An ‘Execution’ at the Hofoper: Czech Perspectives on the Viennese Premiere of Dvořák's<i>The Cunning Peasant</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On the score of hisSt Ludmilaoratorio, Dvořák scribbled: ‘completed in the days whenThe Cunning Peasantwas executed in Vienna’. Indeed, Dvořák's comic opera sparked a riot at its Hofoper premiere in 1885 and was met with harsh criticism in the Viennese press. David Brodbeck argues that the rioters were motivated to action not byThe Cunning Peasantitself, but by the composer's nationality. Likewise, Brodbeck shows that the opera's harshest Viennese critics belonged to a new generation of German liberals, who subscribed to an increasingly ethnic, rather than civic, view of nationalism and were thus predisposed to disapprove of any Dvořák opera because it was not German. Based on this analysis, it would appear that Dvořák's fate was sealed long before the first notes ofThe Cunning Peasantwere sounded at the Vienna Hofoper. This article builds on Brodbeck's claims, by exploring the Viennese scandal from the perspective of Czech critics, many of whom remained unconvinced that all Czech operas – whether by Dvořák or by another composer – would have been greeted with the same kind of disdain. In their view,The Cunning Peasantfailed because it was too overtly Czech for Vienna, having been designed for Prague's Provisional Theatre, and because it was insufficiently representative of Czech achievement in the genre, paling in comparison with the operas of Smetana. Rather than offering a more plausible explanation for the riot, the opinions articulated in the Prague press reveal much about the biases and motivations of the Czech critics themselves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".