Dvořák, Antonín (EN)

Dvořák Antonín Leopold, *8 September 1841 Nelahozeves (near Kralupy), †1 May 1904 Prague, Czech composer, conductor and teacher. Initailly, he learned to play the violin probably from his father, a village innkeeper and musician, and later from a local teacher, J. Spitz. As a young boy, Dvořák played in inns and performed at church celebrations. In 1854–56, he stayed in Zlonice, where he learned the profession of a butcher. He also took up music at a local composer and cantor, A. Liehmann, and at J. Toman – choir conductor. After a year’s stay at Česká Kamenice, where he learned music from F. Hanke, he began studies at the Prague school for organists thanks to Liehmann in September 1857. He studied with K. Pietsch and J. Forster (organ), J. Krejči and F. Blažek (theory) and J.L. Zvonař (church singing and basic composition), earning his living mainly from piano lessons. At the same time, he played alto in various bands and orchestras. In 1859 he graduated as a second of three top students with the opinion “Wonderful but rather practical talent (…), weaker in theory.” At his diploma recital, he performed his own Preludes and Fugues for organ. The need to provide his parents with financial support prompted Dvořák to work in the famous K. Komzák band. Opus 1 – String Quintet in A minor – was created in 1861. In 1862, Dvořák became a violist of the Prozatímní divadlo orchestra in Prague. The year 1865 was a breakthrough in Dvořák’s life – Josefina Čermákova, for whom the composer had unrequited feelings for almost all his life, became his student. At the same time, he created the first works of a larger format: Symphony no. 1 and Symphony no. 2, Cello Concerto in A major, collection of songs Cypresses. Working in 1865–70 under the direction of B. Smetana, Dvořák had the opportunity to get to know outstanding works of opera and oratorio music; in 1870 he crated his first opera – Alfred, and in 1871 ­– King and Charcoal Burner. After leaving his position in the orchestra, Dvořák began intense creative work. His works – especially the smaller ones – began to be performed more and more often, mainly thanks to the initiative of L. Procházka, a conductor and distinguished propagator of Czech music. In 1872, he created the monumental Hymn “Dědicové Bílé hory,” which was performed in March 1873 and became the first a great success for the 32-year-old creator. Dvořák reacted to it in a specific way: he revised (and partially destroyed) his previous work and introduced a new opus numbering. In November 1873, he married Anna Čermáková, Josefina’s younger sister. At the beginning of 1874, protests from the Prozatímní divadlo group forced Smetana to reject the opera King and Charcoal Burner as unfeasible, which became a source of false beliefs about the alleged antagonism of both creators; soon Smetana conducted the first performance of Dvořák’s Symphony No. 3. At the same time, the composer, being the organist of the church of Saint Adalber in Prague, received a state artistic scholarship; equally, Brahms – a member of the scholarship committee – drew the attention of his publisher, F. Simrock, to Dvořák’s works, as a result of which the composer’s creative activity increased significantly in the following years. He created: the 1^st series of Moravian Duets, Symphony No. 5, Piano Concerto, Symphonic Variations, and, above all, the oratorio Stabat Mater – written under the impression of the tragic death of the composer’s two children. In 1878, Dvořák met Brahms, with whom he established a cordial friendship. Thanks to the publishing success of Moravian Duets and Slavic Dances, Dvořák gained a permanent publisher in Simrock. In November that year, the composer became a member of the Umĕlecká beseda artistic association, and a year later – president of the music section. By this time he was already a famous composer; his works were performed by outstanding conductors: A. Čech, M. Anger and L. Janáček in the Czech Republic, H. Richter in Vienna, A. Manns, J. Joachim and also H. Richter in Germany and England. A few years later, H. von Bülow, A. Seidl, O. Nedbal, A. Nikisch and G. Mahler joined the group of these artists. Dvořák himself increasingly conducted his works and those of Brahms, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert and Volkmann, gaining the reputation of one of the most outstanding conductors of his time. In 1879–80, he often met with J. Joachim, with whom he discussed the project of performing the Violin Concerto in A minor; as a result, the Concerto was thoroughly reworked by Dvořák, but it was first performed by F. Ondřiček in 1883. During this period, Dvořák initiated a number of concerts for social purposes, playing his chamber works as a violist and pianist, including: in Zlonice for the construction of a monument to A. Liehmann. He also got involved in a matter of state importance for the Czechs – the construction and then reconstruction of the Národní divadlo. He rested and composed mainly in Vysoka – a town located on the estate of his brother-in-law, Count of Konnica, husband of J. Čermáková.

The great successes of Dvořák’s works in England resulted in the composer being invited to concerts in 1884. The unprecedented success of Stabat Mater in Birmingham (1884) marked the beginning of the composer’s world fame; his works circulated in the USA and Australia (in 1886, the dramatic cantata The Spectre’s Bride was performed in Melbourne). In addition to vocal and instrumental works, including the oratorio Saint Ludmilla composed in 1886, Symphonies No. 6 and No. 7, the Hussite Overture and Scherzo capriccioso were the most popular around the world. During this time, Dvořák revised a number of his youthful works, including: symphonies (from No. 2 to No. 5) and operas (3^rd version of King and Charcoal Burner). In 1888 he became friends with Tchaikovsky. In 1889, while working on the Symphony No. 8, he twice rejected the offer of taking up the chair of composition at the conservatory in Prague. At the end of February 1890 he stayed in Russia, where he conducted, among others, his symphonies. After his return, he was appointed a member of the Czech Academy of Sciences and Arts, in April he conducted the premiere of Symphony No. 8 in London, and in October, he accepted another offer to take up the chair of composition at the conservatory. In 1891, he received an honorary doctorate from the University of Charles in Prague, and in June of the same year, Dvořák was ceremonially promoted to an honorary doctorate at the University of Cambridge.

Dvořák did not take part in the official celebrations marking the 50^th anniversary of his birth. In October he went to Birmingham for the world premiere of Requiem, which he had composed throughout the previous year. In the same month, he signed an agreement to become the director of the National Conservatory in New York. From January to May 1892 he was – together with F. Lachner and H. Wihan – on a farewell concert tour in the Czech Republic. In September he left with his family for the USA; At the end of the year, he began work on Symphony No. 9 there, the premiere of which in 1893 in New York under the direction of A. Seidel became one of the greatest events in the musical life of the United States. During his summer stay in the Czech countryside Spilville, he composed, among others: String Quartet No. 12 in F major. In the summer of 1894, he came to Vysoka for a holiday, greeted with great applause; in September he founded a new organ in Trzebsko. From October 1894 to April 1895 he stayed again in New York, where he began working on the Cello Concerto and the last quartets.

After returning to the country, Dvořák – upon learning of the death of J. Čermáková-Kounicová – changed the ending of the Cello Concerto, introducing a quote from one of his love songs. With the premiere of the concerto with the participation of the cellist L. Stern (London, 1896), Dvořák closed the list of his ten concert trips to England, where he always experienced the warmest reception. In the same year he visited Bruckner in Vienna, and in 1897 he met the terminally ill Brahms for the last time; in April, he attended his funeral; in September 1897, Dvořák’s closest friend, composer K. Bendl, died. In October 1897, Dvořák completed his last symphonic work: A Hero’s Song; its premiere in Vienna was conducted in October 1898 by G. Mahler. From then on, Dvořák devoted himself exclusively to opera. In April 1901 he became a member of parliament, and in July he became director of the Prague Conservatory. In the last years of his life, Dvořák was active in teaching; he regularly met Mahler in Vienna. Deteriorating health and a sense of loneliness – despite all signs of recognition and fame – resulted in a slower pace of creative work. Like never before, Dvořák stopped composing for periods of many months. In March 1903 he met Grieg; in August he completed his last work – the opera Armida – and started sketching another opera – Horymir, but he interrupted this work. The superficial preparation of the premiere of Armida by the conductor F. Pieka caused a sudden decline in the strength of the composer, who had been ailing for many months. On Sunday, 1 May 1904, Dvořák died suddenly of an apoplectic stroke; On 5 May he was buried at the Visegrad cemetery to the sounds of his Requiem.

The greatest importance in Dvořák’s work is his orchestral works, especially his symphonies. These are 4-movement works (exception: the 3-movement Symphony No. 3), sometimes preceded by a slow introduction (Symphonies No. 1 and No. 9); sometimes they tend to integrate the cycle by using the same motifs in different parts (symphonies: No. 1, No. 5, No. 9). The outer movements of Dvořák’s symphonies are – with the exception of the finale of the Symphony No. 8 – in sonata form, modified, however, by the introduction of a larger number of themes (usually three, and in the 1^st movement of the Symphony No. 8 – four), and depending on the way of their creation, evolutionary themes can be distinguished (main themes of the 1^st movement in the Symphonies No. 1 and No. 9, the finale of the  Symphony No. 7) and reductive ones (including the main themes of the 1^st movement in the Symphonies No. 3, No. 6 and No. 7, after being introduced in the main form, reduced in the climax to the tutti, usually to the leading motif). There are also combinations of both forms of themes (1^st movements of the Symphonies No. 9 and No. 7). An increase in the number of themes results in an increase in the number of connecting spaces, usually filled with extra-thematic material, either formed as a distinct periodic melodic line or appearing in the form of short motifs, often constituting the basis for the evolution of side themes. The processing work begins already in the exposition, causing the disintegration of topics; the motifs derived from them are developed and synthesised into new formal values. In development, there is also thematic work, which involves the deformation of the interval, rhythmic and sound structure of the theme as a whole (e.g. in the first movement of Symphony No. 5). In Dvořák’s last symphonies, he makes extensive use of diminution and even thematic stretta in his arrangements, which leads to a horizontal and vertical synthesis of themes. In connection with this last type of synthesis, topics are usually conceptualised using the technique of double counterpoint. The centre of the development is usually a non chord held in tutti, and in later symphonies the culmination of the main theme in a virtuoso contrapuntal setting (the first movement of Symphony No. 8, the finale of Symphony No. 9). This culmination is sometimes moved to a reprise (the 1^st movement in the Symphonies No. 5, No. 6 and No. 7); in other cases, the reprise does not play a major role and is sometimes shortened in favour of a coda, which – especially in the finale – becomes a recapitulation of selected thematic and non-thematic material. In the middle movements of the symphony, Dvořák avoids simple forms; there is often a phenomenon of hybridisation, especially between the reprise and sonata forms, through the introduction of developmental sections. Hence, their formal image is complex, although scherzo movements are generally derived from dances – polka in the Symphony No. 1, landler in No. 5, foriant in No. 6, waltz in No. 7 and No. 8. The purpose of such an accumulation of resources is to intensify the expression, and the reason is Dvořák’s certain tendency towards mannerism. The peak of the hybridisation of forms is the finale of Symphony No. 8, in which the cycle of variations evokes associations with the rondo and reprise forms, and above all with the sonata forms. In symphonic poems and programmatic concert overtures, Dvořák sticks to the sonata form, especially in works without a strictly defined literary program (Hussite Overture and the Nature, Life and Love cycle). In a cycle of four symphonic poems written based on the collection of ballads Kytice z povĕsti národnich by K.J. Erben, the form loosens and follows the literary content closely. The last poem, A Hero’s Song, is a connected attacca, a compact symphonic cycle. Among other symphonic works, what stands out is Symphonic Variations – a cycle of 28 virtuoso orchestral variations on an own theme ending with a fugue, one of the first compositions of this type in musical literature. This work is a kind of review of Dvořák’s compositional techniques in the 1870s. A similar type of orchestral virtuosity is presented in Scherzo Capriccioso and Slavic Dances; these pieces are based mainly on the reprise or rondo form, but always with some elements of the sonata form, just like one of Dvořák’s most original works – the cycle of 10 Legends for small orchestra, miniatures lasting from 2 to 5 minutes, each of which is intended for a different ensemble instrumental. From Dvořák’s concertos The Piano Concerto has clearly symphonic architectural principles. In the slightly more spectacular Violin Concerto, Dvořák rejects the sonata form in extreme sections, and in the orchestral part, he abandons the frequent use of tutti. The pinnacle achievement in this genre is the Cello Concerto, characterised by strict formal discipline, monumentality of the premise and a wide range of expression. A characteristic feature of both last concertos is the enrichment of solo cadenzas with interventions of orchestral instruments, mainly wind instruments.

The architectural features of Dvořák’s cyclical chamber works are close to the formal assumptions of his symphonies. This applies especially to the last string quartets (Nos. 12, 14, 14), piano and string quintets as well as the String Sextet and the Violin Sonatina, which the composer dedicated to his children. In quartets, more often than in symphonies, the cycle is preceded by a slow introduction, and – for textural reasons – the phenomenon of a vertical synthesis of motifs and themes is less common. The problem of the cycle was treated differently in the 6-part Piano Trio, Op. 90, where in the next 5 movements, there is a gradation of tempo (from lento to allegro), sharply contrasting with the finale, initially kept at a slow tempo.

Piano pieces are characterised by the simplicity of their structure; among them, especially miniatures, often combined into cycles (Silhouettes, Eclogues, Poetic Moods), also for 4 hands (Ze Šumavy), of great artistic value. Characteristic of Dvořák’s piano music is the lack (apart from the cycle of variations and the Suite in A major) of larger forms.

In Dvořák’s vocal and vocal-instrumental works, a lot of space is occupied by solo songs, usually arranged in cycles. Their musical form either has autonomous features (early songs, e.g. Cypresses), or is dependent on the content, form and prosody of the text, which leads to condensation of expression, as e.g. in later songs, especially in the Biblical Songs, which are one of the first works of this genre in the history of music. A special place in Dvořák’s work is held by Moravian Duets – 4 song cycles for 2 female voices with piano accompaniment, representing the composer’s mature song style.

Dvořák’s oratorio-cantata works also show formal evolution. These include works with religious content (Stabat Mater, Mass in D major, Requiem, Te Deum) and legendary and fairy-tale content (The Spectre’s Bride, Saint Ludmilla); they are characterised by monumentalism and a wealth of compositional techniques. The external structure of these works depends on the formal features of the adopted libretto, the traditional division of the liturgical text (Mass) or the division made by Dvořák himself (e.g. in the Requiem). In some works, individual parts of the whole are characterised by the autonomy of the musical form (mainly reprise, e.g. in Stabat Mater and Mass), in others the musical form is subordinated to the text (Requiem), although here too there are some autonomous formal features as a result of the use of means of processing technology, variational and free imitation. Strictly polyphonic forms are rare (Stabat Mater – final fugato, Saint Ludmilla – Pomilujny fugue, Requiem – Quam olim Abrahae fugue). In several cases, all sections of the work are connected by a common motivic material (Stabat Mater); in Requiem, Dvořák integrates the cycle using the following motifs: melodic, rhythmic-interval (borrowed from Symphony No. 1) and harmonic-modulatory. In The Spectre’s Bride, frequent repetitions of the text – due to the development of the plot – forced Dvořák to use stanzaic and rondo-variation structures. The Te Deum and the cantata American Flag are structured differently from other vocal-instrumental works; their four-part structure and agogic sequences resemble a symphonic cycle.

In Dvořák’s operatic works, the largest group are comic operas: King and Charcoal Burner, The Stubborn Lovers, The Cunning Peasant, The Devil and Kate. The only lyrical opera is the fairy tale Rusalka. The themes of the remaining operas concern historical events (Dymitr) or have a historical background (Jacobin), and are often based on a legend (Alfred, Vanda – based on a Polish legend, Armida). Some of these works have moral and realistic subtext (in comic operas, especially in the opera The Devil and Kate). In others, the dominant motif is the fight for freedom (Alfred, Vanda), heroic sacrifice (Vanda) and tragic love (Rusalka, Armida). In early operas, the primary role is played by the autonomous musical form of individual parts, despite adopting some elements of Wagnerian musical drama (“the endless melody” in Alfred or King and Charcoal Burner). In the last three operas (The Devil and Kate, Rusalka, Armida), the basic formal phenomena depend on the form-creating values of the text. There is a tendency to uninterrupted continuity of the musical action, sometimes to abandon arias and ensemble parts, conciseness of motifs, blurring of periodicity, and attempts to convey the melody of the Czech word, also in the orchestral part (The Devil and Kate).

The great abundance of thematic and motivic material in almost all of Dvořák’s works is one of the main features of his music, resulting from the wealth of melodic inventiveness. Already in the early works, two types of melodies are visible: 1. with a wide arc, without caesuras, sometimes covering a large number of bars (e.g. side themes of the finales of Symphonies No. 2 and No. 4); 2. concise, lapidary, based on one rhythmic-interval model, often with a pendulum pattern. The first type indicates inspiration from Wagner’s music, while the second type, derived from the Beethoven tradition, plays a fundamental role in Dvořák’s work. The type of melody in Dvořák’s work is adapted to the capabilities of a specific performing means; often even inspired by him (themes of the Ninth Symphony). Dvořák initially used the full chromatic scale; in later works there is an evolution from diatonic to pentatonic. Pentatonic melodics, sporadically appearing in very early works (Symphony No. 2 – the main theme of the first movement), also common in the minor variety (lowered 7^th degree), became a common means in Dvořák’s work from 1890, starting with the Requiem (e.g. Agnus Dei) , concert overtures (In Nature’s Realm, Otello) and Te Deum (Aeterna fac), through Symphony No. 9, the Cello Concerto, the last three quartets, symphonic poems up to the last operas, including Armida. The sharp rhythmic outlines of the thematic material give Dvořák’s works a specific expression. In the rhythmic structures of mature vocal-instrumental works, the rhythm of the text plays an important role. The frequent use of syncopes, especially in the form of hemiola, sometimes causes intentional disturbances of the metric structure, serving stylization (furiant); their effect is often the impression of successive polymetric (Symphony No. 6, part 3). As a result of thematic and contrapuntal work, the phenomenon of simulatory polyrhythm sometimes occurs (Aquarius). In this case, the accumulation of various rhythmic patterns has a colour and sound value.

Dvořák’s harmonics show a certain evolution, moving from the traditional treatment of dissonant chords in their functional aspect to the detection of their specific colour values. What is particularly striking in Dvořák’s last works (symphonic poems, operas) is the juxtaposition of broad, static dissonant planes of low intensity with dynamic functional courses with high speed of harmonic movement. Widely developed modulations in earlier works are later subject to specific abbreviations, allowing for the direct succession of distant keys even within one thematic idea (e.g. in The Noon Witch). Moreover, Dvořák’s harmonic style is significantly influenced by the composer’s preference for transparency of texture and euphony of sound, as well as the tendency to use means typical of instrumental counterpoint, especially orchestral one, which deepens over time. A specific manner of Dvořák’s harmonics is the use of D°, which results from the use of a pentatonic scale with a lowered seventh degree.

The development of texture, instrumentation and colour in Dvořák’s work takes place in two stages. In the first stage – until approximately 1874 – the principle of independence of texture from instrumentation governs; the colours are only the result of the interaction of these elements. The features of the texture are: the primacy of the melodic line, extensive complementary accompaniment and the tendency to use counterpoint. In the instrumentation, it is typical to entrust some thematic parts to horns, as well as to oboes and clarinets, and to use motivic timpani (Symphony No. 1), with the sound base being a string ensemble with a primary thematic role; what is striking in this group is the considerable mobility of double basses. The sound of Dvořák’s orchestra is full, massive and dark, in line with the aesthetics of the Wagnerian-Liszt circle; among others, frequent use of tutti contributes to this. In the second stage, the colours become – apart from the melorhythmic structure – the main factor modelling the expressiveness and architecture of the work. The return to the second stage was marked by the adaptation of the sound colour to the intended expression and technical changes in the orchestral means. In the first range, two types of sound can be distinguished: 1. intense, dry and sharp, suitable for achieving a dramatic and tragic expression (trombones, trumpets, piccolo flute, high positions of the strings, sharp articulation, fast motivic movement – Symphonies No. 4 and No. 7, Stabat Mater , Piano Concerto, Hussite Overture and Otello), and 2. a rounded, full sound, corresponding to the expressiveness of the poetic type (tubes, horns, often with dampers, the use of register diameters, limiting the occurrence of percussion, etc. – Symphonies No. 5 and No. 8, overture In Nature’s Realm, Requiem). In terms of technical means (from Symphony No. 5), Dvořák avoids frequent tutti, divides the musical narrative between smaller instrumental groups and brings out the sound properties of all instruments, gradually eliminates doubles, and creates synthetic colours. The late phase of the second stage (from ca. 1890) is characterised by an in-depth use of harmonica as a means of colour (symphonic poems), reconciliation of increasing contrapuntal tendencies with the pursuit of maximum colour effect, unusual use of instruments (quiet sound of trumpets in high positions, use of percussion effects in piano – Otello, Symphony No. 9, Cello Concerto, symphonic poems), introducing new synthetic colours (Aquarius), expanding the composition to 4 trumpets (Armida) and 2 tubas (Aquarius), and, above all, introducing a completely new sound technique consisting in smooth transfer chord from one set of instruments to another (Otello – beginning, Requiem – Tuba mirum, Symphony No. 9 – ending). This technique was rediscovered and formulated as “Klangfarbenmelodie” already in the 20^th century by A. Schoenberg. This final phase of Dvořák’s work is characterised by a particular intensification of the search for new effects, constant variability of colours and sound planes, refinement of means and a high degree of virtuosity, which places great demands on the performers.

Dvořák’s music represents the late Romantic style. Its basis is the Beethoven tradition with periodically intensifying influences of Liszt and Wagner (Symphony No. 3, opera Alfred), elements of folk music – also from other Slavic countries – and the issue of its stylisation (ca. 1865 – Symphony No. 1, then from ca. 1875 to 1880 – Rhapsodies and Slavic Dances, Symphony No. 6, Violin Concerto), interest in the legendary and historical history of the homeland (1872 – Anthem “Dědicové Bílé hory” and 1880–85 – Hussite Overture, Saint Ludmilla’s oratorio) and artistically developed folk tales (1884 – dramatic cantata The Spectre’s Bride and 1896 – symphonic poems).

Having played in an orchestra in his youth, Dvořák acquired a great knowledge of musical literature. He particularly worshiped the works of Beethoven, and in later years also of Schubert, whose symphonies – to the surprise of critics – he placed above his songs; he justified this view in a study about Schubert, published in an American magazine. He considered J. Brahms to be the greatest artist of his times; he valued Tchaikovsky’s operatic works very highly. As a supporter of Liszt and Wagner in his youth, he was not convinced of R. Strauss’s talent. Among Czech musicians, he spoke with the highest appreciation of Smetana’s work, and was interested in Janáček’s activities. Far from avant-garde tendencies, he advocated the introduction of new means as long as they led to convincing artistic results. As a teacher, he placed emphasis on developing workshop skills (mainly in the field of processing techniques, instrumentation and harmonics), and then on the development of individuality. Dvořák’s students included: J. Suk, V. Novák, R. Karel, American and Balkan composers, and Polish composers – F. Nowowiejski and H. Waghalter.

Dvořák’s popularity – at first extremely wide, thanks to the advocacy of J. Brahms, E. Hanslick and L. Ehlert, despite the attacks of G.B. Shaw and H. Wolf – was then greatly discredited in the composer’s homeland as a result of the systematic deprecation of his achievements by Z. Nejedly and a group of his students who wanted to bring Smetana’s work out of oblivion. Nejedly’s activities were met with many protests and sparked polemics known as the “Dvořák fight.” In fact, Dvořák’s importance for Czech music is enormous, especially as the creator of modern symphony, vocal-orchestral and chamber music, which does not in any way diminish Smetana’s position. The decline in the popularity of Dvořák’s music in the West proves that his art is not treated very deeply – as an exotic and peripheral phenomenon. In fact, Dvořák’s work is one of the elements of the synthesis of 19^th-century music, which was also achieved in the works of Brahms, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky, but using completely different technical means. The one-sidedness of studies devoted to Dvořák, focusing mainly on the problems of inspiration and connections with folklore, while omitting the analysis of compositional technique and artistic value, leads to a number of misunderstandings. Dvořák basically did not comment on his own work, which is why – similarly to Bruckner – he was accused of lacking intellectual strength (A. Einstein). He did not comment, because his key motto in relation to the role of a composer was: “to think with music and about music.”

Literature:

Records — J. Burghauser Antonín Dvořák. Thematicky katalog. Bibliografie. Přehled života a díla, in Czech, German and English, Prague 1960, German edition Kassel 1960, English edition London 1960, 2^nd edition revised and extended, Prague 1996; Antonín Dvořák. Complete Catalogue of Works, ed. R.J.F. Herbert, London 1984, 3^rd edition1988, reprint 1993.

Antonín Dvořák. Korespondence a dokumenty, critical edition, ed. M. Kuna i in., Prague 1987–, vol. 1–4: Korespondence odeslaná, 1987–95; vol. 5–6: Korespondence přijatá, 1996–97; K. Honolka Antonín Dvořák in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten, Reinbek (near Hamburg) 1974.

Monographs of life and work — A. Sychra Estetika Dvořákový symfonické tvorby, Prague 1959, German edition A. D. Zur Ästhetik seines symphonischen Schaffens, Leipzig 1973; J. Clapham Antonín Dvořák. Musician and Craftsman, London 1966; Z. Gulińska Antonín Dvořák, Moscow 1973; J. Clapham Dvořák, London 1979; H.H. Schönzeler Dvořák, London 1984; J. Burghauser Antonín Dvořák, Prague 1985; Joop de Waard Dvořák, Haarlem 1990; K. Döge Dvořák. Leben, Werke, Dokumente, Mainz 1991, 2^nd edition extended Zürich 1997.

Analytical and biographical studies — J. Clapham The Evolution of Dvořák’s Symphony „From the New World”, „The Musical Quarterly” XLIV, 1958; J. Clapham Dvořák’s Symphony in D minor. The Creative Process, „Music and Letters” XLII, 1961; K.M. Komma Die Pentatonik in Antonín Dvořáks Werk, „Musik des Ostens” I, 1961; J. Clapham Dvořák’s Relations with Brahms and Hanslick, „The Musical Quarterly” LVII, 1971; M.K. Černý Zum Wort-Ton-Problem im Vokalwerk Antonín Dvořáks, w: Colloquium Musica vocalis 1969, Brno 1973; J. Clapham Dvořáks Aufstieg zum Komponisten von internationalem Rang. Einige neue Entdeckungen, „Die Musikforschung” XXX, 1977; J. Clapham Dvořák’s Musical Directorship in New York. A Postscript, „Music and Letters” LIX, 1978; J. Clapham Dvořák’s Cello Concert in B minor. A Masterpiece in the Making, „The Music Review” XL, 1979; J. Schläder Märchenoper oder symbolistisches Musikdrama? Zum Interpretationsrahmen der Titelrolle in Dvořák s „Rusałka”, „Die Musikforschung” XXXIV, 1981; J. Vysloužil Zum Wort-Ton-Verhältnis bei Dvořák und Janáček, in: Wort-Ton-Verhältnis, ed. E. Haselauer, Vienna 1981; U. Kurth Aus der Neuen Welt. Untersuchungen zur Rezeption afro-amerikanischer Musik in europäischer Kunstmusik des 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts, «Göppinger Akademische Beiträge» CXVI, Göppingen 1982; K. Stöckl and K. Döge Antonín Dvořák. Sinfonie Nr. 9 e-moll, op. 95 „Aus der Neuen Welt”. Einführung und Analyse, Mainz 1982; P. Petersen Brahms und Dvořák and K.H. Stahmer Drei Klavierquartette aus den Jahren 1875/76. Brahms, Mahler, Dvořák im Vergleich, „Hamburger Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft” VII, 1983/84; D. Beveridge Dvořák’s Piano Quintet op. 81. The Schumann Connection, „Chamber Music Quarterly”, 1984; M. Pospíšil Dvořáks „Dimitrij” als Editionsproblem, „Jahrbuch der Opernforschung” 1986; M. Beckerman Dvořák and Brahms. A Question of Influence, „The American Brahms Society Newsletter” IV, 1986; I. Vojtech Vertonte Sprache in der geistigen Tradition der tschechischen Musik. Antonín Dvořák Biblische Lieder op. 99 Nr. 4, in: Das musikalische Kunstwerk, księga pamiątkowa C. Dahlhausa, ed. H. Danuser et al., Laaber 1988; H. Schick Studien zu Dvořáks Streichquartetten, «Neue Heidelberger Studien zur Musikwissenschaft» XVII, Laaber 1990; J. Smaczny „Alfred”. Dvořák’s First Operatic Endeavour Surveyed, „Journal of the Royal Musical Association” CXV, 1990; H. Schick Dvořák a Čajkovskij. Poznámky k Dvořákové osmé symfonii, „Hudebni veda” XXVIII, 1991; D. Beveridge Dvořák’s „Dumka” and the Concept of Nationalism in Music Historiography, „Musicological Research” XII, 1993; J. Linnenbrügger Antonín Dvořáks Sinfonische Dichtung „Die Waldtaube” op. HO. Untersuchungen zur musikalischen Realisation der literarischen Vorlage und zur motivisch-thematischen Arbeit, „Neues Musikwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch”, ed. F. Krautwurst, Augsburg 1993; D. Philippi Antonín Dvořák. Die Geisterbraut/Svatební košile op. 69 — Die heilige Ludmila/Svatá Ludmila op. 71. Studien zur „grossen Vokalform ” im 19. Jahrhundert, «Mainzer Studien zur Musikwissenschaft» XXX, Tutzing 1993; M. Negrey Chopin i Dvořák. Próba paraleli, in: Muzyka, słowo, sens, księga pamiątkowa M. Tomaszewskiego, ed. A. Oberc, Kraków 1994; J. Smaczny Dvořák and Harmonie Experiment, „Czech Music. The Biannual Journal of the Dvořák Society” XIX, London 1995/1996; M. Negrey Pieśni solowe Dvořáka, in: Pieśń artystyczna narodów Europy, ed. M. Tomaszewski, «Muzyka i Liryka» z. 8, Kraków 1999.

Special publications — Colloquium Dvořák, Janáček and Their Time, Brno 1985, includes, among others, O. Biba Antonín Dvořák im Wiener Musikleben seiner Zeit, J. Clapham Dvořák and the „Panic of the 1893”, K. Döge Antonín Dvořáks Schubertaufsatz, M.K. Černý Zum kompositorischen Typus Antonín Dvořáks, J. Gabrielová Die Sonatenform in den frühen Werken von Antonín Dvořák, H. Krones Das Wort-Ton-Verhältnis in Antonín Dvořáks deutschsprachigen „Zigeunerliedern”, H. Macdonald Dvořák’s Early Chamber Music, W. Ruf Dvořák’s Sextett in A-dur, op. 48, J. Smaczny Word-Setting in the Late Dvořák’s Operas, K. Stöckl Besonderheiten der Musiksprache Dvořáks in seinen sinfonischen Dichtungen; Musical Dramatic Works by Antonín Dvořák, book of the international musicological conference in Prague 1983, ed. M. Hallová, Z. Petrašková, L. Tauerová-Veverková, Prague 1989, zawiera m.in.: D. Beveridge Formal Structure in Dvořák’s „Rusałka”, M.K. Černy Wort-Musik Dramaturgie in Dvořáks Opernwerk, V. Lébl Dvořáks kreativer Typus im Lichte seines Opernwerkes, M. Pospíšil Dvořáks Vorstellung von der Oper, J. Smolka Die Spätopern mit Märchen- und Sagensujets. Szene der letzten Stilwandlung der Musik von Antonín Dvořák, J. Smaczny Dvořák’s First Three Operas — Context and Revision, J. Volek Harmonische Besonderheiten in den Opern von Antonín Dvořák; Dvořák in America. 1892–1895, red. J.C. Tibbets, Portland (Oregon) 1993, includes, among others, R. Battey Thoughts of Home. The Cello Concerto in B minor op. 104, M. Beckerman The Dance of Pau-Puk-Keevis, the Song of Chibiabos, and the Story of lagoo. Reflections on Dvořák’s „New World” Scherzo, A.F. Block Dvořák’s Long American Reach, J. Clapham Dvořák and the American Indian, A. Houtchens The F major String Quartet op. 96, D. Jacobson The „Biblical Songs” opus 99, E. Rubin Dvořák at the National Conservatory, J.E. Snyder „A Great and Noble School of Music”. Dvořák, H.T. Burleigh, and the African American Spiritual, N. Strimple The Choral Works. Te Deum and The American Flag, J.C. Tibbets Antonín Dvořák. American Chronology oraz Dvořák and the American Folk Song; Dvořák and His World, ed. M. Beckerman, Princeton 1993, includes, among others, D. Beveridge Dvořák and Brahms. A Chronicle, an Interpretation, L. Botstein Reversing the Critical Tradition. Innovation, Modernity, and Ideology in the Work and Career of Antonín Dvořák, J. Smaczny Dvořák. The Operas, H. Schick What’s American about Dvořák’s „American ” Quartet and Quintet?

Dvořák-Studien, book of the scientific conference in Saarbrücken 1991, ed. K. Döge and P. Jost, Mainz 1994, includes, among others, R. Boestfleisch Über den Einfluss Dvořáks auf den frühen Schönberg, K. Döge Naturverständnis und kompositorische Darstellung von Natur bei Antonín Dvořák, J. Gabrielová Zur Orchestertechnik und Klanggestaltung in den frühen Sinfonien von Antonín Dvořák, M. Irrgang Wagnerismen im sinfonischen Frühwerk Antonín Dvořáks, D. Philippi Dvořák und die Entwicklungen oratorischer Formen im 19. Jahrhundert, K. Velten Prozessuale Formkonzepte in Sonatensätzen der Klavierkammermusik von Antonín Dvořák

Antonín Dvořák 1841–1991, book of the international musicological congress in Dobříš, 17–20 September 1991, ed. M. Pospíšil i M. Ottlová, Prague 1994, includes, among others, F. Claudon „Rusalka” et le drame symboliste européen, L. Haesler Zur psychischen Entwicklung und Dynamik in Dvořáks „Rusałka”, S. Döhring Dvořáks „Armida” und die späte grand opéra, P. Jost Dvořáks frömmste Komposition? Zur „Innerlichkeit” des Stabat Mater, D. Philippi Dvořáks „Svatá Ludmila” und die Tradition des deutschsprachigen Oratoriums im 19. Jahrhundert, M. Pospíšil The Evolution of the Libretto Suitable for Operatic Treatment in Dvořák’s grand opéra, K.M. Stöckl-Steinebrunner Rusalkas Sprachlosigkeit und deren Umsetzung in der Musik

Antonín Dvořák — the Dramatist. Antonín Dvořák — dramatik, ed. J. Brabcová and J. Burghauser, Prague 1994, includes, among others, J. Burghauser Hudebnĕ-dramatické dílo Antonína Dvořáka, A. Houtchens Vanda, M. Pospíšil Dramaturgie Dvořákovy velké operní formy. Duet Mariny a Dimitrije z opery „Dimitrij”, J. Smaczny Dvořák and „Alfred”. A First Operatic Endeavour Surveyed oraz Král a uhlíř I x II

Rethinking Dvořák. Views from Five Countries, ed. D. Beveridge, New York 1996, includes, among others, M. Beckerman Dvořák’s Pentatonic Landscape. The Suite in A major, J. Burghauser Metamorphoses of Dvořák’s Image in the Course of Time, M.K. Černy Dvořák’s Contribution to Progressive Trends in the European Symphony. 1865–1895, R.A. Crawford Dvořák and the Historiography of American Music, J. Gabrielová Dvořák’s Early Symphonies in the Context of European Symphonic Writing in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, M. Kuna Dvořák’s Slavic Spirit and His Relation to Tchaikovsky and Russia, G. Melville-Mason Dvořák and Elgar, J.K. Novak Schubertian Tonal Plans Reinterpreted. Dvořák’s „Shadow-Key” Sonata Forms, M. Ottlová The „Dvořák Battles” in Bohemia. Czech Criticism of Antonín Dvořák, L. Platinga Dvořák and the Meaning of Nationalism in Music.