Chapter VII: Part 7

=Farinelli= (1705-1782), whose real name was Carlo Broschi, was a pupil of Porpora. He made his first public appearance in Rome when he was seventeen years old. It was on this occasion that he sang the famous aria with trumpet obligato, written by his master, a piece which became so associated with him as to be demanded at all his concerts. In this piece, trumpet and voice vie with each other in holding and swelling a note of extraordinary length and volume; when the trumpeter had exhausted his breath Farinelli kept on with increased power and ended with a great vocal display. This aria called for wonderful vocal technic owing to the novelty and difficulty of the trills and variations introduced. In 1727, he engaged in a musical duel with Bernacchi, previously referred to, in which he was conquered. As a result of this he placed himself under Bernacchi’s instruction, and thus perfected his wonderful talent. In 1731, at the suggestion of the Emperor Charles VI, he modified his style and devoted study to the mastery of pathos and simplicity. During his public career he won the greatest possible success in the European capitals and passed the last years of his life in wealth. Mancini, a fellow-pupil of Farinelli and later a famous singing master, says of Farinelli’s voice: “It was so perfect, so powerful, so sonorous and so rich in its extent, both in the high and the low parts of the register, that its equal has never been heard in our time.... The art of taking and keeping the breath so softly and easily that no one could perceive it began and ended with him. The qualities in which he excelled were the evenness of his voice, the art of swelling its sound, the portamento, the union of the registers, a surprising agility, a graceful and pathetic style and a shake as admirable as it was rare.”

A few other singers of this class may be mentioned: Giacchino Conti, called =Gizziello= (1714-1761), =Giovanni Carestini= (1705-1758?) a contralto, =Giuseppe Boschi=, the most celebrated basso of the 18th century, one of Handel’s singers, and =Girolamo Crescentini= (1766-1846). So much space has been given to these singers because their work laid the principles for vocal training that have ever since been the foundation upon which the great masters and singers of later times have built their art; to these principles has been given the name of the old Italian School of Singing.

=Ill-effect of Virtuosity=.—The student who goes fully into the subject of the relation of singers to the opera will find that the great development of virtuosity among singers exerted an ill-effect and called forth a very pronounced reform in which Gluck was the leader. Singers were capable of such great vocal display, and the public showed so much enthusiasm for the brilliant feats of vocalism, and so great was the rivalry between singers and their partisans that composers vied with each other in their efforts to introduce the most difficult and florid passages possible. The text of an aria had no real value and became merely a vehicle upon which to place the dazzling vocalization of the singer. Dramatic truth was ruthlessly sacrificed. A singer, supposed to be in the very throes of death, would give a virtuosic display that would tax the lung power of a man in the most perfect physical condition. Gluck’s reform consisted in requiring that the arias should express the emotions suited to the situation, thus calling for expressive singing, not mere vocal display. The history of the opera and singing since then shows periods of change toward one idea or the other until the principles of Richard Wagner as to dramatic truth were generally accepted.

REFERENCES.

Grove.—Dictionary of Music and Musicians, articles on the singers mentioned in this lesson.

QUESTIONS.

What circumstances show that the church singers of the 13th to 16th centuries must have had considerable skill in singing?

What was the influence of the opera on singing?

What was the course of training required of young singers in the 17th century?

What important work on singing dates from the early part of the 18th century? Give some of its principles.

Describe the celebrated singers of this period and their work.

What was the influence of vocal virtuosity on music?

LESSON XXI.

OPERA IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND.

=Spread of Italian Opera=.—The fame of Italian opera soon spread to other countries. Princes and kings, eager to hear the new style of music, held out golden inducements to Italian composers and singers to come to their courts; it was generally thought that none but an Italian could compose an opera or sing an aria. The consequence was that in almost all countries during the 18th century the prevailing musical influence was Italian; native composers and singers were obliged to study Italian models if they wished to attain to popular favor. In France, however, this influence was only sufficient to _modify_ without obscuring the features of an essentially national school. Independence in matters of art has always been a marked characteristic of the French; they have led rather than followed. The most distinguished names in the history of French opera have been those of foreign birth, but whatever their nationalities, all give evidence of the effect exerted upon them by the definite form, the clearness of dramatic intention demanded by the canons of French taste.

=Origin of French Opera=.—As the Italian opera was derived from the classical tragedy, so the _French opera_ had its _origin_ in the _Ballet_, the favorite form of amusement in France. The French Ballet of the 17th century was by no means confined to the dance; it was a heterogeneous mingling of dances and dialogues, songs and choruses, corresponding to the English Masque. Like the early operas in Italy, their spectacular features were on a large and expensive scale, which confined them to occasions of especial festivity at court or among the nobility. The taste for dancing had much to do with the direction taken by the opera in France; it is still characteristic of the French school, as is shown by the prominent place given to the ballet in the Grand Opera.

=Lully=.—The founder of the French school, =Jean Baptiste Lully= (1633-1687), was Italian by birth, but at the age of thirteen he was taken from his native city, Florence, to France, as a page in the service of the Chevalier de Guise. His musical gifts soon won him a place in the royal band and finally the post of court composer. He first wrote ballets in which the King (Louis XIV) himself danced, and later turned his attention to the opera.

=Italian Opera in France=.—Italian opera had already been heard in France. Through Cardinal Mazarin, an opera company from Venice had visited Paris in 1645, and two years later Peri’s _Euridice_ had been given also by a Venetian troupe; but these and later performances had aroused no attempts at imitation by French composers. They contented themselves with writing ballets which were performed as intermezzos between the acts of Italian operas in order to bring them nearer the French standards of taste. The superior vocal ability of the Italians was acknowledged, but the lack of rhythmic form in their music made an unfavorable impression. The king was passionately fond of dancing; he and his courtiers frequently took part in the ballets produced at court, hence the interest lay in the drama as illustrated by the dance rather than by song.

=Beginning of French Opera=.—The first French opera to receive public performance was _Pomone_ (Pomona), in 1671, by =Robert Cambert= (1628-1677), who had previously written several others which had been performed only in private. It awakened much more interest than the Italian operas which thus far had been heard in Paris, and incited Lully to the composition of his first opera, _Les Fêtes de l’Amour et Bacchus_ (The Feasts of Love and Bacchus), which was produced the following year. From that time until his death he composed fifteen operas, which determined the form of French opera for practically a century.

=Characteristics of Lully’s Operas=.—Lully’s operas, like those of the Florentine school, were on the whole _declamatory_ in style, and like them their subjects were generally taken from classical mythology. They are destitute of the sustained melody which appeared somewhat later in the Neapolitan school; but the recitatives are so skilfully varied in rhythm and show such intimate knowledge of the genius of the French language that in dramatic effect they are far superior to those of the earlier school. To the overture, the ballet, the chorus, he assigned music of a different type, rhythmic and formal in nature, thus relieving the monotony of an exclusively declamatory style. A master of stagecraft, his operas abounded in cunningly-devised spectacles and original scenic effects which excited wonder and held the attention. In short, so far as the means of the times allowed, we find in the Lully operas the well-considered balance between the musical and dramatic elements still characteristic of the French school.

=The French Overture=.—One of Lully’s greatest services was the elaboration of the Overture into a larger and more dignified form. The Italians had never paid much attention to the overture. At first it appeared only as a _brief instrumental prelude_, sometimes but a few measures in length. The introduction to Monteverde’s _Orfeo_, for example, consists of only nine measures which the composer directs to be played over three times to serve as overture. Later it was somewhat _extended_ in length and provided with some regularity of design, but the Overture as a fixed form dates from Lully. It began with an impressive slow movement, followed by an Allegro in fugue style. Sometimes this was all; but it generally concluded with another slow movement, often one of the stately, dignified dance tunes of the day, and often merely a repetition of the Introduction. This form was known as the French Overture, and was soon adopted by composers of all nationalities. About the middle of the 18th century it was supplanted by the Italian Overture, perfected by Scarlatti, and described in Lesson XIX.

=The Prologue=.—The overture was commonly followed by a Prologue. This had nothing to do with the action of the drama; it introduced mythological and allegorical characters who danced and sang, often paying the most fulsome adulation to the king, who was compared to the most celebrated heroes of mythology and antiquity. After the prologue, either the overture was repeated, or another and a shorter one was played. This pseudo-classical type of opera naturally flourished in the artificial atmosphere of the court on which it was dependent for favor. It lasted until the time of Gluck, when the influences which led to the great uprising of the people in the latter part of the 18th century swept it away with other traditions and conventions.

=Rameau=.—Until we come to =Jean Philippe Rameau= (1683-1764), none of Lully’s successors succeeded in definitely extending the limits he had fixed. Rameau had won the name of the first theoretician of the day, and was a man of fifty when his first opera, _Hippolyte et Aricie_, was produced. Even he made no essential change in the scheme established by Lully beyond greatly enlarging the sphere of the orchestra, originating novel rhythms and bolder harmonies. This was, however, a long step in advance, since it saved the opera from sinking to the level of a dull, mechanical imitation of Lully’s methods, into which contemporary composers had fallen.

=The English School=.—Italian music, in the form of the Madrigal, had been popular in England since the time of its introduction in 1598, by =Thomas Morley= (1557-1604). Native composers immediately took it into favor, a favor it has never lost; madrigals are still composed and sung in England, though elsewhere the form has been dead for nearly two centuries. The declamatory opera of the early Italian school, however, never took root. It was, as we have seen, primarily a drama in which music played a secondary part, and as such it was far too crude and lacking in human interest to appeal to a public accustomed to the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, and whose taste in music, moreover, was rather for melody than for recitative. Then, during the Protectorate, the Puritanical spirit which led to the destruction of church organs and for a time forbade all theatrical performances proved an insuperable obstacle to any development of dramatic music.

=The First English Operas=.—In 1656, Sir William Davenant, the playwright and theatrical manager, evaded this prohibition by introducing music into his plays and calling them operas. Much of this music, which was in the form of incidental songs, choruses and instrumental interludes, was written by =Henry Lawes= (1595-1662) and =Matthew Lock= (——d. 1677). The latter is well known for his music to “Macbeth,” which up to within a few years was not infrequently heard in performances of the tragedy. These so-called operas had little or no effect on the development of a native school. They are principally noteworthy in being the first English operas and the first theatrical performances in England in which women appeared on the stage. Previously the parts of women had been played by boys.

=Influence of the French School=.—At the Restoration in 1660, Charles II found the prevailing style of music in England but little to his taste. Fond of the gay measures and lively dances of the French opera, in 1664 he sent =Pelham Humfrey= (1647-1674), the most talented of the boys forming the choir in the Chapel Royal, to Paris to study with Lully. Three years later he returned, and became the teacher of England’s greatest composer.

=Henry Purcell=.—This was =Henry Purcell= (1658-1695), one of a family of musicians of whom he stands first. As a child he is said to have composed anthems while a chorister in the Chapel Royal, and at the age of twenty-two he composed his first opera, _Dido and Eneas_, a most remarkable work for a youth of his years. It is the only one of his dramatic works in which there is _no spoken dialogue_, its place being supplied by recitative, and therefore, strictly speaking, it was his only opera. He can never have seen an opera of this type; his acquaintance with the new style must have been largely based on what Humfrey had told him of such performances in Paris, though it is possible that he had the opportunity of studying Lully’s scores. In its union of dramatic feeling and characterization with depth of musical resource, _Dido and Eneas_ was far in advance of anything that had yet appeared in France or Italy. Though it shows the influence of the French school, the sturdy English character which distinguishes all of Purcell’s music is plainly apparent.

=Purcell’s Dramatic Works=.—It was followed by a large number of works for the stage, but these were in the main merely incidental music for dramas; among them Shakespeare’s “Tempest,” “Midsummer Night’s Dream” (known as The Fairy Queen), Dryden’s “King Arthur,” the last being the most important and extended in form. Unfortunately, many of them have been lost; but enough remain to show that in Purcell’s early death England lost the most original musical genius she ever possessed. He founded a distinctly national school which, for the lack of a successor of equal gifts, was destined to succumb to foreign influences.

=Their Characteristics=.—His melodies bear the freshness and spontaneity of the English Folk-song at a period when music was generally cultivated, before civil wars and religious bigotry had crushed the art spirit which, during the 16th century, had made the English people the leaders in musical progress. His recitatives show a vigor and an intuitive perception of dramatic effect unsurpassed by any of his contemporaries on the Continent. He was an accomplished contrapuntist and applied his knowledge of counterpoint with admirable results to sacred music, yet never allowed it to become obtrusive in his dramatic works. In these clear, expressive melody and vigorous declamation were the distinguishing features; his learning served only to secure a natural flow of the one and an appropriate setting for the other.

=The Masque=.—The precursor of the English opera was the Masque. Like the French Ballet, this was a dramatic entertainment consisting of dialogues, dances, songs, and choruses. The subject was allegorical or mythical in nature and the mounting of the most elaborate description. The leading poets and dramatists of the day wrote many masques. The most famous was Milton’s “Masque of Comus,” the music by Lawes, which was performed at Ludlow Castle in 1634. The music in these masques was at first designed merely to give variety to what was in the main a pleasure to the eye, but Purcell relieved it of this subordinate character by investing it with a weight and authority which made it an integral factor in the dramatic expression.

=Typical English Opera=.—He thus fixed the form of the _English opera_ as a _play with songs, choruses, ensembles_, etc., connected by _spoken dialogue_ instead of recitatives. The music, therefore, instead of carrying on the action, is confined to the more quiet situations of the drama, such as are naturally adapted to lyrical expression. The inflexibility of this form has doubtless had much to do with the lack of development in the English School of Opera compared with the remarkable growth of other schools which have abandoned the union of the spoken with the sung word in the serious opera.

=The Ballad Opera=.—The only characteristic creation of the English school is the Ballad Opera. This had its origin in “The Beggar’s Opera,” produced in 1728. Slight in texture, it was simply a play with songs set to the most popular ballad tunes of the day. Its extraordinary success in the face of the financial failure of Italian opera left no doubt as to the real taste of the English people, and was decisive as to the direction taken by later composers, such as =Sir Henry Bishop= (1786-1855), =Michael Balfe= (1808-1870), =Arthur Sullivan= (1842-1901).

REFERENCES.

Davy.—History of English Music.

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

What circumstances attended the spread of the Italian Opera?

Which European country was the next to take up Opera?

Who was the founder of this new school?

What efforts had been made prior to his appearance?

Describe Lully’s opera form.

Describe the French Overture.

Describe the Prologue.

Who was Lully’s successor?

What prevented the spread of the principles of the early Italian Opera in England?

Give names of men connected with the early history of Opera in England.

Give an account of Purcell and his works.

What was the Masque?

Describe the typical English Opera. The Ballad Opera.

The pupil will note that the development of French Opera took place in the reign of Louis XIV, and that it was after the restoration of Charles II in England that opera began there, Purcell’s work ending with the close of the 17th century.

LESSON XXII.

THE OPERA IN GERMANY. HANDEL AND GLUCK.

=Opera in Germany=.—The introduction of the opera into Germany dates from 1627. In that year a German translation of Rinuccini’s _Dafne_, which, it will be remembered, was the text of Peri’s first opera, was set to music by =Heinrich Schuetz= (1585-1672) and performed on the occasion of the wedding of the Landgraf of Hesse. Schütz, who also composed the first German oratorio, _Die Auferstehung Christi_ (The Resurrection of Christ), had been sent by the Landgraf to study in Italy in 1609, only two years after the production of Monteverde’s _Orfeo_. The score of his _Dafne_ has been lost, but it was doubtless in accordance with the principles of the Florentine school. The Thirty Years’ War and its lamentable consequences prevented any immediate development of the new form. Occasional productions of Italian opera were given in several German cities, but it was not until the establishment of the Hamburg opera late in the century that the new musical movement gained a permanent footing in Germany. Even then its popularization proceeded but slowly.

=German Composers Barred=.—It is true that not long after the beginning of the 18th century, great interest was manifested in Italian opera at a number of courts, Berlin and Dresden in particular, but this had _no influence_ in the formation of a _national school_. Its effect indeed was the exact contrary. Singers and composers were brought from Italy; among the cultivated classes opera in German was considered a barbarism, so that native musicians met with little or no encouragement in this field. They were obliged to write their operas to an Italian text if they wished a hearing for them; the Church alone was freely open to German composers. The Church, too, was the only place where the people could hear music; public concerts were unknown and, save at Hamburg, the opera could be heard only by invitation to those who had entrée to court circles. This led to the remarkable activity in the production of sacred music which is such a feature of that period. This also, as shown by the early history of the Hamburg opera, was more in consonance with German character than the light, ephemeral operas which ruled the Italian stage.

=Characteristics of the Early German Opera=.—The Hamburg opera house was opened in 1678 with a Biblical _Singspiel_ (literally song-play) of an allegorical nature, _Adam und Eva; oder der erschaffene, gefallene und wieder aufgerichtete Mensch_ (Adam and Eve; or the Created, Fallen and Redeemed Man) by =Johann Theile= (1646-1724) a noted organist of the day and a pupil of Schütz. This was the first performance of a German opera on a public stage. The _Singspiel_ corresponds to the English ballad opera in being a series of songs, ensembles, etc., mainly of a simple nature, connected by spoken dialogue. The curious taste of the time is shown by the choice of subject; the work itself was a survival of the Miracle Plays and Mysteries of the Middle Ages. It begins with the creation of the earth, which is formed out of chaos by characters representing the four elements; the Almighty descends by means of a flying machine and calls man into being; Lucifer succeeds in his temptation of Eve to the great joy of demons who sing an exulting chorus, etc. As the Italians took the subjects for their early operas from classical mythology, so the _Germans took_ theirs from _Bible history_. _Adam and Eve_ was followed by a series of similar _Singspiele_: _Michal and David_, _The Maccabean Mother_, _Esther_, _Cain and Abel_, and many others.

=Change of Character=.—In time, however, these gave way to operas in the Italian style. The chief agent in this change was =Reinhard Keiser= (1674-1739) who, as composer and manager, brought the Hamburg opera to its highest point. Associated with him was =Johannes Mattheson= (1681-1764), a man of many and varied gifts as singer, composer, conductor, scholar and diplomat, now chiefly remembered by his close relations with =George Frederic Handel= (1685-1759). The latter at the age of eighteen came from his native city, Halle, to Hamburg, then the musical centre of Germany, to continue his studies. Mattheson recognized the youth’s genius and opened the way for the performance of his first opera, _Almira_.

=Handel and the Hamburg Opera=.—This, with _Nero_, was given in 1705 with such success that Keiser, jealous of the young composer, set them both to music himself and banished his rival’s works from the stage. Handel thereupon withdrew and the year following went to Italy, where he spent several years. His connection with the Hamburg opera was too slight for him to have exercised any influence upon it; then, too, he had not yet reached artistic independence himself, and it is doubtful whether he would have made any change in the direction it was taking toward conventionalized Italian opera. At that time the Hamburg opera was rapidly losing its national character; the style mainly cultivated was that of the Neapolitan school; a tasteless mingling of languages was even allowed in one and the same opera—the recitatives were often sung in German and the arias in Italian. This decadence continued, with a consequent loss of popular favor, until in 1738 opera in German was given up entirely, and Italian opera reigned triumphant in Germany.

=The Conventionalized Italian Opera=.—Handel, on his return from Italy, finally found his way to England, where he made his home for the rest of his life. The series of operas he produced there form the _climax of the type originated by Scarlatti_, which by this time flourished on all stages to the exclusion of all others, save in France, where the ideals of Lully and his school still prevailed. Its chief aim was to afford singers an opportunity to display their accomplishments. To this end the composer directed his attention principally to the production of arias which should correspond to this demand. Exquisitely beautiful as these often were, their preponderance completely obscured the dramatic significance of the opera, and led the singers to entertain grossly exaggerated ideas of their importance. They dictated to composers, refused to sing what in their opinion failed to suit their voices, and in many ways kept the opera from rising above the low artistic level to which it had fallen. To please them, a highly artificial scheme of arrangement was adopted to which the drama was totally subservient. Only six characters were allowed, three men and three women; the arias were strictly classified according to style and assigned to the singers in a certain fixed order; no ensemble beyond a duet was permitted, and the chorus sang only in the closing finale. No matter what the dramatic exigencies might be, adherence to these formulæ was rigidly exacted.

=Handel’s Operas=.—Though Handel infused a vigor of spirit and a wealth of characteristic melody into this form of opera, he made no definite attempt to escape its restrictions. Many of his most beautiful creations are buried in operas which are dead beyond possibility of resurrection on account of his acquiescence in the sentiment of his times. That this is not due to lack of innate power is shown by his oratorios.

=Gluck and His Reform of the Opera=.—This so-called concert opera reigned with almost undisputed sway until the influence of =Christoph Willibald Gluck= (1714-1787) wrought a momentous change. Persuaded of the low estate to which the opera had been reduced, Gluck stood for a return to first principles; he advocated a ruthless sacrifice of the conventionalities which through the vanity of singers and the love of sensation on the part of the public had grown up around the opera and the placing of it upon its original foundation of the drama. He was a man of mature years when in 1762 he put his theories into practice by the production of _Orfeo_ in Vienna. He had composed many operas in the prevailing Italian style, but his judgment, formed by extensive study and travel, convinced him of the essential weakness of that school: its concentration upon the purely musical element. This he saw made of the opera a puppet-show for the display of vocal art which, great as it was from a technical point of view, was mechanical and meretricious in character. He was not alone in his condemnation; critics and thinkers such as Addison and Steele in England, Diderot in France, Marcello and Algarotti in Italy had employed the varied resources of wit, satire and reason to expose the follies and inconsistencies of the opera. From the nature of the case, however, they could work no change; most of them were literary men who could criticise but not create.

=Gluck’s Travels and their Influence=.—Gluck had traveled much. There was hardly an art-centre in Europe from Copenhagen to Naples which he had not visited for the purpose of bringing out his works. In England, he had heard Handel’s oratorios, which profoundly impressed him; in Paris, he had made acquaintance with Rameau’s operas. Both of these masters exercised a strong influence over his change of style; the former by his powerful handling of the chorus which had been practically banished from the Italian stage, the latter by his consistent adherence to dramatic truth of expression. He was in addition a zealous student of art and literature in all their phases; he brought to his problem not only the ear of the musician but the intellect of the scholar.

“=Orfeo=.”—In _Orfeo_, Gluck took the same stand which Peri had taken in his opera on the same myth a century and a half before: the _illustration of the drama through music_ which should give it a poignancy of expression denied to the spoken word. The later composer had the immense advantage of musical resources undreamed-of at the time of the Florentine opera, but both stand upon the same artistic platform. It was a daring task that Gluck had attempted. Orpheus, robbed by death of Euridice, seeks to regain her by forcing entrance to the place of departed spirits. On his descent to the nether world he is confronted by a band of demons who bar his way, but finally melted to tears by the pathos of his song, they allow him to pass. The composer must make this appeal adequate to the effect; anything less would result in an anti-climax totally disastrous to dramatic illusion. Gluck passed this test triumphantly. Even today this scene remains one of the most powerful known to the operatic stage. _Orfeo_, in its strength and simplicity, was so opposed to the taste of the day that its victory was by no means unquestioned, but it soon won universal recognition and with its successor, _Alceste_ (1767), is the oldest opera heard at the present day.

=Gluck in Paris=.—_Alceste_ was followed by _Paride ed Elena_ (Paris and Helen), but the severity of the new style aroused such a storm of hostile criticism that the discouraged composer turned to Paris with his _Iphigenie en Aulide_ (Iphigenia in Aulis) to a French text after Racine’s tragedy. Marie Antoinette, then the wife of the Dauphin, had been his pupil in Vienna, and through her influence the opera was produced, though not without arousing one of the most bitter wars in musical annals. Twelve years before, Italian _Opera Buffa_ had gained a footing in Paris. Its lightness, melodic grace, and witty dramatic situations captivated many who immediately attacked the prevailing type of French opera, of which Rameau was the head, as heavy and unmusical. This opinion was strenuously combated by others who upheld native art. Thus there were two strongly-opposed parties, one defending the Italian, the other the French school of opera. After Rameau’s death, the Italian party was in the ascendency, but on Gluck’s arrival with a French opera he was taken as the representative of the national school. Piccini, the most popular Italian composer of the day, was pitted against him, but it needed only the production of Gluck’s _Iphigenie en Tauride_ (Iphigenia in Tauris) to crush his rival’s claims. This was his last great work. He retired to Vienna, which was his home until his death.

=Influence of Gluck=.—The influence exerted by Gluck was far-reaching and permanent. The reform he initiated did not create a school—it did far more; it _profoundly affected all schools_. With no immediate followers among the composers of his time he stood alone, as he stands today, one of the most commanding figures in musical history. His _Orfeo_ marks the beginning of a new era by rescuing a great and important form of art from a decadence which had robbed it of legitimate power and effect. The opera more than any other form of music is dependent upon popular favor for existence. It is therefore peculiarly susceptible to influences which tend to lower artistic standards. Gluck, however, made it impossible that it should ever again sink to the level of the mass of crudities and puerilities from which he lifted it.

REFERENCE.

Oxford History of Music, Vol. IV.

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

Give an account of the introduction of opera into Germany.

Why did German composers develop slowly?

Describe the early German opera forms.

Who was the chief agent in a change?

Give an account of Handel’s work in connection with German opera.

What had been the influence of singers?

What were the influences to cause Gluck to set about opera reform?

Give an account of “Orfeo.”

Why did Gluck go to Paris and what success did he have there?

What was the influence of Gluck upon the future of the opera?

It will be noted that the Thirty Years’ War in Germany interfered with the development of the Opera. Frederick the Great’s grandfather and father laid the foundations of the Prussian kingdom. In France, Gluck’s works carry us up to the period of social and political agitation preceding the French Revolution. In England, the House of Hanover is becoming more firmly established on the throne; in America, the period is that of the struggles between the French and English colonists.

LESSON XXIII.

MOZART TO ROSSINI.

=The Opera after Gluck=.—After Gluck the first great name is that of =Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart= (1756-1791). Haydn had indeed written a number of operas, but they were, in the main, light in character and exercised no influence whatever on the development of the form. At the age of twelve, Mozart had composed two operas, but the first to receive public performance was _Mitridate, Re di Ponto_ (Mithridates, King of Pontus), which was produced at Milan two years later under his own direction. This was followed by others, but these early works do not call for any extended mention. Though they abound in melody and show a maturity remarkable in so young a composer, they were frankly written to please the taste of the time and do not in any essentials depart from the accepted Italian style then in favor, as fixed by Scarlatti and his contemporaries.

=Gluck and Mozart Compared=.—It was not until _Idomeneo, Re di Creta_ (Idomeneus, King of Crete) was brought out during the Carnival season of 1781, that he demonstrated fully the gifts which made him the first dramatic composer of his time. In this he shows a great advance over the conventional opera of the period and an approach to the ideals of Gluck, though neither in _Idomeneo_ nor in any of his later operas did he attempt to embody these ideals in the uncompromising form chosen by the older master. Though contemporaries, no two composers could well be more unlike in character, temperament and methods than Gluck and Mozart. The one, a man of years, ripened through travel and study, conditioned his music according to the requirements of the drama; the other, a youth of no great intellectual endowments aside from his art, but aflame with the fire of genius, felt the drama in terms of music. Thus they approached the task from opposite sides. Not that Gluck was without feeling or Mozart without intellect; it was simply a case of the dramatist and the musician solving the problem each in his own way. At the same time it was impossible that Gluck’s theories should be entirely without influence on Mozart. Even a genius must learn from his environment, and Gluck’s position, though sharply disputed by the Italian school to which Mozart belonged, could not be ignored by the younger man. Then, too, Mozart had been in Paris during the height of the Gluck-Piccini controversy, and it is known that he had made a close study of _Alceste_, to which Gluck, in the form of a dedication to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, had given a preface containing a clear exposition of his principles of dramatic composition. It is hard to say, however, what direction Mozart’s dramatic course might have taken had his life not been cut so pitilessly short and if his outward circumstances had been less constrained. He was obliged to adapt himself to Italian influences which at that time were all powerful.

=The Singspiel=.—As already mentioned, the first attempts at German opera took the form of the _Singspiel_, but it gradually died out during the invasion of Italian opera in Germany. Its revival and development to a higher standard was due to =Johann Adam Hiller= (1728-1804), who received his first impulse through an English ballad opera of a farcical nature, “The Devil to Pay.” This was translated into German and given (1743) at Berlin with the original English melodies taken from popular ballads. Hiller set this translation to music and followed it with many others which soon acquired great vogue; one or two, for example, _Der Dorfbarbier_ (The Village Barber), are still heard in Germany. Hiller, though one of the most learned musicians of the day, the founder of the celebrated Gewandhaus Concerts in Leipzig and editor of the first musical periodical ever published, adopted a simple, natural Folk-style in these operettas, as they were also called. Goethe was particularly interested in this revival of a national form of opera; it stimulated him to the writing of the ballads which in turn acted so powerfully in developing the German song under the hands of Loewe, Schubert, Schumann and others.

=Mozart’s First German Opera=.—Emperor Joseph II, wishing to establish the _Singspiel_ in Vienna, commissioned Mozart to write a German opera of a similar style. This resulted in _Die Entführung aus dem Serail_ (The Elopement from the Seraglio), and the composer’s hopes of founding a national school of opera were high. Unfortunately, he was doomed to disappointment. Though _Die Entführung_ was received with enthusiasm, popular favor was averse to opera in any other tongue than Italian; the German theatre was open only a few years and with the exception of _Die Zauberflöte_, his future operas were composed to Italian texts.

=His Later Operas=.—_Le Nozze di Figaro_ (The Marriage of Figaro—1786), _Don Giovanni_ (Don Juan—1788), _Die Zauberflöte_ (The Magic Flute—1791) rank as Mozart’s greatest operas. Considered as music alone, the last reaches a height which gives an idea of what he might have done in nationalizing the opera if he had been spared a score of years longer; but its confused, irrational plot stands in the way of its popularization. The same objection holds good of _Così fan Tutte_ (Women are All Alike—1790), which contains some of his most exquisite music.

=Characteristics of Mozart’s Operas=.—Mozart’s _conception_ of the opera is that of the _musician_, _not_ of the _dramatist_. This is plain from the indifferent texts he willingly accepted, yet so universal was his genius that he fused the two elements into a complete and consistent whole. Such a union of clearly-cut characterization and musical beauty is unknown in the opera. He made his _characters eternal types_ by means of music so apposite to their individuality that it seems in each case to spring from inward necessity, yet which as music has never been surpassed for intrinsic grace and charm. Italian melody in its best estate on a foundation of German depth and solidity is its distinguishing characteristic. This characterization is confined, however, to details and personages; of the development of the drama as a whole he apparently had but little idea. This, however, was not called for by the taste of the times; the opera was not considered from a dramatic standpoint, save by Gluck and the composers of the French school; the libretto furnished a series of situations suitable for musical illustration, not a consistent and logical dramatic action.

=Their Significance to German Art=.—Mozart marks the highest point reached by the opera of the 18th century; he also _marks the passing of Italian supremacy in Germany_. The Germans were already masters of the other great forms, the Oratorio and the Symphony; Gluck and Mozart captured the Opera also for Germany, though it was not for several decades after Mozart’s death that German opera rose from its discredited position at the close of the century.

=Beethoven’s Fidelio=.—A mighty impulse was given to the development of a national school by the production of _Fidelio_ (1805), Beethoven’s only opera. His two great predecessors had been obliged for the most part to write their operas to French and Italian texts. =Beethoven= (1770-1827), however, showed his independence and sturdy national character by choosing a subject totally alien to the frivolous intrigues which at that time ruled the Viennese stage—a story of heroic, wifely devotion—and composed it to German words and in the German style; that is, with dialogue instead of recitative. Essentially symphonic in character, _Fidelio_ shows the same disregard of vocal limitations which characterizes the Ninth Symphony and the Mass in D. Difficult for the singers, it was still more difficult for the public. In subject and treatment it was above their heads; they turned it the cold shoulder and it soon disappeared from the boards. An appreciation of its greatness was reserved for a later day.

=Italian Composers in France and Germany=.—The popularity of Italian opera outside of Italy led to the expatriation of many Italian composers who exercised a powerful influence in France and Germany. Among these =Antonio Salieri= (1750-1825) deserves mention for his career in Vienna, where he was the successful rival of Mozart in court favor and later the teacher of Beethoven. More important was =Luigi Cherubini= (1760-1842), who found his way to Paris just before the Revolution. A master of the severe contrapuntal school, which was then passing away, Beethoven considered him the first composer of the day for the stage and studied his works zealously. Cherubini was present at the first performance of _Fidelio_, which shows strong traces of the influence exerted upon Beethoven by _Les Deux Journées_ (The Two Days, known in Germany and England as The Water Carrier), Cherubini’s greatest opera. The two were on intimate terms during the stay of the latter in Vienna for the purpose of bringing out several of his operas. There was much in common between them; the Italian had the solidity, dignity and nobility of treatment generally associated with the German character. Beethoven’s choice of a subject for his opera was doubtless influenced by _Les Deux Journées_; the themes of both are much the same, involving devotion and self-sacrifice of the highest order.

=Spontini and Rossini=.—Another Italian composer who went first to France and afterward to Germany was =Gasparo Spontini= (1774-1851), who with _La Vestale_ (The Vestal) enlarged the sphere of the opera in Paris. Spectacular and pompous in character, sonorous and powerful in instrumentation, it pointed directly to the type of grand opera originated by Meyerbeer nearly a generation later. In 1820, he was summoned to Berlin, where he remained as court composer and conductor for twenty-two years, a period coincident with the most significant development of the German school of opera. Spontini was the last of the many Italians who had for a century and a half borne almost uninterrupted sway in Germany.

The most brilliant and gifted of all these wandering sons of Italy was =Gioacchino Rossini= (1792-1868). As rich in melody as Mozart, though of a less refined type, he owed more to nature than to study. His first successful opera, _Tancredi_ (1813), set all Italy agog with the freshness and vivacity of its airs, and it was not long before he was the most popular composer in Europe. Gifted with prodigious facility—in one period of eight years he wrote twenty operas—his operas ruled all stages and fixed the standard by which all others were judged.

=Characteristics of Rossini’s Operas=.—They are, on the whole, a _reversion_ to the conventionalized opera of Handel’s time in being written for the singer to exhibit his art and not to express the significance of the drama; this notwithstanding their undoubted charm, the many piquant and original touches in rhythm and harmony, the occasional suggestive instrumentation. An intensely _florid style_ is used not only in the _buffa_ school where it can readily be justified, but in operas of a tragic nature where it is manifestly out of place. In _Semiramide_, for instance, a story of battle, murder and sudden death is told in the same rippling rhythms and highly ornamented melodies that illustrate the intrigues of his _Barbiere di Siviglia_ (Barber of Seville), where they are eminently appropriate.

=His Change of Style=.—This is true, however, only of his works composed for the Italian stage. His _Guillaume Tell_ (William Tell), produced in 1829, five years after his arrival in Paris, showed the influence of his new environment by an almost startling change of style. Elevated and dramatic in treatment, shorn of redundant ornament as befits the character of the subject—taken from Schiller’s play of the same name—it remains his greatest achievement; at least in serious opera. It was also his last work for the stage. It is not known by what strange caprice he practically closed his career as composer at the age of thirty-nine.

REFERENCE.

Oxford History of Music, Vol. V.

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

Name the most prominent successor of Gluck in opera.

Compare the two.

Describe the Singspiel.

Name some of Mozart’s operas.

Mention their characteristics and influence.

Give an account of Beethoven’s work in Opera.

Tell about Salieri, Cherubini, Spontini, Rossini.

Give the characteristics of Rossini’s operas.

What change in his style is evident in “William Tell”?

We now approach the period preceding the American and the French Revolutions which so greatly affected the masses of Europe, an influence extended by the wars of Napoleon. Music shows traces of the powerful forces at work, losing the former artificiality and becoming more and more, in the hands of Beethoven, an expression of dramatic and personal feeling.

LESSON XXIV.

THE ORATORIO.

=Oratorio in Italy after Carissimi=.—After the beginning made by Carissimi, the next work of importance in Oratorio is that of =Alessandro Scarlatti=, who established the Aria form as explained in the study of the Opera. The composers of the Italian school of the last part of the 17th and the early part of the 18th century used practically the same methods in Opera and Oratorio, the difference being mainly in the character of the text, and in the earnestness or religious feeling of the composer. Scarlatti is also signalized by his improvements in the Recitative, which resulted in several forms made use of by his successors, _Recitativo Secco_ and Accompanied Recitative. He wrote ten oratorios. Contemporaries whose work should be mentioned are =Antonio Caldara= (1678-1763) and =Leonardo Leo= (1694-1746), a pupil of Scarlatti, who wrote nearly a hundred works for the church, the chief one being the oratorio, _Santa Elena al Calvario_ and a _Miserere_ for a double choir. He was strong in his writing for chorus, making splendid use of the fugal style. Another contemporary of the first rank was =Alessandro Stradella= (1645-1681), whose oratorio, _San Giovanni Battista_ (St. John the Baptist) is a most beautiful work. It contains a free treatment of the accompanying instruments, the arias are clear and well-designed, the chorus writing for five parts is effective as well as ingenious, and the work as a whole shows considerable power of dramatic expression, forming a sort of transition between Scarlatti and Handel. Stradella is said to have been a pupil of Carissimi.

=Oratorio in Germany=.—In Oratorio as in Opera, the style spread to other countries, there, in the case of the Oratorio, ultimately to find a more congenial home; for the Oratorio, in Italy after the time of Stradella, seemed to lose hold on composers and public. The latter did not grasp the fact that the Oratorio had within it one element, the chorus, to give to it a definite individuality. They submitted to the public’s preference for solo singing and made up their oratorios largely of conventional arias—thus inviting comparison with the Opera, and reserved their writing in choral form for their works for the Church service, such as psalms, magnificats, masses and motets. In Germany, the attitude of the people toward religious music, doubtless owing to the Reformation as well as to the serious nature of the people, was much more favorable than in Italy. This temperament is shown by the fact that when German composers cast about for themes for their oratorios they seemed to choose the story of the Passion. The oldest example of the German Oratorio is “The Resurrection of Christ,” written by =Heinrich Schuetz= (1585-1672), a pupil of Giovanni Gabrieli, which was produced at Dresden in 1623. The narrative portions were committed almost entirely to the chorus. We mention also a setting of the Passion, by =Johann Sebastiani=, published in 1672, which contains interspersed chorales, sung as arias by one voice with violin accompaniment, and by =Reinhard Keiser= (1674-1739).

=Use of the Chorale=.—A step in advance was taken when German composers began to use the chorale of the German Protestant Church as the subject for contrapuntal elaboration, a tendency shown in the work of Sebastiani referred to in the preceding paragraph. The Chorale had absorbed into itself the spirit of the Volkslied, and its use supplied the medium for the public to enter fully into the spirit of the oratorio. Two composers who developed the “Passion Music” idea to its height, =Karl Heinrich Graun= (1701-1759) and =Johann Sebastian Bach=, made the Chorale an integral part of their works. The greatest work in oratorio form written by Graun was called _Der Tod Jesu_ (The Death of Jesus), which was first produced in the Cathedral at Berlin in 1755. This work consists of recitatives, airs and choruses, the fugal treatment of the latter being admirable in point of clearness of design and breadth of form. Graun used in this oratorio six chorales. _Der Tod Jesu_, owing to a bequest, is still given in Berlin.

=Bach=.—The greatest of all the settings of the Passion are those by =Johann Sebastian Bach= (1685-1750). The first work in this style by Bach was the one according to “St. John,” in 1723, first performed on Good Friday, 1724, at Leipzig. This work, fine as it is, must yield to the second setting, according to “St. Matthew,” first produced on Good Friday, 1729, afterward revised and given again in 1740. A few notes on the “Passion according to St. Matthew” will serve for both works. The characters introduced are Jesus, Judas, Peter, Pilate, the Apostles and the People. Certain reflections on the narrative are interpreted by a chorus. The text which furnishes the narrative is assigned to the principal tenor. Fifteen chorales of the Lutheran Church are introduced, and in the singing of these the general congregation was expected to join. The choruses contain powerful and dramatic vocal effects, and though not strictly fugal are intricate in their part-writing. A double chorus is used, each chorus having a separate orchestra and organ accompaniment. The performance of this work (St. Matthew Passion) was restricted to Leipzig in the 18th century, and was discontinued altogether in the 19th until Mendelssohn revived it in 1829. It is given very frequently at the present day during the Lenten season, in part or in full. The “Christmas Oratorio” (1734) is really a series of cantatas for each of the first days of the Christmas week, and contains no new ideas so far as form is concerned.

=Stabat Mater=.—In connection with the “Passion” reference should be made to the Latin hymn, “Stabat Mater,” which has been made the subject of treatment in oratorio form, by =Palestrina=, =Giovanni Battista Pergolesi= (1710-1736) for soprano and contralto accompanied by strings and organ, =Emanuele d’Astorga= (1681-1736) for four voices with instrumental accompaniment, the more modern work, in large form, by =Gioacchino Rossini= (1792-1868), most beautiful as music if partaking too much, as critics say, of the sensuous, and the magnificent setting of =Antonin Dvořák= (1841-1904). This work has been placed, by musicians and the public, in the category of the world’s masterpieces of choral writing.