RETHINKING

DVORAK
VIEWS F R O M FIVE C O U N T R I E S

EDITED BY

D A V I D R. B E V E R I D G E

C L A R E N D O N PRESS · O X F O R D
1996
 CONTENTS

List of Plates xii

Introduction
David Beveridge ι

ι. M e t a m o r p h o s e s o f D v o r a k ' s Image i n the C o u r s e o f T i m e

Jarmil Burghauser 13

I. T H E U N K N O W N D V O R A K : A M I N I - S Y M P O S I U M O N T H E
EARLY SONG CYCLE, CYPRESSES

2. Cypresses: A n A p p r e c i a t i o n , a n d a S u m m a r y o f E d i t o r i a l
Problems o n the E v e o f its First P u b l i c a t i o n
Miroslav Novy 31

3. Texts t o Cypresses, w i t h E n g l i s h T r a n s l a t i o n b y D a v i d R. B e v e r i d g e
Gustav Pfleger-Moravsky 37

4. D v o r a k ' s First Songs: S o m e Insights i n t o Cypresses

Klaus Döge 47

5. Cypresses: A S o n g C y c l e a n d its M e t a m o r p h o s e s
Jan Smaczny 55

II. THE U N K N O W N DVORAK: OPERAS

6. F r o m the Vistula t o the D a n u b e b y W a y o f the V l t a v a :

D v o r a k ' s Vanda i n V i e n n a
Alan Houtchens 73

7. Vanda and Armida, A G r a n d - O p e r a t i c Sisterhood

Jan Smaczny 81

8. D v o r a k ' s Dimitnj—A Challenge t o E d i t o r s

Milan Pospisil 99

9. Rusalka a n d its L i b r e t t i s t , Jaroslav K v a p i l : S o m e N e w Discoveries

Marketa Hallovä 107
χ Contents

III. D V O R A K AS A C Z E C H COMPOSER

ί ο . D v o r a k and t h e M e a n i n g o f N a t i o n a l i s m i n M u s i c
Leon Plantinga 117

11. T h e ' D v o r a k Battles' i n B o h e m i a : C z e c h C r i t i c i s m o f

A n t o n i n D v o r a k , 1911-15
Marta Ottlova 125

12. D v o r a k i n the V i e w o f t h e A r t i s t : Portraits b y his C o n t e m p o r a r i e s ,

a n d his Portrayal i n the P a t r i o t i c M u r a l Czech Spring
Jaroslava Dobrincic 135

I V . D V O R A K AS A S L A V I C COMPOSER

13. D v o r a k ' s Slavic S p i r i t a n d his R e l a t i o n t o T c h a i k o v s k y and

Russia
Milan Kuna 143

14. D v o r a k ' s E i g h t h S y m p h o n y : A Response t o Tchaikovsky?

Hartmu t Schick 155

V . D V O R A K AS A E U R O P E A N COMPOSER

15. D v o r a k ' s C o n t r i b u t i o n t o Progressive T r e n d s i n the E u r o p e a n

S y m p h o n y , 1865-95
Miroslav Κ. Cerny 171

16. D v o r a k ' s Early S y m p h o n i e s i n the C o n t e x t o f E u r o p e a n

Symphonic W r i t i n g o f the M i d - N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y
Jarmila Gabrielova 181

17. S c h u b e r t i a n T o n a l Plans R e i n t e r p r e t e d : D v o r a k ' s 'Shadow-Key'

Sonata F o r m s
John K. Novak 193

18. T h e ' U n c o m f o r t a b l e ' D v o r a k : C r i t i c a l Reactions t o the First

Performances o f his S y m p h o n i c Poems i n G e r m a n - S p e a k i n g Lands
Karin Stöckl-Steinebrunner 201

19. M u s i c and W o r d s i n D v o r a k ' s S y m p h o n i c W o r k s : A Nietzschean

Perspective o n the ' N e w W o r l d ' S y m p h o n y and The Wild Dove
David M. Schiller 211

20. D v o r a k and Elgar

Graham Melville-Mason 225
 Contents χι

VI. T H E I M P A C T OF A M E R I C A O N DVORAK

21. D v o r a k a m o n g the Yankees:

George C h a d w i c k a n d the I m p a c t o f the B o s t o n S c h o o l
Mark Germer 237

22. D v o r a k ' s P e n t a t o n i c Landscape: T h e Suite i n A m a j o r

Michael Beckerman 245

VII. T H E I M P A C T OF D V O R Ä K O N AMERICA

23. D v o r a k a n d t h e H i s t o r i o g r a p h y o f A m e r i c a n M u s i c
Richard Crawford 2si

24. D v o r a k a n d his B l a c k Students

Thomas L. Riis 265

25. D v o r a k , N a t i o n a l i s m , M y t h , and Racism i n the U n i t e d States

Charles Hamm 275

Appendix: Dvorak's Interviews with British Newspapers with Critical

Commentary by David R. Beveridge 281

Contributors' Profiles 295

Index 301
 14
Dvorak's Eighth Symphony:
A Response to Tchaikovsky?

H A R T M U T SCHICK

D V O R A K ' S E i g h t h S y m p h o n y i n G m a j o r ranks inarguably a m o n g the c o m -

poser's m o s t p o p u l a r w o r k s . A n d y e t n o o t h e r w o r k b y D v o r a k has received
such a p e c u l i a r l y d i v i d e d r e c e p t i o n as this s y m p h o n y . A m o n g t h e w i d e spec-
t r u m o f concert-goers, the E i g h t h enjoys m u c h greater esteem t h a n , say, the
Seventh; i t also surpasses its predecessor i n D m i n o r b y far i n terms o f the
n u m b e r o f recordings. T h e j u d g e m e n t o f the 'experts', o n the o t h e r h a n d , is
precisely t h e opposite. W h i l e D v o r a k ' s Seventh is usually c i t e d i n the m u s i -
c o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e as his greatest s y m p h o n y , t h e E i g h t h is j u d g e d w i t h c o n -
spicuous reserve, i r r i t a t i o n , o r o p e n c r i t i c i s m .
In his Führer durch den Konzertsaal, Hermann Kretzschmar discusses
D v o r a k ' s S e v e n t h and N i n t h Symphonies each i n t e n pages, b u t devotes j u s t
o n e and a h a l f pages t o the E i g h t h , stating p l a i n l y that a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r e -
vailing views held by the European musical w o r l d since H a y d n and
B e e t h o v e n , D v o r a k ' s E i g h t h can h a r d l y be called a s y m p h o n y : ' I t is far t o o
u n d e r d e v e l o p e d , a n d its f u n d a m e n t a l c o n c e p t i o n is t o o strongly g r o u n d e d i n
loose i n v e n t i o n . I t inclines t o w a r d the character o f Smetana's t o n e - p o e m s a n d
o f D v o r a k ' s o w n Slavonic Rhapsodies.' 1

L i k e w i s e G e r a l d A b r a h a m : he c o m p l e t e l y denies any s y m p h o n i c character

i n the first m o v e m e n t , a n d regards all the m o v e m e n t s o f the s y m p h o n y except
the t h i r d as musically w e a k , a n d , f u r t h e r , as failed e x p e r i m e n t s . 2
T o be sure,
A b r a h a m o v e r l o o k s a series o f t h e m a t i c relationships i n this w o r k , b u t w i t h i n

A slightly different version o f this chapter, i n Czech trans, b y M i l a n Pospisil, appeared as ' D v o r a k a
C a j k o v s k i j : P o z n i m k y k D v o f ä k o v e ' Osme s y m f o n i i ' ( D v o r a k and Tchaikovsky: Remarks C o n c e r n i n g
D v o r a k ' s E i g h t h S y m p h o n y ) i n Hudebni vida, 28/3 (1991), 244-56.
1
'. . . dafür ist sie v i e l zu w e n i g durchgearbeitet u n d i n der ganzen Anlage zu sehr a u f lose E r f i n d u n g
gegründet. Sie neigt zu d e m Wesen der Smetanaschen T o n d i c h t u n g e n u n d d e m v o n D v o r a k s eigenen
Slawischen Rhapsodien.' Führer durch den Konzertsaal, 1. Abteilung: Sinfonie und Suite, i i (Leipzig, 1921), 584.
2
' D v o r a k ' s M u s i c a l Personality', i n Antonin Dvorak: His Achievement, ed. V i k t o r Fischl (Westport,
C o n n . , 1970), 235-7.
156 Hartmut Schick

the criteria he applies ( w h i c h are o b v i o u s l y B r a h m s i a n ) , i t is difficult t o c o n -

tradict his assessment. E v e n authors w h o j u d g e the s y m p h o n y positively d i a g -
nose a rhapsodic character a n d a rather loose succession o f musical ideas
t h r o u g h o u t , a n d seem themselves unable t o e x p l a i n p r o p e r l y t h e impression
o f u n i t y that the w o r k nevertheless c o n v e y s . 3

I t has b e e n established o f t e n e n o u g h that D v o r a k p o i n t e d l y distanced h i m -

self f r o m Brahms i n this w o r k , w i t h o u t e n q u i r y as t o the reasons f o r this dis-
tancing. W e should remember that i m m e d i a t e l y before the G major
S y m p h o n y D v o r a k c o m p o s e d a p i a n o quartet ( i nΕ flat m a j o r ) that i n charac-
ter a n d i n c o n s t r u c t i o n still belongs t h o r o u g h l y t o his ' B r a h m s i a n ' w o r k s . 4
I
believe that a better u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the s y m p h o n y ' s p e c u l i a r i t y requires a
m o r e careful consideration o f t h e circumstances related t o its o r i g i n , and that
a clue is offered b y the n a m e T c h a i k o v s k y .
D u r i n g his second visit t o Prague i n late 1888, T c h a i k o v s k y i n v i t e d D v o r a k
t o Russia, a n d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s u m m e r he c o m m i s s i o n e d Vasilij Iljich
Safonov t o settle t h e details w i t h D v o r a k . O n 24 A u g u s t 1889 (several days
after c o m p l e t i o n o f his Piano Q u a r t e t i n Ε flat m a j o r ) D v o r a k w r o t e a l e t t e r
t o Safonov r e g a r d i n g the p r o g r a m m e f o r his c o n c e r t i n M o s c o w , scheduled
for early 1890. I n this letter D v o r a k cites a n u m b e r o f his o w n w o r k s that h e
c o u l d b r i n g w i t h h i m t o M o s c o w a n d c o n d u c t there himself. H e suggests the
Husitska O v e r t u r e , the S y m p h o n i c Variations, the Scherzo capnccioso, a n d , as a
f o u r t h w o r k , o n e o f his symphonies. ' B u t w h i c h ? ' h e asks; ' I have three s y m -
phonies: D m a j o r , D m i n o r , a n d F m a j o r (all three p u b l i s h e d b y S i m r o c k i n
Berlin).' Safonov should make t h e choice o r discuss t h e m a t t e r with
Tchaikovsky. 5

3
T h i s j u d g e m e n t coincides r o u g h l y w i t h that o f Brahms himself, w h o , according to his friend R i c h a r d
Heuberger, c o m m e n t e d o n D v o r a k ' s E i g h t h S y m p h o n y i n 189r as follows: ' T o o m u c h that's fragmentary,
incidental, loiters about i n the piece. E v e r y t h i n g fine, musically captivating and b e a u t i f u l — b u t n o m a i n
points! Especially i n the first m o v e m e n t , the result is n o t proper. B u t a c h a r m i n g musician! W h e n one says
o f D v o r a k that he fails t o achieve a n y t h i n g great and comprehensive, having t o o many i n d i v i d u a l ideas,
this is correct. N o t so w i t h B r u c k n e r , all the same he offers so l i t t l e ! ' ( ' Z u viel Fragmentarisches,
Nebensächliches treibt sich darin h e r u m . Alles fein, musikalisch fesselnd u n d schön—aber keine
Hauptsachen! Besonders i m ersten Satz w i r d nichts Rechtes draus. A b e r ein reizender M u s i k e r ! W e n n m a n
D v o r a k nachsagt, er k o m m e v o r lauter einzelnen Einfällen n i c h t dazu, etwas G r o ß e s Zusammenfassendes
zu leisten, so trifft dies z u . B e i B r u c k n e r aber n i c h t , der bietet j a ohnedies so w e n i g ! ' ) See Richard
Heuberger, Erinnerungen an Johannes Brahms, 2 n d edn. ( T u t z i n g , 1976), 47. Trans, o f this passage according
to D a v i d Beveridge i n ' D v o r a k and Brahms: A C h r o n i c l e , an I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' , i n Dvorak and his World, ed.
M i c h a e l Beckerman (Princeton, N J , 1993), 82.
4
Cf. H a r t m u t Schick, ' K o n s t r u k t i o n aus einem Intervall: Z u r harmonischen u n d tonalen S t r u k t u r v o n
D v o r a k s Klavierquartett op. 87', i n Antonin Dvorak 1841-1991: Report of the International Musicological
Congress Dobfii \7th-20th September 1991, ed. M i l a n Pospisil and M a r t a Ottlovä (Prague, 1994), 91-102.
5
'Das wäre also: 1. eine O u v e r t ü r e , "Husitska", 2. dann die "Sinfonischen Variationen , 1
dann 3. ein
"Scherzo capriccioso", u n d 4. eine v o n m e i n e n Sinfonien (aber welche?). I c h habe 3 Sinfonien: D dur, D m o l l
u n d F d u r (alle bei S i m r o c k i n B e r l i n ) . D a n n habe i c h ein V i o l i n k o n z e r t u n d ein K l a v i e r k o n z e r t , w e l c h e
H e r r H f i m a l y oder H e r r Sapelnikov spielen könnte. Das sind n u r so m e i n Vorschläge. B i t t e also, w ä h l e n
Sie selbst oder besprechen Sie sich m i t H e r r n Tschaikowsky!' Antonin Dvorak: Korespondence a dokumenty—
 Dvorak's Eighth Symphony 157

Just t w o days after this letter, o n 26 A u g u s t 1889, D v o r a k began o u t l i n i n g

a n e w s y m p h o n y i n G m a j o r , his E i g h t h , and i t is easy t o i m a g i n e that, w h i l e
he was c o n s i d e r i n g w h i c h o f his symphonies m i g h t be suitable for Russia, he
came to the idea that i n d e e d an e n t i r e l y n e w s y m p h o n y s h o u l d be w r i t t e n for
this occasion.
T h i s p r e s u m p t i o n is s u p p o r t e d b y t w o further letters f r o m D v o r a k t o
Safonov. O n 2 O c t o b e r 1889, D v o r a k gave Safonov a n e w p r o g r a m m e rec-
o m m e n d a t i o n , i n w h i c h he i n d i c a t e d as a f i f t h i t e m 'a s y m p h o n y — e i t h e r t h e
D m i n o r o r F m a j o r , o r I w i l l b r i n g a new one, w h i c h is still i n m a n u s c r i p t f o r m ;
I a m h o w e v e r u n c e r t a i n i f I w i l l be finished w i t h t h e w o r k . ' 6
And on 8
January 1 8 9 0 — t h e E i g h t h S y m p h o n y m e a n w h i l e c o m p l e t e d — D v o r a k w r o t e
t o Safonov, ' M o s t h o n o u r e d H e r r D i r e k t o r ! T o y o u r esteemed e n q u i r y
r e g a r d i n g t h e s y m p h o n y , I b e g t o r e c o m m e n d the n e w S y m p h o n y i n G
m a j o r , still i n m a n u s c r i p t f o r m . ' 7
S h o u l d S i m r o c k be unable t o p r o v i d e the
p r i n t e d v e r s i o n i n t i m e , D v o r a k w o u l d b r i n g the manuscript score a n d parts
w i t h h i m t o Russia. H e w a n t e d t o have i t p e r f o r m e d n o t o n l y i n M o s c o w b u t
i n St Petersburg as w e l l .
Nevertheless, D v o r a k d e c i d e d soon thereafter n o t to p e r f o r m the n e w s y m -
p h o n y i n Russia, b u t rather t o leave the first f o r e i g n p r e m i e r e t o the L o n d o n
P h i l h a r m o n i c , t o w h i c h he o w e d a gesture o f gratitude. T h e s y m p h o n y was
n o t o n l y p e r f o r m e d b u t also p u b l i s h e d i n E n g l a n d (by N o v e l l o ) a n d soon t o o k
the n i c k n a m e ' T h e E n g l i s h ' . H o w e v e r , w e n o w see that i t w o u l d be m u c h
m o r e appropriate t o call i t ' T h e Russian', i n v i e w o f its o r i g i n . T h i s w o u l d also
apply t o some i n t e r n a l features.
T o w r i t e a s y m p h o n y for Russia m e a n t , o f course, to c o m p e t e w i t h the s y m -
phonies o f Tchaikovsky. W e k n o w — f r o m the testimony o f j a n a c e k , for e x a m -
p l e — t h a t D v o r a k studied the newest compositions o f his contemporaries v e r y
8

carefully, and that they often p r o v i d e d a stimulus for his o w n compositions. I t

w o u l d therefore have been n o t h i n g o u t o f the o r d i n a r y for h i m t o react i n a
similarly creative m a n n e r t o Tchaikovsky. T o m y k n o w l e d g e , h o w e v e r , no
T c h a i k o v s k i a n influence has been ever p o i n t e d o u t i n D v o r a k ' s music.

Kriticke vydani ( A n t o n i n D v o r a k : Correspondence and D o c u m e n t s — C r i t i c a l E d i t i o n , ed. M i l a n K u n a et

a l , i i (Prague, 1988), 387. T h e correspondence b e t w e e n D v o r a k and his Russian interlocutors may be
f o u n d i n Eng. trans, i n J o h n C l a p h a m , ' D v o r a k ' s V i s i t t o Russia', Musical Quarterly, 51 (1965), 493-506.
6
'Eine Sinfonie. E n t w e d e r die D m o l l oder F d u r , oder bringe i c h eine neue, die n o c h M a n u s k r i p t ist,
i c h weiß aber n i c h t bestimmt, ob i c h m i t d e m W e r k e fertig sein werde.' Antonin Dvorak: Korespondence, i i .
393. T h e first four items were n o w the First Slavonic Rhapsody, the Symphonic Variations, the V i o l i n
C o n c e r t o , and the Scherzo capriccioso.
7
'Sehr geehrter H e r r D i r e k t o r ! A u f Ihre werte Anfrage bezüglich der Sinfonie erlaube i c h m i r , I h n e n
also die neue Sinfonie in G dur, welche n o c h M a n u s k r i p t ist, vorzuschlagen.' Antonin Dvorak: Korespondence,
i i i (Prague, 1989), 15.
8
See Leos J a n ä c e k , Musik des Lebens: Skizzen, Feuilletons, Studien, ed. T h e o d o r a Strakovä (Leipzig,
1979), 45·
158 Hartmut Schick

W e k n o w that D v o r a k received his i n t r o d u c t i o n t o T c h a i k o v s k y ' s Fifth

S y m p h o n y o n 30 N o v e m b e r 1888, w h e n T c h a i k o v s k y h i m s e l f c o n d u c t e d i t
i n Prague j u s t a f e w weeks after its w o r l d p r e m i e r e . O n this occasion
T c h a i k o v s k y also presented his n e w opera, Eugene Onegin, w h i c h m a d e a deep
impression on Dvorak, as he reported subsequently in a letter to
Tchaikovsky. 9
I n this letter D v o r a k d i d n ' t m e n t i o n the s y m p h o n y ; h o w e v e r ,
his p u p i l Oskar N e d b a l later r e m e m b e r e d that D v o r a k was i n i t i a l l y startled b y
the unusual character and o r i g i n a l i t y o f t o n e - c o l o u r i n T c h a i k o v s k y ' s m u s i c ,
i n particular the F i f t h S y m p h o n y , b u t soon u n d e r s t o o d its greatness a n d p r o -
fundity. 1 0
A n d there is some evidence that he h a d studied this s y m p h o n y v e r y
carefully w h e n , a f e w m o n t h s after Tchaikovsky's v i s i t , he b e g a n w r i t i n g his
o w n Eighth Symphony.
W h e n D v o r a k deals w i t h the w o r k o f another composer i n his o w n m u s i c ,
he usually selects the same k e y o r a v e r y closely related one. (Cf. f o r e x a m p l e
his S t r i n g Q u a r t e t i n C m a j o r , m o d e l l e d i n part o n Schubert's C m a j o r S t r i n g
Q u i n t e t , o r his S i x t h S y m p h o n y i n D m a j o r w i t h its r e l a t i o n t o t h e S e c o n d
S y m p h o n y i n the same k e y b y Brahms.) A n d so he does here. A f t e r the
g l o o m y D m i n o r o f D v o r a k ' s Seventh S y m p h o n y , T c h a i k o v s k y ' s k e y o f Ε
m i n o r w o u l d h a r d l y have b e e n considered; instead D v o r a k chose t h e most
closely related m a j o r key, n a m e l y G . W r i t i n g his s y m p h o n y i n m a j o r , he n e v -
ertheless f o l l o w s T c h a i k o v s k y b y b e g i n n i n g i n the m i n o r (G m i n o r ) a n d l i k e -
wise w i t h a self-contained, elegiac i n t r o d u c t o r y t h e m e p r e c e d i n g i n b o t h cases
the m a i n t h e m e o f the sonata f o r m — a feature that is v e r y u n u s u a l f o r D v o r a k ,
w h o begins nearly all his larger w o r k s w i t h either the m a i n t h e m e itself o r a
motivic prototype thereof. 11

E x c e p t for the i n i t i a l n o t e - r e p e t i t i o n s , the o p e n i n g m e l o d y o f t h e E i g h t h

S y m p h o n y has a d m i t t e d l y n o t h i n g m e l o d i c a l l y i n c o m m o n w i t h t h e T a t e '
t h e m e at the b e g i n n i n g o f Tchaikovsky's F i f t h (see E x . 14.1, T h e m e 1 i n each
s y m p h o n y ) . B u t structural similarities are present t h r o u g h o u t : t h e w i d e -
r e a c h i n g m i n o r - m o d e m e l o d y i n the t e n o r range w i t h s u b d u e d d y n a m i c s , the
clarinets c a r r y i n g the m e l o d y l o w i n t h e i r range ( c o m b i n e d w i t h , i n D v o r a k ' s
case, the cello, bassoon, and F r e n c h h o r n ) , and the a c c o m p a n i m e n t o f s t r i d -
i n g crotchets separated b y rests, w h i c h i n Tchaikovsky's case v i v i d l y suggest a
funeral m a r c h .
9
See D v o r a k ' s letter o f 14 Jan. 1889, i n Antonin Dvorak: Korespondence, i i . 359. T h i s letter was w r i t t e n
i n Czech.
1 0
T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n I o w e to C h . 13.
1 1
T o be sure, D v o r a k ' s i n t r o d u c t o r y theme i n the E i g h t h S y m p h o n y is n o t a s l o w i n t r o d u c t i o n like
Tchaikovsky's b u t a calm m e l o d y i n the m a i n t e m p o , felt to be n o t yet the m a i n t h e m e , b u t a b i t m o r e
than an i n t r o d u c t i o n , whereas the f o l l o w i n g m a i n theme i n t u r n seems perhaps t o o l i g h t w e i g h t for this
f u n c t i o n , and is i n t r o d u c e d m o r e as an episodic figuration. Regarding this a m b i g u i t y and its f o r m a l i m p l i -
cations, see Jaroslav V o l e k , ' T e k t o n i c k e ambivalence ν s y m f o n i i c h A n t o n i n a D v o f ä k a ' , Hudebni veda 21/1
(1984), 18 if.
 Dvorak's Eighth Symphony 159

I n t h e first m o v e m e n t o f D v o r a k ' s G m a j o r S y m p h o n y , t h e n u m e r o u s
themes a n d m o t i f s , closely f o l l o w i n g o n e another w i t h o u t apparent l o g i c ,
have always a n n o y e d c o m m e n t a t o r s — a t least, t h e m o r e critical o f t h e m . A
comparison with the opening movement o f Tchaikovsky's Ε minor
S y m p h o n y shows, h o w e v e r , that f o r every o n e o f D v o r a k ' s themes ( w i t h o n e
e x c e p t i o n ) t h e r e is a c o u n t e r p a r t i n T c h a i k o v s k y .
T h e m a i n themes o f t h e respective o p e n i n g m o v e m e n t s ( E x . 14.1, T h e m e
2) have, again, n o t h i n g m e l o d i c a l l y i n c o m m o n . B u t b o t h are i n t r o d u c e d b y
solo w i n d i n s t r u m e n t s p i a n o o r pianissimo, a n d d o t t e d r h y t h m s play a n
i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n b o t h cases (also i n t h e ensuing elaborative passage). I n b o t h
m o v e m e n t s , t h e p r i m a r y key-area o f the e x p o s i t i o n culminates i n a fortissimo
r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e m a i n t h e m e , a n d b o t h composers p r o c e e d f r o m this t o t h e
second g r o u p w i t h o u t any real t r a n s i t i o n .
P a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g are t h e parallels b e t w e e n the t w o w o r k s d u r i n g the sec-
o n d g r o u p o f t h e e x p o s i t i o n , i n w h i c h three d i s t i n c t themes f o l l o w o n e
a not h e r . T h e i n i t i a l t h e m e o f the second g r o u p is i n b o t h cases transient a n d
t o n a l l y unstable (Ex. 14.1, T h e m e 3, s h o w n w i t h the f u l l t e x t u r e i n E x . 14.2):
i t does n o t y e t establish t h e t r u e secondary k e y , b u t rather, at first, t h e d o m i -
nant o f the p r i m a r y k e y — Β m i n o r i n Tchaikovsky, D major i n D v o r a k — a n d
i n b o t h cases these keys are n o t actually c o n f i r m e d , b u t o n l y i m p l i e d b y t h e i r
d o m i n a n t s . T h e i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n is i d e n t i c a l : rich f o u r - p a r t strings ( v i o l i n s ,
violas, a n d cellos), w i t h conspicuous waves o f crescendo a n d decrescendo.
F u r t h e r m o r e , t o t h e octave figure o f t h e w i n d s interspersed t h r o u g h o u t
T c h a i k o v s k y ' s strings t h e m e , D v o r a k provides a perfect parallel: t h e octave
decorations i n t h e flute a n d clarinet.
I n b o t h m o v e m e n t s there f o l l o w s a strongly c o n t r a s t i n g t h e m e , static b u t
v e r y r h y t h m i c , made u p o f repeated w i d e leaps (octaves o r fifths) a n d a clos-
i n g scalar passage ( E x . 14.1, T h e m e 4 ) . B o t h composers assign this t h e m e t o
t h e w o o d w i n d s (answered i n Tchaikovsky's case b y t h e strings), a n d i n b o t h
cases i t is i m m e d i a t e l y repeated w i t h o u t change. W i t h the arrival o f this t h e m e
T c h a i k o v s k y has achieved his t o n a l a i m — t h e secondary k e y , D m a j o r — b u t
D v o r a k n o t y e t c o m p l e t e l y . D v o r a k presents this t h e m e i nΒ m i n o r , the m i n o r
variant o f his secondary k e y ,Β m a j o r .
T h e t h i r d a n d final t h e m e o f the second g r o u p is i n b o t h m o v e m e n t s a
w i d e - r a n g i n g , h i g h l y m e l o d i c m a j o r - m o d e t h e m e w h i c h starts at p i a n o a n d
s o o n begins t o rise i n dynamics ( E x . 14.1, T h e m e 5). D v o r a k ' s t h e m e begins
l i k e t h e T c h a i k o v s k y t h e m e w i t h t h e t h i r d scale-degree, t h e n ascends step b y
step i n a s i m i l a r m a n n e r , q u i t e nearly paraphrasing t h e T c h a i k o v s k i a n m e l o d y
i n another metre.
F i n a l l y , t h e closing section o f the e x p o s i t i o n i n b o t h m o v e m e n t s begins
w i t h a f o r t i s s i m o t u t t i i n w h i c h t h e brass blares o u t a r e d u c e d v e r s i o n o f t h e
i6o Hartmut Schick

Ex. 14.ι

a. Tchaikovsky, Symphony N o . 5, first movement

cl.

m a i n theme (Ex. 14.1, T h e m e 6 ) , n a m e l y its t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n t o a p u r e t r u m -

pet signal. O n c e m o r e t h e m o t i v i c shapes are v e r y different, b u t basically t h e
same t h i n g occurs i n b o t h m o v e m e n t s . A n d even at the e n d o f the e x p o s i t i o n ,
D v o r a k ' s repeated descending fifths i n the flute and o b o e ( m m . 121 ff.) seem
t o be h i n t i n g at T c h a i k o v s k y and the close o f his e x p o s i t i o n .
T h e key-schemes o f the t w o expositions m a y be c o m p a r e d thus:

Intro. First g r o u p Second g r o u p

Tchaikovsky: Ε minor Ε minor (B m i n o r ) — D major—D m a j o r
Dvorak: G minor G major ( D m a j o r ) - B minor—Β m a j o r

I n these t o n a l designs, several c o m m o n features b e c o m e apparent. I n a d d i t i o n

t o the o p e n i n g i n m i n o r , m e n t i o n e d previously, w e have i n b o t h cases t h e
e n d i n g i n an a b n o r m a l k e y (neither d o m i n a n t n o r relative m a j o r ) and a t o n a l
cross-relation, Β m i n o r — D m a j o r (Tchaikovsky) and D major-B minor
 Dvorak's Eighth Symphony 161

Ex. 1 4 . ι

b. Dvorak, Symphony N o . 8, first movement

ff

( D v o r a k ) , i n the second g r o u p . B o t h second groups b e g i n w i t h t o n a l l y unsta-

ble material i n t h e d o m i n a n t and p r o c e e d t o the respective relative m a j o r o r
m i n o r o f this d o m i n a n t . W i t h o u t q u e s t i o n , D v o r a k ' s k e y - s t r u c t u r e has i n h e r -
e n t l y greater t e n s i o n o w i n g t o the m a j o r - m i n o r contrast b e t w e e n t h e i n t r o -
d u c t i o n and the first subject, a n d again b e t w e e n the second and t h i r d t h e m e
o f the second g r o u p .
O n e t h e m e o f D v o r a k ' s e x p o s i t i o n has n o t y e t been m e n t i o n e d : the m a r c h -
l i k e t h e m e from m . 39 (Table 14.1, T h e m e 2a), a supplementary t h e m e w i t h -
o u t T c h a i k o v s k i a n c o u n t e r p a r t . W h y does D v o r a k i n t r o d u c e this a d d i t i o n a l
theme? Its p o w e r f u l m o t i v i c resemblance t o the second h a l f o f t h e i n t r o d u c -
t o r y t h e m e ( m m . 7-10) provides an o b v i o u s answer: i t binds together t h e first
m a i n section a n d the i n t r o d u c t i o n . A f u r t h e r m o t i v i c b o n d can be f o u n d i n
the fanfare version o f the m a i n t h e m e i n t h e closing section (Ex. 14.1, Theme
6), w h i c h , i n its second half, falls back u p o n the same passage o f the
102 Hartmut Schick

Ex. 14.2 a. Initial theme o f second group i n Tchaikovsky, Symphony N o . 5, first

movement; b. The same i n D v o r a k , Symphony N o . 8, first movement

67
 Dvorak's Eighth Symphony 163

introductory theme. Gerald Abraham's assertion that this i n t r o d u c t o r y

m e l o d y is ' u n c o n n e c t e d w i t h the rest o f t h e t h e m a t i c m a t e r i a l ' is an o b v i o u s
mistake. 1 2

W h i l e Tchaikovsky's i n t r o d u c t o r y T a t e ' t h e m e is h e a r d o n l y at t h e o p e n -
i n g a n d t h e n plays n o f u r t h e r r o l e i n the m o v e m e n t , D v o r a k ' s i n t r o d u c t o r y
t h e m e is thus b r o u g h t d i r e c t l y i n t o the t h e m a t i c process o f the e x p o s i t i o n .
M o r e o v e r , D v o r a k reintroduces the entire t h e m e t w i c e at t h e m o v e m e n t ' s
f o r m a l s e a m s — i m m e d i a t e l y after the e x p o s i t i o n and, played b y the t r u m p e t s
i n a t r i u m p h a n t t u t t i , b e t w e e n the d e v e l o p m e n t and t h e reprise.
C o m p a r e d w i t h the first m o v e m e n t o f Tchaikovsky's s y m p h o n y , whose
n u m e r o u s themes are n e i t h e r i n t e r r e l a t e d n o r d e v e l o p e d f r o m each other, b u t
rather are decisively contrasted t o each o t h e r , D v o r a k ' s o p e n i n g m o v e m e n t is
thematically quite coherent. If Dvorak's movement, more than
T c h a i k o v s k y ' s , nevertheless gives t h e impression at first glance o f b e i n g a
rhapsodical succession o f t o o m a n y themes a n d m o t i f s , this is a result o f the
different durations o f the t w o m o v e m e n t s : Tchaikovsky's requires sixteen
m i n u t e s , w h i l e D v o r a k ' s requires j u s t t e n . T c h a i k o v s k y repeats each t h e m e at
least o n c e , and t h e n stretches i t o u t w i d e l y before p r o c e e d i n g t o the n e x t idea.
D v o r a k , o n the c o n t r a r y , o f t e n forgoes i m m e d i a t e r e p e t i t i o n and proceeds
m u c h m o r e q u i c k l y from o n e t h e m e t o t h e n e x t .
T o be sure, some p u z z l i n g facts r e m a i n , for instance t h a t — q u i t e atypically
for D v o r a k — n o consequences are d r a w n f r o m the v e r y first measures o f t h e
m o v e m e n t , the b e g i n n i n g o f the i n t r o d u c t o r y t h e m e . A n d i t c a n n o t be a l t o -
gether o v e r l o o k e d that t h e first m o v e m e n t o f D v o r a k ' s E i g h t h S y m p h o n y
lacks the i n t e n s i t y o f d e v e l o p i n g v a r i a t i o n and t h e m a t i c w o r k t o be f o u n d i n
his Seventh S y m p h o n y o r F m i n o r T r i o . O f course, B r a h m s i a n c o n s t r u c t i o n
is n o t the o n l y means b y w h i c h a s y m p h o n y can be w r i t t e n . H o w e v e r , the fact
that D v o r a k f o l l o w e d T c h a i k o v s k y i n so m a n y respects, b u t n o t i n w h a t is p e r -
haps the m o s t i m p o r t a n t o f his traits, n a m e l y the l y r i c a l expansiveness so t y p -
ical o f his m u s i c , appears t o m e i n d e e d as a p r o b l e m w i t h this s y m p h o n y .
In the third movement, too, Dvorak follows Tchaikovsky's Fifth
S y m p h o n y b y w r i t i n g an elegant w a l t z i n the place o f the usual scherzo—a
w a l t z t h a t , w i t h its supple m e l o d y , r e m i n d s one o f Parisian salons a n d
T c h a i k o v s k i a n ballets, far r e m o v e d f r o m the funant-style scherzi o f the S i x t h
a n d Seventh Symphonies. (Even i n Tchaikovsky's ballets, h o w e v e r , there are
n o t t o be f o u n d m a n y waltzes o f such a filigreed, r e f i n e d o r c h e s t r a t i o n , a n d
the o t h e r m o v e m e n t s o f D v o r a k ' s s y m p h o n y , t o o , s h o w a skill at i n s t r u m e n -
t a t i o n rarely attained i n Tchaikovsky's symphonies.)
As is w e l l k n o w n , a crucial aspect o f the w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n o f Tchaikovsky's

1 2
' D v o r a k ' s M u s i c a l Personality', 235.
164 Hartmut Schick

Ε m i n o r S y m p h o n y is t h e cyclic c o n n e c t i o n o f the f o u r m o v e m e n t s b y means

o f the 'Fate' t h e m e . T h e i n t r o d u c t o r y t h e m e o f the first m o v e m e n t r e t u r n s
episodically i n b o t h m i d d l e m o v e m e n t s and t h e n , c o n v e r t e d f r o m m i n o r t o
m a j o r , becomes the i n t r o d u c t o r y t h e m e o f the finale. W i t h i n t h e first m o v e -
m e n t , t h e 'Fate' t h e m e remains strangely isolated, and its reappearance i n t h e
m i d d l e m o v e m e n t s is rather arbitrary a n d n o t i n t e r n a l l y m o t i v a t e d i n p u r e l y
musical terms. C e r t a i n l y , a c c o r d i n g t o S c h u m a n n i a n o r Lisztian aesthetics
these recurrences are p o e t i c m o m e n t s i n t h e i r o w n right. H o w e v e r , w i t h i n
D v o r a k ' s m o r e conservative aesthetic such citations always have t o be p r e -
pared and ' l e g i t i m i z e d ' o n the level o f m o t i v i c - t h e m a t i c w o r k . T h i s is, at least,
w h a t D v o r a k ' s early w o r k s s h o w us q u i t e clearly, a n d so d o t h e later w o r k s ,
i n w h i c h such reappearances o f themes play an increasing r o l e again (cf. t h e
N i n t h S y m p h o n y and the Cello Concerto).
I n his o w n s y m p h o n y , D v o r a k c o m p l e t e l y relinquishes the r e p e t i t i o n o f the
i n t r o d u c t o r y t h e m e i n the o t h e r m o v e m e n t s . I believe, h o w e v e r , that t h e
a f o r e - m e n t i o n e d t w o f o l d r e p e t i t i o n o f the i n t r o d u c t o r y t h e m e at the seams o f
the o p e n i n g m o v e m e n t is itself a r e f l e c t i o n o f Tchaikovsky's s y m p h o n y : a p r o -
j e c t i o n , as i t w e r e , o f the s y m p h o n y ' s cyclic f o r m o n t o a single m o v e m e n t . I t
seems t o be n o c o i n c i d e n c e that D v o r a k ' s i n t r o d u c t o r y t h e m e i n its t h i r d a n d
final appearance—after t h e d e v e l o p m e n t — i s orchestrated i n a m a n n e r v e r y
similar t o that o f the 'Fate' t h e m e i n its last appearance d u r i n g the finale o f
Tchaikovsky's s y m p h o n y (Ex. 14.3). T h e o r i g i n a l l y s o m b r e , elegiac character
o f the t h e m e is here c o n v e r t e d t o a t r i u m p h a n t c l i m a x , w i t h t r u m p e t s p l a y i n g
the t h e m e as a fortissimo solo a n d the v i o l i n s and violas a c c o m p a n y i n g i n a
v e r y similar m a n n e r w i t h runs o f notes i n t r i p l e octave d o u b l i n g .
B u t D v o r a k does also tie t o g e t h e r the f o u r m o v e m e n t s o f his E i g h t h
S y m p h o n y i n cyclic u n i t y , t h o u g h u s i n g means that are s o m e w h a t m o r e sub-
tle t h a n those o f T c h a i k o v s k y . T h u s the first t w o m o v e m e n t s are clearly
related t o one a n o t h e r b y a pastoral element: t h e p e n t a t o n i c m a i n t h e m e o f
the first m o v e m e n t , played b y the flute o v e r a static b a c k g r o u n d (Ex. 14.1,
T h e m e 2 ) , is u n m i s t a k a b l y a nature t h e m e r e s e m b l i n g a b i r d - c a l l , as is also the
flute t h e m e i n the second m o v e m e n t (Ex. 14.4). T h e w a y i n w h i c h the flute
t h e m e i n the s l o w m o v e m e n t is eventually r e d u c e d t o m e r e l y its descending
fourths, repeated c o n t i n u o u s l y w i t h a ' n a t u r a l stillness', gradually dissolving,
relates d i r e c t l y t o t h e reprise o f the first m o v e m e n t , w h e r e the octave-leap
t h e m e (Ex. 14.1, T h e m e 4) is a c c o m p a n i e d b y a similar repeated b i r d - c a l l
m o t i f o f descending fourths i n the flute, gradually dissolving. A n d i n the finale
one notices an echo o f this pastoral sphere i n t h e s t r i k i n g l y frequent use o f the
solo flute.
M o t i v i c a l l y , the finale's m a i n t h e m e (Ex. 14.50), w i t h its ascending t r i a d ,
refers q u i t e clearly t o t h e m a i n t h e m e o f the first m o v e m e n t . Y e t o t h e r w i s e ,
Ex. 14.3 a. Tchaikovsky, Symphony N o . 5, finale, coda; b. Dvorak, Symphony N o .
8, first movement
 Hartmut Schick

Ex. 14.4 Dvorak, Symphony N o . 8, second movement

&c.

the themes and motifs o f the various m o v e m e n t s are n o t interrelated b y the

c o n t o u r s o f their melodies (i.e. n o t b y diastematic means), b u t rather b y a cer-
tain resignation o f m e l o d y , specifically the feature o f p u r e n o t e - r e p e t i t i o n .
E v e n t h e m a i n t h e m e o f the Finale o r i g i n a l l y shows—as revealed b y the
sketches—no ascending t r i a d at the b e g i n n i n g , b u t a simple n o t e - r e p e t i t i o n .
( C o m p a r e its second sketch v e r s i o n , E x . 1 4 . $ b ) 1 3
A n d then, w h e n Dvorak
d e c i d e d u p o n the m o r e m e l o d i c shape, he placed before the m a i n theme a
fanfare-type t h e m e i n t h e solo t r u m p e t s (Ex. 14. $c), c o m p o s e d essentially o f
note-repetitions.

W e have seen that i n the first m o v e m e n t D v o r a k takes f r o m the i n t r o d u c -

t o r y t h e m e precisely the measures w i t h n o t e - r e p e t i t i o n s as material for c o n -
s t r u c t i n g themes later i n the e x p o s i t i o n (see E x . 14.1, T h e m e s 1, 2a, and 6).
I n this c o n t e x t the octave-leap t h e m e ( T h e m e 4) can also be u n d e r s t o o d as
b e i n g c o n s t r u c t e d o f n o t e - r e p e t i t i o n s , separated i n this case i n t o octaves.
C o m p a r e , finally, the essential r o l e o f n o t e - r e p e t i t i o n i n the second subject o f
the last m o v e m e n t (Ex. 14.6).
T h e foremost i m p r e s s i o n created b y n o t e - r e p e t i t i o n s is that o f r h y t h m . A n d
i n r h y t h m , the themes o f the o p e n i n g and closing m o v e m e n t s are e x t r a o r d i -

1 3
Regarding the e v o l u t i o n o f themes i n the sketches, see J o h n C l a p h a m , Antonin Dvorak: Musician and
Craftsman ( N e w Y o r k , 1966), 32 f.
 Dvorak's Eighth Symphony 167

Ex. 14.6 Dvorak, Symphony N o . 8, finale, second subject

&c.
tnp

n a r i l y h o m o g e n o u s . T h e m a j o r i t y o f themes and motifs are based u p o n m a r c h

r h y t h m s such as those i n E x . 14.7. N o t w o themes are exactly i d e n t i c a l i n
terms o f r h y t h m , n o r d o t h e y altogether trace back t o any one specific f u n d a -
m e n t a l r h y t h m , b u t rather t h e y f u n c t i o n , i n a quite abstract mariner, as v a r i -
ous realizations o f the p u r e idea o f t h e m a r c h — m o s t c o n c r e t e l y realized i n
T h e m e s 2a a n d 6 from the o p e n i n g m o v e m e n t (see E x . 14.1), i n the t r u m p e t
t h e m e at t h e onset o f t h e finale ( E x . 14.5^), and i n the same m o v e m e n t ' s sec-
o n d subject (Ex. 14.6), w h i c h itself is a p r o p e r funeral m a r c h i n C m i n o r , t h e
key o f Beethoven's 'Eroica' m a r c h . 1 4

Ex. 14.7 Dvorak, Symphony N o . 8, typical march rhythms

J J I J. AN J J J J I J.

JlJ. JIJ. JUJJJIJ.

T h e s l o w m o v e m e n t , t o o , despite its pastoral elements, has a m a r c h - l i k e
q u a l i t y a n d even has b e e n characterized b y c o m m e n t a t o r s as a funeral m a r c h ,
a l t h o u g h the k e y o f C m a j o r prevails. I t is t r u l y ingenious h o w D v o r a k , here
and i n the e n t i r e m o v e m e n t , o n the o n e h a n d plays the pastoral and m a r c h -
like elements against o n e another, w h i l e o n the other h a n d a l l o w i n g t h e m t o
pass i n t o and i n t e r l o c k w i t h o n e a n o t h e r u n t i l they are c o m p l e t e l y u n i t e d at
the e n d : the repeated descending f o u r t h is at once b o t h b i r d - c a l l a n d t r u m p e t
signal. T h e supposed a n t i t h e s e s — m i l i t a r y m a r c h and n a t u r e — p e n e t r a t e o n e
a n o t h e r as t h e 'naturalness' o f the d r u m t a t t o o a n d t r u m p e t signal becomes
clearly o b v i o u s and the r e p e t i t i v e , n o n - d e v e l o p m e n t a l character o f b o t h c o r -
responds w i t h t h e b i r d - c a l l . T h e i n n e r relationship t o t h e music o f Gustav
M a h l e r , w h o s e First S y m p h o n y i n c i d e n t a l l y received its w o r l d p r e m i e r e t w o
weeks after the c o m p l e t i o n o f D v o r a k ' s E i g h t h , is n o t t o be o v e r l o o k e d .

T h e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o symphonies o f D v o r a k a n d T c h a i k o v s k y
has s h o w n that b o t h w o r k s e m p l o y t h e m a r c h , a n d especially t h e funeral
m a r c h , i n o r d e r t o create a cyclic u n i t y a m o n g the f o u r m o v e m e n t s . B u t w h i l e

1 4
D v o r a k used C m i n o r for a funeral march again later, i n the symphonic p o e m Holoubek ( T h e W i l d
D o v e ) : A n d a n t e , marcia funebre. See C h . 19.
ι68 Hartmut Schick

T c h a i k o v s k y attempts t o achieve this u n i t y w i t h a single, solidly o u t l i n e d

t h e m e , w h i c h does n o t always seem p r o p e r l y integrated w i t h i n its c o n t e x t ,
D v o r a k w o r k s i n a m u c h m o r e abstract w a y w i t h the basic idea o f the m a r c h .
I n different ways, this m a r c h idea is present i n m o s t o f the themes—especially
i n t h e i r r h y t h m , b u t also b y means o f i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n such as the soloistic use
o f t r u m p e t s and d r u m s . T h e m a t i c w o r k w i t h i n the diastematic parameter—
t r a d i t i o n a l l y the most i m p o r t a n t field o f p l a y — m o v e s t o the b a c k g r o u n d .
M o r e t h a n any o t h e r factor, i t is this, i n m y o p i n i o n , that engenders the
difficulties one encounters w h e n a p p r o a c h i n g this w o r k w i t h Brahmsian c r i -
teria. L i k e Schubert, D v o r a k is essentially a r h y t h m i s t — a fact already d e m o n -
strated i n his early D m a j o r S t r i n g Q u a r t e t , w h e r e the r h y t h m , specifically that
o f the m a z u r k a , l i k e w i s e ties t h e f o u r m o v e m e n t s t o g e t h e r i n cyclic u n i t y . 1 5

M y c o m p a r i s o n w i t h Tchaikovsky's Fifth S y m p h o n y has n o t , I h o p e , g i v e n

rise t o the impression that D v o r a k s i m p l y entertained a f o r e i g n influence,
t h e r e b y c o m p o s i n g less o r i g i n a l l y i n his E i g h t h S y m p h o n y . Precisely the
opposite is the case. I t is w h e n critically dealing w i t h Tchaikovsky's s y m p h o n y
that D v o r a k shows his o w n o r i g i n a l i t y most clearly, b y the w a y he selects o n l y
certain aspects f r o m T c h a i k o v s k y and develops t h e m i n t o a u n i q u e c o n c e p -
t i o n q u i t e typical o f himself. H i s a i m apparently is n o t i m i t a t i o n b u t rather ' t o
go o n e better t h a n T c h a i k o v s k y ' . T h i s o f course does n o t m e a n that for us
D v o r a k ' s s y m p h o n y is necessarily better t h a n Tchaikovsky's, l a c k i n g as i t does,
for e x a m p l e , the o v e r w h e l m i n g l y r i c i s m o f the latter w o r k . B u t i n any case,
the c o m p a r i s o n m a y b r i n g us a l i t t l e closer t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f D v o r a k ' s
musical t h i n k i n g .
Finally, one c o u l d speculate w h e t h e r i t is o n l y c o i n c i d e n c e that D v o r a k ' s
n e x t w o r k i n this genre, t h e ' N e w W o r l d ' S y m p h o n y , is w r i t t e n i n the same
k e y as Tchaikovsky's F i f t h , and begins w i t h a t r u e , a n d similarly sombre, slow
i n t r o d u c t i o n ( t h o u g h o f t h e classical, t h e m e - g e n e r a t i n g type). T h e reappear-
ance o f several themes i n the last three m o v e m e n t s , t o o , m a y be inspired b y
Tchaikovsky's Fifth S y m p h o n y , a l t h o u g h here D v o r a k p r o b a b l y rather had i n
m i n d B e e t h o v e n ' s N i n t h , an idea c o n f i r m e d b y the similarities b e t w e e n the
openings t o his and B e e t h o v e n ' s scherzo m o v e m e n t s . Dvorak's G major
S y m p h o n y , at least, proves that his r e l a t i o n t o his Russian colleague was m o r e
t h a n m e r e l y a m a t t e r o f personal acquaintance o r friendship, and reveals a n e w
facet o f D v o r a k ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the o n g o i n g 'discussion i n notes' w h i c h is
perhaps the essence o f music history, especially i n the n i n e t e e n t h century.

1 5
See H a r t m u t Schick, Studien zu Dvoraks Streichquartetten (Neue Heidelberger Studien zur
Musikwissenschaft, ed. L u d w i g Finscher and Reinhold H a m m e r s t e i n , x v i i ; Laaber, Germany, 1990),
68 ff.