of Ger. documents]
J. Jiránek: Smetanův žák vzpomíná [Smetana’s pupil remembers] (Prague,
1941, 2/1957 as Vzpomínky a korespondence s Bedřichem Smetanou
[Reminiscences of and correspondence with Bedřich Smetana])
B. Čapková: Z jabkenické myslivny [From the Jabkenice hunting lodge]
(Prague, 1964, 6/1982)
J. Boříková: ‘Kateřina Smetanová v zrcadle svého deníku z let 1854–55’
[Kateřina Smetanová as reflected in her diary 1854–55], OM, xxiv (1992),
Smetana, Bedřich: Bibliography
c: biographical studies
O. Meliš: ‘Bedřich Smetana’, Lumír, vii (1857), 1240–41; Dalibor, v (1863) 185–7
E. Krásnohorská: ‘Bedřich Smetana: v pamětní dobu padesátiletého působení
mistrova’ [Smetana: in commemoration of 50 years of the master’s activity],
Osvěta, x (1880), 16–31
E. Krásnohorská: Bedřich Smetana: nástin života i působení jeho uměleckého
[Smetana: an outline of his life and artistic work] (Prague, 1885); repr. in
Výbor z díla [Selected works], ed. Z. Pešat and J. Křesálková, ii (Prague,
1956), 363–90
B. Wellek: ‘Friedrich Smetana's Leben und Wirken’, Österreichischungarische
Revue, xvii (1894–5); pubd separately (Prague, 1895, 2/1900); repr. in
Musikblätter der Wiener Philharmoniker, xlii/4 (1987), 101–19
B. Kalenský: Bedřich Smetana a Milij Balakirev: jejich význam pro vývoj hudby
slovanské, jejich osobní i umělecké styky [Smetana and Balakirev: their
significance for the development of Slavonic music, their personal and
artistic relations] (Prague, 1897)
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
F.V. Krejčí: Bedřich Smetana (Prague, 1900, 2/1924)
W. Ritter: Smetana (Paris, 1907/R)
L. Bráfová: Rieger, Smetana, Dvořák (Prague, 1913)
K. Hoffmeister: Bedřich Smetana (Prague, 1915)
Z. Nejedlý: Smetaniana, i (Prague, 1922)
V. Balthasar: Bedřich Smetana, i: Studie osobnosti a díla z hlediska
psychologického a psychopathologického [A study of the personality and
work from a psychological and psychopathological viewpoint] (Prague,
V. Helfert: Tvůrčí rozvoj Bedřicha Smetany: preludium k životnímu dílu
[Smetana’s creative development: a prelude to his life’s work] (Prague,
1924, 2/1953; Ger. trans., 1956)
A. Hnilička: Rozhledy po životě a významu Bedřicha Smetany [A survey of
Smetana’s life and significance] (Prague, 1924)
Z. Nejedlý: Bedřich Smetana (Prague, 1924; Eng. trans., 1924, as Bedřich
Smetana: the Great Master) [short account]
Z. Nejedlý: Bedřich Smetana: doba zrání [Smetana: time of development]
(Prague, 1924, 2/1962)
E. Rychnovsky: Smetana (Stuttgart, 1924)
Z. Nejedlý: Bedřich Smetana (Prague, 1924–33, 2/1950–54) [covers 1824–43]
L. Haškovec: O Hlavovu diagnosu choroby Smetanovy [On Hlava’s diagnosis
of Smetana’s illness] (Třeboň, 1925)
A. Kraus: Smetana v Göteborgu [Smetana in Göteborg] (Prague, 1925)
J. Tiersot: Smetana: biographie critique illustré (Paris, 1926)
V. Helfert: Pohled na Bedřicha Smetanu [A view of Bedřich Smetana] (Brno,
A. Hnilička: Smetanovské kapitoly [Smetana chapters] (Chrudim, 1935)
A. Hnilička: Studie k etapám vývoje Bedřicha Smetany [Studies in the stage of
the evolutionary epochs of Bedřich Smetana] (Prague, 1937)
M. Očadlík: Ženy v životě Bedřicha Smetany [Women in the life of Bedřich
Smetana] (Prague, 1941)
J. Teichmann: Bedřich Smetana: život a dílo [Smetana: life and works] (Prague,
1944, 2/1946)
J. Čeleda: Smetanův druh sděluje: život a dílo Josefa Srba­Debrnova
[Smetana’s companion communicates: Josef Srb­Debrnov’s life and work]
(Prague, 1945)
M. Očadlík: Tvůrce české národní hudby Bedřich Smetana [Smetana, founder of
Czech national music] (Prague, 1945, 2/1949)
J. Racek: Bedřich Smetana a Morava [Smetana and Moravia] (Brno, 1946)
M. Mrázek: ‘Bedřich Smetana a Plzeň’, Sborník Pedagogického institutu v Plzni:
uméní, iii (1960), 187–270
B. Karásek: Bedřich Smetana (Prague, 1966; Ger. and Fr. trans., 1967)
C. Thörnqvist: Smetana in Göteborg 1856–1862 (Göteborg, 1967) [in Eng.]
B. Large: Smetana (London, 1970)
B. Smutný: ‘Soutěž o Harrachovu cenu’ [The competition for the Harrach prize],
HV, vii (1970), 209–11
J. Clapham: ‘The Smetana–Pivoda Controversy’, ML, lii (1971), 353–64
J. Clapham: Smetana (London and New York, 1972)
R. Budiš: Bedřich Smetana (Prague, 1974)
L. Reznicek: Smetana in Skandinavien (Oslo, 1974)
V. Holzknecht: Bedřich Smetana: život a dílo [Smetana: life and works] (Prague,
1979, 2/1984)
Z. Nejedlý: O Bedřichu Smetanovi [On Bedřich Smetana], ed. J. Jiránek
(Prague, 1980)
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
O. Bořík, R. Khel and J. Boříková: ‘Ušní onemocnění Bedřicha Smetany’
[Smetana’s ear disease], OM, xvi (1984), 294–304; see also MMC, no.30
(1983), 308–10
O. Čechová: ‘Bedřich Smetana a východní Čechy’ [Bedřich Smetana and
eastern Bohemia], Muzikologické dialogy: Chrudim 1984, 213–32
H. Séquardtová: Bedřich Smetana (Leipzig, 1985)
R. Khel: ‘Bedřich Smetana, čtenář’ [Bedřich Smetana, reader], OM, xviii (1986),
E. Vlček and L. Cigánek: ‘Zrak Bedřicha Smetany’ [Smetana’s sight], Časopis
Národního muzea v Praze, ser.A, clvii/3–4 (1988), 159–63
A. Neumayr: Musik und Medizin: Chopin – Smetana – Tschaikowsky – Mahler
[Music and medicine: Chopin – Smetana – Tchaikovsky – Mahler] (Vienna,
G. Erismann: Smetana l’éveilleur (Arles, 1993)
J. Berkovec: ‘Presumpce Smetanovy originality: úvod k úvahám o umělcově
originalitě’ [Presumptions of Smetana’s originality: an introduction to
reflections on the originality of an artist], HV, xxxii (1995), 3–9; Eng. trans. in
Bedřich Smetana: Prague 1994, 26–29
J. Smolka: Osudové lásky Bedřicha Smetany [Fatal loves of Bedřich Smetana]
(Prague, 1998)
Smetana, Bedřich: Bibliography
d: works, style, influences
Z. Nejedlý: Zpěvohry Smetanovy [Smetana’s operas] (Prague, 1908, 3/1954)
O. Zich: Smetanova Hubička: hudebně esthetický rozbor [Smetana’s The Kiss:
a musico­aesthetical analysis] (Prague, 1911)
E. Rychnovsky: Dalibor (Berlin, n.d.)
M. Očadlík: Čertova stěna: výklad opery [The Devil’s Wall: an account of the
opera] (Prague and Brno, 1938)
M. Očadlík: Smetana – Dalibor: výklad opery [Smetana’s Dalibor: an account of
the opera] (Prague and Brno, 1938)
M. Očadlík: Smetana: Tajemství [Smetana: The Secret] (Prague and Brno,
M. Očadlík: Libuše: vznik Smetanovy zpěvohry [Libuše: the origin of Smetana’s
opera] (Prague, 1939, 2/1949)
M. Očadlík: Smetanovi libretisté [Smetana’s librettists] (Prague, 1948)
M. Očadlík: Smetanova Prodaná nevěsta [Smetana’s The Bartered Bride]
(Prague, 1951, 3/1953)
M. Očadlík: Smetanovi Braniboři v Čechách [Smetana’s The Brandenburgers in
Bohemia] (Prague, 1952)
F. Pala: Smetanův Dalibor [Smetana’s Dalibor] (Prague, 1952)
F. Bartoš: ‘Ke genesi Smetanovy Prodané nevěsty’ [On the genesis of The
Bartered Bride], Musikologie, iv (1955), 7–31
J. Zich: Instrumentace Smetanova Dalibora: esteticko­theoretická studie
[Instrumentation of Smetana’s Dalibor: an aesthetic and theoretical study]
(Prague, 1957)
H. Stoffels: Die verkaufte Braut von Friedrich Smetana (Berlin, 1977)
J. Jiránek: ‘Sabinovo libreto ke Smetanově první opeře’ [Sabina’s libretto to
Smetana’s first opera], Česká literatura, xxvii (1979), 206–18 [with Eng.
M. Ottlová and M. Pospíšil: ‘Český historismus a opera 19. století (Smetanova
Libuše)’ [Czech historicism and 19th­century opera (Smetana’s Libuše)],
Uměnovědné studie, iii (1981), 83–99; Ger. trans. in Festschrift Heinz
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Becker, ed. J. Schläder and R. Quandt (Laaber, 1982), 237–48
M. Ottlová and M. Pospíšil: ‘K problematice české historické opery 19. století’
[The problem of 19th­century Czech historical opera], HRo, xxxiv (1981),
169–72; Ger. trans. in The Musical Theatre: Brno XV 1980, 267–81 [on The
Brandenburgers in Bohemia]
A. Goebel: ‘Friedrich Smetana, Das Brautpaar: ein Beitrag zum Charakterstück
im 19. Jahrhundert’, Musik und Bildung, xiv/1 (1982), 12–19
P. Vít: ‘Libuše: proměny mýtu ve společnosti a v umění’ [Libuše: the
transformations of myth in society and art], HV, xix (1982), 269–73; Ger.
trans. in The Musical Theatre: Brno XV 1980, 282–91
J. Jiránek: Smetanova operní tvorba [Smetana’s operatic works] (Prague,
B. Srba: ‘Bedřich Smetana a soudobá divadelní konvence’ [Bedřich Smetana
and contemporary theatrical conventions], OM, xvii (1985), 71–81, 97–107
J. Smaczny: ‘Smetana's Romantic Comedy’, Opera, xxxviii (1987), 134–9 [on
The Devil’s Wall]
J. Tyrrell: Czech Opera (Cambridge, 1988; Cz. trans., 1991–2)
M. Ottlová and M. Pospíšil: ‘Francouzská veselohra v kontextu české opery:
Smetanovy Dvě vdovy’ [French comedy in the context of Czech opera:
Smetana’s The Two Widows], Proudy české umělecké tvorby 19. století:
Plzeň 1989, ed. M. Ottlová (Prague, 1991), 156–167
V. Zvara: ‘Príznačné motívy v Smetanovom Daliborovi’ [Leitmotivs in Smetana’s
Dalibor], HV, xxix (1992), 316–26
I. Vojtěch: ‘K dramaturgii Prodané nevěsty’ [On the dramaturgy of The Bartered
Bride], OM, xxvi (1994), 195–200; Ger. trans. in Bedřich Smetana: Prague
1994, 185–91
H. Jung: ‘Wagner und Smetana: zur musikdramatischen Konzeption in
“Lohengrin” und “Dalibor”’, Richard Wagner – Nationalkulturen –
Zeitgeschichte: Brno XXX 1995, 109–23
instrumental works
A. Piskáček: Má vlast: cyklus symfonických básní [My Fatherland: cycle of
symphonic poems] (Prague, 1911)
V. Helfert: Motiv Smetanova Vyšehradu: studie o jeho genesi [The motif of
Smetana’s Vyšehrad: a study in its genesis] (Prague, 1917)
J. Hutter: B. Smetana: Klavírní trio – ‘Z mého života’ (I. smyčcový kvartet) – II.
smyčcový kvartet [Smetana: Piano Trio – ‘From My Life’ (First String
Quartet) – Second String Quartet] (Prague, 1923)
J. Hutter: B. Smetana: Richard III. – Valdštýnův tábor – Hakon Jarl (Prague,
J. Theurer: O komorních dílech B. Smetany [On the chamber works of Smetana]
(Praha, 1924)
O. Zich: Symfonické básně Smetanovy [Smetana’s symphonic poems] (Prague,
1924, 2/1949)
J. Jiránek: O Smetanových klavírních skladbách a jeho klavírní hře [On
Smetana’s piano works and their pianistic performance] (Prague, 1932)
H. Humlová, ed.: Smetanova ‘Má vlast’ [Smetana’s My Fatherland] (Brno, 1939)
O. Šourek: Smetanova ‘Má vlast’: její vznik a osudy [Smetana’s My Fatherland:
its origins and destiny] (Prague, 1940)
B. Štědroň: Smetanův ‘Pražský karneval’ [Smetana’s Prague Carnival]
(Prague, 1940)
O. Kredba: Klavírní trio Bedřicha Smetany [Smetana’s Piano Trio] (Prague,
J. Racek: Motiv Vltavy: genese hlavního motivu Smetanovy symfonické básně
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
[The Vltava motif: the genesis of the main motif of Smetana’s symphonic
poem] (Olomouc, 1944)
O. Šourek: Komorní skladby Bedřicha Smetany [Smetana’s chamber music]
(Prague, 1945)
L. Kundera: ‘Chopinovy vlivy ve Smetanově klavírní tvorbě’ [Chopin’s influence
on Smetana’s piano works], Musikologie, ii (1949), 11–37
M. Očadlík: Smetanova Má vlast: cyklus symfonických básní (Prague, 1953)
M. Očadlík: Klavírní dílo Bedřicha Smetany [Smetana’s piano works] (Prague,
K. Janeček: ‘Smetanův kvartet Z mého života: tektonický rozbor’ [Smetana’s
Quartet From My Life: structural analysis], Živá hudba, iv (1968), 9–63
M. Ottlová: ‘Smetanova sonáta g moll’, HRo, xxiv (1971), 69–78
K. Janeček: ‘Smetanův básnivý experiment: pokus o aktivizovaný rozbor
taneční věty Smetanova Druhého kvartetu’ [Smetana’s poetic experiment:
an attempt at a functional analysis of the dance movement from Smetana’s
Second String Quartet], Živá hudba, v (1973), 41–88
J. Gabrielová: ‘Šest charakteristických skladeb op.1 Bedřicha Smetany’
[Smetana’s Six morceaux caractéristiques op.1], HV, xi (1974), 330–34
[with Ger. summary]
K. Janeček: ‘Smetanův první velký tvůrčí čin’ [Smetana’s first great creative
feat], HV, xi (1974), 101–24 [on Piano Trio; with Ger. summary]
K. Janeček: Smetanova komorní hudba: kompoziční výklad [Smetana’s
chamber music: compositional interpretation] (Prague, 1978)
J. Gabrielová: ‘Smetanovy Lístky do památníku: ke kompoziční problematice
skladatelova raného tvůrčího období’ [Smetana’s Albumleaves: on the
problems of composition in the composer’s early creative period], HV, xvi
(1979), 246–51
R. Smetana: ‘Smetanova Vltava a její melodická tematika’ [Smetana’s Vltava
and its melodic themes], HV, xvi (1979), 195–218
V. Lébl and J. Ludvová: ‘Historismus Smetanovy Mé vlasti’ [The historicism of
Smetana’s Má vlast], Uměnovědné studie, iii (1981), 99–141
J. Ludvová and V. Lébl: ‘Dobové kořeny a souvislosti Mé vlasti’ [Smetana’s Má
vlast: historical roots and connections], HV, xviii (1981), 99–140
C. Floros: ‘Verschwiegene Programmusik’, Anzeiger der philosophische­
historische Klasse der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, xix
(1982), 204–25
J. Gabrielová: ‘Smetanovy České tance (poznámky ke kompoziční a estetické
problematice)’ [Smetana’s Czech Dances (remarks on compositional and
aesthetic problems)], MMC, no.30 (1983), 115–26
T. Hirsbrunner: ‘Das Erhabene in Bedřich Smetanas Mein Vaterland’, AMw, xli
(1984), 35–41
R. Siebr: ‘Zu den Violinkompositionen Robert Schumanns und Bedřich
Smetanas’, Schumann­Tage [IX]: Zwickau 1984, 53–63
J. Smolka: Smetanova symfonická tvorba [Smetana’s symphonic works]
(Prague, 1984)
J. Doležel: ‘Polka w twórczości fortepianowej Bedřicha Smetany’ [The polka in
the piano output of Bedřich Smetana], Muzyka fortepianowa, vii (1987), 57–
J. Volek: ‘Semantyka i znaczenie form tanecznych w twórczości Chopin i
Smetany’ [The semantics and significance of dance forms in the music of
Chopin and Smetana], Rocznik chopinowski/Annales Chopin, xx (1988),
113–19; Ger. trans. in Chopin Studies, iv (1994), 109–15
Yu­Kuang Mao: ‘Smetana and his Má vlast’, Study of Music, ii (1989), 85–9
J. Fukač: ‘Mezi triumfální a počestnou bodrostí: Smetanův symfonický pokus’
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
[Between triumph and honest joviality: Smetana’s symphonic experiment],
OM, xxiv (1992), 261–7; Ger. trans. in Ethnonationale Wechselbeziehungen
in der mitteleuropäischen Musik: Brno XXVII 1992, 299–308
M. Ottlová: ‘Smetana a Dvořák: na materiálu prvních vět posledních kvartet’
[Smetana and Dvořák: on the first movements of their last quartets], HV, xxix
(1992), 110–17; Ger. trans. in Antonín Dvořák 1841–1991, ed. M. Pospíšil
and M. Ottlová (Prague, 1994), 103–13
D.B. Mead: The Symphonic Structure of Smetana’s Má vlast (DMA diss., U. of
Texas, 1994)
J. Gabrielová: ‘Oehlenschläger – Hartmann – Smetana: Hakon Jarl’, Musik en
forskning, xx (1994–95), 55–80; see also Bedřich Smetana: Prague 1994,
M. Ottlová: ‘Smetanova Triumfální symphonie’ [Smetana’s Triumph Symphony],
HV, xxxii (1995), 27–34, Ger. trans. in Bedřich Smetana: Prague 1994, 91–
M. Ottlová: ‘Problémy se Smetanovou Triumfální symfonií’ [Problems of
Smetana’s Triumph Symphony], Český lev a rakouský orel v 19. století, ed.
Z. Hojda and R. Prahl (Prague, 1996), 37–46
K. DeLong: ‘Hearing his Master’s Voice: Smetana’s “Swedish” Symphonic
Poems and their Lisztian Models’, Liszt and His World, i, ed. M. Saffle
(Stuyvesant, NY, 1998), 295–334
vocal and choral works
J. Plavec: Smetanova tvorba sborová [Smetana’s choral works] (Prague, 1945;
rev. 1954)
J. Smolka: Smetanova vokální tvorba: písně, sbory, kantáta [Smetana’s vocal
works: songs, choruses, cantatas] (Prague, 1980)
O. Hostinský: Bedřich Smetana a jeho boj o moderní českou hudbu [Smetana
and his struggle for modern Czech music] (Prague, 1901, 2/1941)
V. Helfert: Smetanismus a wagnerianismus (Prague, 1911)
K. Stecker: K otázce smetanismu a wagnerianismu [On the question of
Smetanism and Wagnerism] (Prague, 1911)
V. Helfert: Smetanovské kapitoly [Smetana chapters] (Prague, 1917, 2/1954)
F. Pujman: Smetanovský brevíř [A Smetana breviary] (Prague, 1917)
J. Racek: Idea vlasti, národa a slávy v díle Bedřicha Smetany [The idea of
Fatherland, Nation and Glory in the work of Bedřich Smetana] (Brno, 1933,
enlarged 2/1947)
A. Sychra: ‘Realismus Bedřicha Smetany’ [Smetana’s realism], HRo, i (1948–
9), 166–86
V. Helfert: O Smetanovi: soubor statí a článků [Concerning Smetana: collection
of essays and articles] (Prague, 1950)
V. Felix: ‘Rychlost harmonického pohybu v díle Bedřicha Smetany’ [The speed
of harmonic movement in Smetana’s works], Živá hudba, i (1959), 85–108
V. Hudec: ‘Zum Problem des “Lisztartigen” in Smetanas symphonischen
Dichtungen’, Liszt–Bartók: Budapest, 1961, 131–7
J. Jiránek: ‘Liszt a Smetana’, HV (1961), no.4, 22–80 [on the genesis and
comparison of piano styles]
K. Janeček: Tvorba a tvůrci: úvahy, eseje, studie, poznámky [Creativity and the
creators: observations, essays, studies, remarks] (Prague, 1968)
J. Jiránek: ‘Das Problem der Beziehung von Musik und Wort im Schaffen
Bedřich Smetanas’, Music and Word: Brno IV 1969, 107–37
P. Klapil: ‘Typická melodická centra Smetanova a Dvořákova’ [Typical melodic
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
centres in the music of Smetana and Dvořák], Sborník prací pedagogické
fakulty University Palackého v Olomouci: hudební výchova (Prague, 1969),
M. Očadlík: ‘Smetanův tvůrčí řád’ [Smetana’s compositional laws], OM, ii (1970),
K. Janeček: ‘Smetanova poslední fugová práce: pokus o aktivizovaný rozbor
pomalé věty Smetanova Druhého kvartetu’ [Smetana’s last fugal
composition: an attempt at a functional analysis of the slow movement of the
Second Quartet], HV, viii (1971), 399–441 [with summaries in Eng., Ger.,
Russ., 493–501]
‘Smetanovo první tvůrčí období’ [Smetana’s first creative period], HV, xi (1974)
[Smetana issue; incl. Ger. summaries], 136–94
J. Bajer, ed.: Česká hudba světu, svět české hudbě [Czech music to the world,
the world to Czech music] (Prague, 1974) [incl. M. Ottlová: ‘Smetanovy
studijní pochody z roku 1845’ [Smetana’s study marches of 1845], 20–37; V.
Protopopov: ‘Polyfonie v díle Bedřicha Smetany’ [Polyphony in Smetana’s
work], 38–47; I. Martynov: ‘Smetana: novátor kvartetní hudby’ [Smetana:
innovator of quartet music], 48–55]
J. Jiránek: ‘Bedřich Smetana česká literatura’ [Bedřich Smetana and Czech
literature], Česká literatura, xxii (1974), 426–38
J. Jiránek: ‘Smetanova estetika’ [Smetana’s aesthetic views], Estetika, xi
(1974), 238–46
V. Kyas: ‘Paralely v harmonické struktuře skladeb B. Smetany a F. Schuberta: k
metodě kvantitativních harmonických analýz’ [Parallels in the harmonic
structure of works by Smetana and Schubert: towards a method of
quantitative harmonic analysis], HV, xi (1974), 313–29 [with Ger. summary]
J. Vysloužil: ‘Johann Sebastian Bach und Bedřich Smetana: zur Genesis und
Semantik von Smetanas polyphonem Denken und zu seinen polyphonen
Formen’, Internationales Bach­Fest III: Leipzig 1975, 293–305
M.K. Černý: ‘Smetana a Balakirev: k interpretaci kulturně politických souvislostí
ve Smetanově díle’ [Smetana and Balakirev: interpreting the cultural and
political connections of Smetana’s work], HV, xiii (1976), 239–56
J. Jiránek: Vztah hudby a slova v tvorbě Bedřicha Smetany [The relationship of
words and music in the works of Bedřich Smetana] (Prague, 1976) [with
Ger. summary]; abridged Ger. version in Music and Word: Brno IV 1969,
V. Kyas: ‘Zur Genesis von Smetanas harmonischem Denken’, ČMm, lxii (1978),
H. Séquardtová: Konstanty a proměny ve Smetanově tvorbě (příspěvek ke
studiu hudebně myšlenkových souvislostí) [Constants and variables in
Smetana’s creative work (a contribution to the study of connections
between music and intellect)] (Prague, 1978) [summaries in Eng., Ger.,
M. Ottlová and M. Pospíšil: ‘Smetanův Meyerbeer’ [Smetana’s Meyerbeer], HV,
xxi (1984), 355–63
J. Smolka: ‘Podíl metrorytmických struktur na kompozičním stylu Bedřicha
Smetany’ [The effect of metrorhythmic structures on the compositional style
of Bedřich Smetana], Čas v hudbě, ed. M. Kuna and V. Nollová (Prague,
1984), 28–43
M. Girardi: ‘Letteratura e folklore nei “cori” di Smetana come stromenti ideologici
nell’ambito della musica nazional ceca’, NRMI, xx (1986), 579–604
J. Smolka: ‘Bedřich Smetana a Jan Dismas Zelenka’, OM, xix (1987), 104–9
J. Smolka: ‘Modulace a tonální skoky v hudbě Bedřicha Smetany a jeho
předchůdců’ [Modulation and transitions to remote keys in music of Bedřich
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
Smetana and his predecessors], HV, xxiv (1987), 321–40
J. Markl: ‘Potulné melodie ve folklóru: u Mozarta, Smetany a jiných’ [Wandering
melodies in folklore: Mozart, Smetana and others], OM, xxiii (1991), 245–50
J. Jiránek: ‘Pastorální intonace v tvorbě Bedřicha Smetany’ [Pastoral
intonations in the music of Bedřich Smetana], OM, xxiv (1992), 218–34
W. Salmen: ‘Friedrich Smetana und der mythische Sänger Lumir’,
Vergleichend­systematische Musikwissenschaft … Franz Födermayr zum
60. Geburtstag, ed. E.T. Hilscher and T. Antonicek (Tutzing, 1994), 551–9
M. Ottlová and M. Pospíšil: Bedřich Smetana a jeho doba [Bedřich Smetana
and his time] (Prague, 1997)
Smetana, Bedřich: Bibliography
e: performance and reception studies
F.A. Šubert: České Národní divadlo na první mezinárodní divadelní výstavě ve
Vídni r. 1892 [The Czech National Theatre at the First International Theatre
Exhibition in Vienna 1892] (Prague, 1892) [incl. reviews of The Bartered
Bride and Dalibor]
J. Machač: Bedřich Smetana a cizina [Bedřich Smetana and abroad] (Hradec
Králové, 1910)
F. Pujman: Poznámky o dramaturgii Smetanových oper [Remarks on the
dramaturgy of Smetana’s operas] (Prague, 1919) [from Dalibor to The
Devil’s Wall]
O. Zítek: O novou zpěvohru: k dramaturgii a režii hudebního dramatu [On the
new opera: the dramaturgy and stage direction of music drama] (Prague,
1920) [incl. chaps. on Libuše, The Two Widows and The Devil’s Wall]
O. Zítek: Smetanova Čertova stěna s hlediska dramaturgického [Smetana’s The
Devil’s Wall from the dramaturgical point of view] (Prague, 1922)
Almanach na památku tisícího provedení Prodané nevěsty [Almanac to
commemorate the 1000th performance of The Bartered Bride] (Prague,
1927) [incl. memoirs and statistics of performers and interpreters]
Památník: 200 představení Tajemství 1878–1928 [Album: 200 performances of
The Secret] (Prague, 1928) [incl. statistics]
J.B. Foerster: O Bedřichu Smetanovi: referáty v Národních listech 1884–1893
[On Bedřich Smetana: reviews in Národní listy 1884–93], ed. J. Bartoš
(Prague, 1929)
L. Firkušný: Prodaná nevěsta a její historie na brněnském jevišti [The Bartered
Bride and its history on the Brno stage] (Brno, 1936) [incl. statistics,
photographs and stage designs]
H. Thein: Mé režijní poznámky k Prodané nevěstě [My production notes on The
Bartered Bride] (Unhošť, 1940)
O. Šourek and others: Smetanův operní epilog: k novým dramaturgickým
úpravám Čertovy stěny [Smetana’s operatic epilogue: on the new stage
adaptations of The Devil’s Wall] (Prague, 1942)
Památník třístého provedení slavnostní zpěvohry Bedřicha Smetany ‘Libuše’ v
Národním divadle v Praze [Album for the 300th performance of Bedřich
Smetana’s Libuše at the National Theatre in Prague] (Prague, 1946)
M. Očadlík: Poslední dramaturgická úprava Smetanovy Čertovy stěny [The most
recent stage adaptation of Smetana’s The Devil’s Wall] (Prague, 1946)
P. Pražák: Smetanovy zpěvohry [Smetana’s operas] (Prague, 1948)
V. Pospíšil: ‘Talichova Prodaná nevěsta’ [Talich’s Bartered Bride], HRo, x
(1957), 741–5
Z. Soušek: ‘Zamyšlení nad interpretací Vaška ze Smetanovy Prodané nevěsty’
[Thoughts on the interpretation of Vašek in Smetana’s The Bartered Bride],
Sborník Janáčkovy akademie múzických umění, ii (1960), 19–27
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
P. Pražák: Smetanova Prodaná nevěsta: vznik a osudy díla [Smetana’s The
Bartered Bride: its origin and further history] (Prague, 1962)
V. Pospíšil: ‘Prodaná nevěsta ve Francii’ [The Bartered Bride in France], HRo,
xxv (1972), 126–30
L.S. Ginzburg: ‘O interpretaci Smetanova kvartetu e­moll “Z mého života”:
pokus o srovnávací analýzu’ [The interpretation of Smetana’s E minor
Quartet ‘From my life’: an attempt at a comparative analysis], HV, xi (1974),
307–12; Eng. trans. in Muzïkal'noye ispolnitel'stvo, x (Moscow, 1979)
V. Hudec: ‘Ke vztahu Moravy k dílu Bedřicha Smetany’ [Concerning the
relationship of Moravia to the works of Bedřich Smetana], OM, vi (1974),
S. Jareš: ‘Obrazová dokumentace nejstarších inscenací Prodané nevěsty’
[Pictorial documentation of the earliest productions of The Bartered Bride],
HV, xi (1974), 195–8 [with Ger. summary]
L. Jehne: ‘K problematice smetanovských hlasových oborů a pěveckých typů’
[The question of Smetana’s voice types and singer types], HV, xi (1974),
125–35 [with Ger. summary]
M. Kuna: Životnost Smetanova odkazu: kapitola z let 1939–1945 [The vitality of
Smetana’s heritage: a chapter from the years 1939–45] (Prague, 1974)
K. Černický: ‘K notaci tremola ve Smetanových operních partiturách’ [The
notation of the tremolo in Smetana’s opera scores], HV, xvi (1979), 349–53
R. Vonásek: ‘Dalibor včera, dnes a zítra’ [Dalibor yesterday, today and
tomorrow], OM, xiv (1982), v–xi
J. Burghauser: ‘Historie retuší ve Smetanově Mé vlasti’ [The history of the
reorchestration of Smetana’s My Fatherland], HRo, xxxvi (1983), 180–83
B. Hampton­Renton: ‘Smetanova Má vlast v novém světě’ [Smetana’s My
Fatherland in the New World], HRo, xxxvi (1983), 85–9
O. Podgorný: ‘Smetanův první smyčcový kvartet z hlediska interpretační
analýzy’ [Smetana’s First String Quartet: a comparative study of
interpretation], HV, xx (1983), 150–66
B. Srba: ‘Jevištní výprava představení Smetanovy Libuše v Národním divadle z
let 1881 a 1883’ [Stage sets for Smetana’s Libuše at the National Theatre in
1881 and 1883], Divadlo v české kultuře 19. století: Plzeň 1983, 167–87
J. Střítecký: ‘Tradice a obrození: Bedřich Smetana’ [Tradition and rebirth:
Bedřich Smetana], Povědomí tradice v novodobé české kultuře (doba
Bedřicha Smetany): Prague 1984, 65–76
M. Dosoudilová: ‘Pujmanova režijní koncepce Smetanova Dalibora’ [Pujman’s
production conception of Smetana’s Dalibor], HRo, xxxviii (1985), 178–84,
221–4, 284–7
I. Štěpánová: ‘Kostým Mařenky z Prodané nevěsty na jevišti Národního divadla
jako etnografický pramen’ [Mařenka’s costume for The Bartered Bride on
the stage of the National Theatre as an ethnographic source], Český lid,
lxxii (1985), 23–31
M. Hůrka: ‘Prodaná nevěsta a film’ [The Bartered Bride and film], HRo, xxxix
(1986), 186–92
M. Dosoudilová: ‘Geneze Pujmanova pojetí Prodané nevěsty’ [The genesis of
Pujman’s conception of The Bartered Bride], HV, xxviii (1991), 125–33
L. Peduzzi: ‘O premiéře Prodané nevěsty v Terezíně’ [The première of The
Bartered Bride in Terezín], OM, xxiii (1991), 307–8
J. Dehner: ‘Kovařovicovy retuše Mé vlasti’ [Kovařovic's reorchestration of My
Fatherland], OM, xxiv (1992), 40–48
C.P. Storck: ‘Die Symbiose von Kunst und Nationalbewegung: der Mythos vom
“Nationalkomponisten” Bedřich Smetana’, Bohemia, xxxiv (1993), 253–67
M. Ulrychová: ‘Plzeňský kroj ve Smetanově Prodané nevěstě’ [The Plzeň folk
Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]
costume in Smetana’s The Bartered Bride], OM, xxv (1993), 16–21
M. Pospíšil: ‘Bedřich Smetana v pojetí Elišky Krásnohorské’ [Bedřich Smetana
as conceived by Eliška Krásnohorská], HV, xxxii (1995), 42–54; Eng. trans.
in Bedřich Smetana: Prague 1994, 62–75
M. Ottlová and M. Pospíšil: ‘Smetanovy ústupky obecenstvu’ [Smetana’s
concessions to the public], Umění a veřejnost v 19. století: Plzeň 1996, 63–
J. Smolka: ‘Moderní trvalé zvukové záznamy Smetanovy Vltavy s Českou
filharmonií a jejími šéfdirigenty’ [Modern permanent recordings of
Smetana's Vltava with the České Philharmonic and its chief conductors],
100 let s Českou Filharmonií: Prague 1996, 68–84
Smetana, Bedřich: Bibliography
f: special issues, periodicals and collections
J. Malina: Smetanův památník vydaný při slavnostním odhalení prvního
pomníku Bedřichu Smetanovi dne 2. srpna 1903 v Hořicích [The Smetana
album issued for the ceremonial unveiling of the first statue of Bedřich
Smetana on 1 August 1903 in Hořice] (Hořice, 1903)
K. Stecker and K.Hoffmeister, eds.: ‘Smetanův sborník’ [Smetana issue], HR,
ii/5 (1909), 209–304
A. Rektorys, ed.: ‘Památník Smetanův’ [Smetana’s notebook], Dalibor, xxxi
(1909), 223–70
Památník k stému výročí narozenin Bedřicha Smetany 1824–1924 [Album for
the 100th anniversary of Smetana’s birth] (Prague, 1924)
Památník vydaný k stému výročí narozenin tvůrce české hudby Bedřicha
Smetany [Album issued for the 100th anniversary of the birth of the creator
of Czech music, Bedřich Smetana] (Litomyšl, 1924)
Ročenka Společnosti Bedřicha Smetany [Yearbook of the Bedřich Smetana
Society] (Prague, 1938–48)
M. Bělohlávek, ed.: Bedřich Smetana: Plzeň 1840–1843 (Plzeň, 1974) [incl. V.
Bokůvková: ‘Smetanova studentská léta v Plzni’ [Smetana’s student years
in Plzeň], 7–24; A. Špelda: ‘Prokschova pozůstalost a Pamětní kniha v
Plzni’ [Proksch’s Nachlass and memoir­book in Plzeň], 69–95]
R. Siebr, ed.: ‘Bedřich Smetana a Plzeň’ [Smetana and Plzeň], Sborník
pedagogické fakulty v Plzni: umění, x (1974)
Bedřich Smetana: Prague 1984
Hudební řeč Bedřicha Smetany: Prague 1984 [Bedřich Smetana’s musical
Sto let odkazu Bedřicha Smetany: Prague 1984 [100 years of Bedřich
Smetana’s legacy]
Bedřich Smetana: Prague 1994
O. Mojžíšová, ed.: Bedřich Smetana: Time, Life, Work (Prague, 1998) [incl. R.
Habánová: ‘Bedřich Smetana (his Life and Work)’, 80–115; O. Mojžíšová:
‘Bedřich Smetana's Compositions (Selective List)’, 116–41; O. Mojžíšová:
‘Muzeum Bedřicha Smetany (its History and its Collections)’, 142–66]

Smetana, Bedřich [Friedrich]