created great commotion. How could the majority of music-lovers listen
with indifference to the statement that its favorite, the Italian
opera, was "absurd and wearisome"? And why should not the professional
musicians be horrified that one of their number set forth the "Violation
of the Rules of Composition" as allowable, nay, even as desirable? As
far as the effect of the opera itself was concerned, "Alceste" met with
the same reception as that accorded its predecessor, "Orpheus." Though
Gluck and Calzabigi had done their best, the new opera found but little
favor. Well might an enthusiastic admirer of Gluck, Sonnenfels, in his
"Letters on the Vienna Stage," exclaim: "I find myself in the land of
wonders. A serious opera without eunuchs, music without solfeggios, or
rather, throat sounds, an Italian poem without cheap wit or bluster. With
this threefold wonder the theatre nearest the Hofburg is re-opened."
The great majority of music-lovers remained cold, at least at the first
representations of "Alceste," and scoffers remarked that "if any tears
were shed they were purely from exhaustion." There is no doubt but that
this reserved attitude was assumed especially toward the poetry, which
suffered from a certain monotony, inasmuch as it presented but one actor,
if, indeed, his decision to die may be regarded as an act! The authors of
"Alceste" were not ignorant of this weakness of the libretto, and in a
third work they set themselves the task of portraying the conflict of man
with man. This they tried to carry out in the opera "Paride ed Helena"
(Paris and Helen), which appeared the following year (1769), but this
time they deceived themselves in the selection of the text; since there
is no real climax--the catastrophe of the destruction of Troy, brought
about by the capture of Helen, being merely suggested at the conclusion
through Athena, who appears as goddess _ex machina_--the whole poem
dwindles into a commonplace love-story. The embellishments, conflicts, a
sacrificial feast, etc., could not compensate for the lack of a dramatic
nucleus, and Gluck was obliged to see this work, with which he had taken
infinite pains, disappear from the stage.
The dissatisfaction of the master was still further increased by the
scornful attitude assumed by his critics with regard to his efforts for
reform. In North Germany especially, the appearance of "Alceste" and of
its defiant preface gave the signal to break the staff over the head of
the audacious disturber of the peace. One of the most prominent Berlin
critics, Frederick Nicolai, did not hesitate to assert that "Alceste"
had no merit, though he had only heard several numbers of the opera at
a rehearsal. This attitude of competent judges induced Gluck in 1770 to
come before the world with a new manifesto, the dedication of "Paris and
Helen," to the Duke of Braganza. This was not a whit less forcible than
was his first dedication, and was chiefly directed toward his critics. It
ran as follows:--
"Whereas I dedicate this work to Your Highness, I am less concerned to
find a patron than a judge. Only a mind above the prejudice of custom,
a sufficient knowledge of the sublime teaching of art, a taste formed
by great ideals as well as by the unvarying principles of the true
and beautiful, are what I seek in my Mæcenas and find united in Your
Highness. Only in the hope of finding imitators did I resolve to bring
out the music of 'Alceste,' and flattered myself that men would follow
eagerly the path which I had opened in order to suppress the abuses which
had crept into Italian opera and impaired its worth. I am convinced,
however, that my hopes were vain. Smatterers, would-be judges of poetry
and music, a class of people which is unfortunately very large and is
always a thousand times more detrimental to the progress of art than is
ignorance, threaten to be the death of their own presumption. Because
of imperfectly studied, poorly conducted and still more poorly performed
rehearsals it has been unjustly condemned, and the effect which the opera
might produce upon the stage has been judged by its effect in a room.
Is not this the sagacity of that Greek city which had miscalculated the
effect of statues near at hand that were intended for tall pillars? Any
one of these eccentric music-lovers whose soul is only in his ear will
find many of my arias too rough, many passages too hard or imperfectly
prepared, but he does not consider that in accordance with the situation,
an aria or passage requires just this lofty expression and that thus
the happiest contrasts are obtained. A pedant in harmony will detect
carelessness and occasionally a false start, and consider himself
justified in condemning both as unpardonable sins against the rules of
harmony, whereupon many will agree in pronouncing this music exaggerated,
barbarous and wild.
"The other artists fare no better in this respect, sentence is passed
with quite as little justice and insight, and Your Highness will readily
divine the reason, since the more one strives for perfection and truth
the more necessary become the attributes of accuracy and justice. The
qualities which distinguished Raphael from all other painters are
possessed by few. Slight change of line may not destroy the resemblance
in a caricature, but it may entirely disfigure the appearance of a
lovely countenance. In music I will cite but one example, the aria from
the opera Orpheus, 'Che farò senza Euridice.' Should one make the least
change in the movement or manner of expression it would become simply
an ordinary air for puppet-shows. In a piece of this kind the effect of
the scene may be utterly destroyed by a more or less sustained note,
an increase of tone, carelessness in tempo, a trill, a passage, etc.,
etc. When it is a question of carrying out the theme according to the
principles laid down by me, the presence of the composer is as necessary
as the sun to the creations of nature. He is the soul and the life,
without whom all is in disorder and confusion, but he must be prepared
to meet all obstacles even as we would meet men who, because they have
eyes and ears, without regard to the structure of these organs, feel
called upon to pronounce judgment upon the fine arts, simply because they
_have_ eyes and ears, for hastily to pass sentence upon things which he
least understands, is a common failing of man. Nay, one of the greatest
philosophers of this century recently dared to write a dissertation on
music which he published as oracular with the superscription, 'Sogni di
Ciechi e Fole di Romanzi' (Dreams of the Blind and Stories of Romance).
"Your Highness must already have read the drama 'Paris' and remarked
that it does not offer to the composer those intense passions and tragic
situations which in the 'Alceste' stir the souls of the spectators and
afford opportunity for strong emotion. In this music you would as little
expect the same strength and force as in a picture painted in broad
daylight you would demand the same strong effects of light and shade and
the same sharp contrasts which the artist can employ only on a subject
painted in a subdued light. 'Alceste' treats of a wife who is about to
lose her husband, to save whom she courageously conjures up the spirits
of the nether world in the blackest shadows of night in a dark wood,
and who, even in her last death-struggle trembles for the fate of her
children and forces herself to part from an idolized husband. In 'Paris,'
on the contrary, the question is of a loving youth who has to contend
with the reserve of a truly noble but arrogant wife, a reserve which,
by means of the arts of inventive passion, he finally conquers. I have
therefore taken pains to think of an interchange of colors which I find
in the various characters of the Phrygian and Spartan races, while I
have contrasted the rude and stubborn disposition of the one with the
tender, gentle disposition of the other. Hence I believe that the song
which in my opera wholly takes the place of declamation, must imitate in
the Helen the native rudeness of her race; I have thought, also, that
because I sought to sustain this character in the music, I should not be
blamed if I occasionally descended to the trivial. If one really wishes
to follow the truth he must never forget that according to the measure of
the subject in question even the supreme beauties of melody and harmony,
if employed in the wrong places, may become faults and imperfections. I
expect from my 'Paris' no better success than from my 'Alceste' as far
as effecting the desired change in style of composition is concerned;
yet all the long-foreseen hindrances shall not deter me from making
new efforts toward the accomplishment of my good aim. If I but win the
approval of Your Highness, with contented mind I may assure myself: Tolle
Siparium; sufficit mihi unus Plato pro cuncto populo."
[Illustration: GLUCK.
From a pencil drawing of bust by the sculptor Houdon; probably a study
for the statue in the Paris Opera House. See page 237.]
With the appearance of this second declaration of war the attacks of
criticism against Gluck became more numerous and violent, and it must
have been the master's earnest wish to find a place for his activity
which should be less under the musical influence of Italy than was
Germany. Such a place was Paris, whose artistic conditions were the
more favorable for Gluck's plans of reform in that the representatives
in philosophy and _belles-lettres_ set the standard in musical matters
also, and with cultured people their opinion went much farther than that
of the exceedingly conservative professional musicians. What attractive
conditions for a composer who, at war with tradition, assigned to poetry
the first place in the opera, while music should be but its servant!
Gluck did not hesitate to seize the opportunity, in 1772, of becoming
more intimate with the Bailli _du Rollet_, a man fond of literature,
highly cultivated, and enthusiastic over his music. Gluck had known
him in Rome and now met him again as Attaché of the French Embassy in
Vienna. A closer acquaintance with du Rollet gave the composer the means
of carrying into effect his plan of going to Paris. Without regard to
his former co-worker, Calzabigi--Gluck's relations with the latter may
well have been changed since the failure of "Paris and Helen"--the
master bound himself to du Rollet, who agreed to prepare, with his help,
Racine's "Iphigénie in Aulis," and to bring about the performance of the
work in the great Parisian Opera. The difficulties which arose from the
business transactions with the directors of the Grand Opera were entirely
overcome by an emphatic word from one of Gluck's former pupils, Marie
Antoinette, who had been placed, in the meantime, upon the French throne,
and in the autumn of 1773 Gluck was able to leave Vienna for Paris.
In Paris the German master was received with open arms by the court as
well as by leaders in the literary circles. The protection of the former
was of special consequence to Gluck, as he was to have infinitely greater
trouble with the singers and musicians than he had experienced in Vienna.
Even at the first rehearsals of his opera he was convinced that the
principal actors of the "Académie royale de musique" (Royal Academy of
Music), which was the official name of the Grand Opera, left much to be
desired in singing, pronunciation, acting and all else. The dancers, who,
until within a few years, had always entered with masks, entirely lacked
the ability to assist the action by their pantomime as Gluck desired.
The chorus was accustomed to march up and down in rank and file, the men
on one side and the women on the other, and then to stand immovable. The
orchestra finally reached the extreme height of laziness and lawlessness;
in cold weather the entire company played in gloves, and the only way the
leader could achieve any kind of _ensemble_ was to beat the time loudly
on his desk. And now Gluck made short work of the belligerents. To the
singer who assumed the rôle of Iphigenia and in a rehearsal refused to
follow instructions he said: "Voyez-vous, Mademoiselle, je suis ici pour
faire exécuter Iphigénie; si vous voulez chanter, rien de mieux; si vous
ne le voulez pas, à votre aise. J'irai voir la reine et je lui dirai,
il m'est impossible de faire jouer mon opéra. Puis je monterai dans ma
voiture et je reprendrai la route de Vienne." ("Mademoiselle, I am here
to bring out Iphigenia: if you will sing, nothing can be better; if not,
very well, I will go to the Queen and will say: It is impossible to have
my opera performed; then I will take my seat in my carriage and return to
Vienna.") Certainly the majority of the coöperators would have been glad
to get rid of the master in this way, but knowing the court to be on his
side, there was nothing to do but submit.
The day of the representation of "Iphigénie" (19 April, 1774) was
anticipated with excitement by all Paris. In literary circles--the
so-called bureaux d'esprit (offices of wit)--there were arguments for
and against Gluck. In the first place here was a composer who had spoken
the apparently paradoxical words which were nevertheless true: "When I
compose operas I try, first of all, to forget that I am a musician,"
and in these circles there was violent opposition to the extremely
self-confident reformer. Baron Grimm, a subtle critic and known as
the patron of young Mozart during his second sojourn in Paris, thus
describes, in a most graphic way, the ruling sentiments: "For two weeks
Paris has been thinking and dreaming nothing but music. Music is the
subject of all our debates, of all conversation; it is the life of all
our suppers, and it would be simply ridiculous to show interest in
anything else. To a political question the reply is a melody, to a moral
reflection, the ritornelle of an aria; if one tries to excite interest in
Racine or Voltaire he is reminded of the effect produced by the orchestra
in the recitative of Agamemnon. Need I say that it is Gluck's 'Iphigénie'
which has excited such a furore? A furore all the more tremendous because
of the difference of opinion and the fanaticism of parties. One party
swears that no other gods than Lully and Rameau shall be recognized;
another believes only in the melodious revelations of Jomelli, Piccini
and Sacchini; a third will hear of no other composer than Gluck, who
has found the only true dramatic music drawn from the eternal fount
of harmony, from the most intimate union of mind and soul; a music
that belongs to no land, but which he has genially appropriated to our
language."
It goes without saying that opinions differed even upon the evening of
the first representation, but upon the second, applause was unanimous,
or, as Grimm expresses it, "Iphigénie" was applauded "aux nues" (to the
clouds). The series of successful representations was interrupted by the
death of Louis XV., in consequence of which the theatre was closed for
thirty-four days. This interruption was, however, employed in studying
the "Orpheus," which meanwhile had been translated into French by Moline.
Gluck had to make several important changes in the music, for the Academy
of Music had no eunuchs among its members (the French public never
having found pleasure in such singers), and the master was obliged to
transpose for the tenor the title-rôle written for alto. Although by the
substitution of the brilliant tenor for the melancholy alto the part of
"Orpheus" lost something of its charm, "Orphée et Euridice" still had a
success which far exceeded that of "Iphigénie." It was a special joy to
Gluck that J. J. Rousseau, who had been one of his partisans, soon after
the appearance of "Iphigénie" became one of his enthusiastic admirers.
The philosopher of Geneva affirmed that the music of "Orpheus" had
reconciled him to existence, and the reproach cast upon Gluck's music,
that it was lacking in melody--a reproach, by the way, which no musical
innovator, up to the present day, has been spared--he met with the words:
"I believe that melody proceeds from every pore." Besides this, after
Gluck had taught him better, Rousseau did not hesitate--and this does
him honor--to publicly acknowledge that he had made a serious mistake in
stating that the French language was unsuitable to set to music.
[Illustration: NICOLA PICCINI.
Gluck's rival in Paris from 1776 to 1779.
Of the 150 Italian Operas written by this composer not one has survived.]
It would lead us too far to enter into the reasons given by Rousseau
in his "Lettre sur la musique française" (Essay upon French music)
in support of his former opinion. In the main he accused the French
language--and justly--of being devoid of all accent (destituée de
tout accent) and concluded that Gluck's efforts to bring about a
reform in French opera had no chance of success. But he did not know
or did not consider that language without accent to a German is quite
incomprehensible, that a German composer cannot do otherwise than satisfy
his inborn love of accent in the use of a language that is foreign to
him. While Gluck thus breathed a vital element into French song, a need
felt by the French themselves, but which they did not know how to meet,
he won the warmest recognition of all truly musically-gifted Frenchmen
and that of the French-Swiss Rousseau among them.
Results of such importance could not be affected by the fact that two of
Gluck's earlier works, the operetta "L'arbre enchanté" (The Enchanted
Tree) and the opera ballet "La Cythère assiégée" (Cythera Besieged),
when performed in Paris the following year (1775), found but a lukewarm
welcome. The master had left Paris before the representation of the
latter work, not to rest on his laurels, but to begin at once the
composition of two new operas, "Roland" and "Armide," both by Quinault,
which, with the French adaptation of "Alceste," were intended for
representation in Paris the following year. In the midst of his work,
however, he was surprised by the news that, at the instigation of his
opponents, the directors of the Grand Opera had called to Paris the
famous opera-composer Nicola Piccini, and had likewise confided to him
the composition of "Roland." In a violent rage Gluck destroyed what
music of "Roland" was already completed and wrote an angry letter to his
co-laborer du Rollet, who was then tarrying in Paris, in which, without
denying his respect for the talent of his rival, he accused his opponents
of treachery and overwhelmed their spokesman, the author Marmontel,
with bitter ridicule. This letter, which du Rollet had printed in the
periodical "L'année littéraire," gave the signal for a literary war,
which in matters of art has never been surpassed in bitterness except,
perhaps, at the appearance of Richard Wagner. A vivid picture of this
is given in the collection of newspaper reports, brochures, eulogies
and satires (which appeared in Naples in 1781 and in German translation
in 1823) called forth by Gluck's opera-reforms, and entitled "Mémoires
pour servir à l'histoire de la révolution opérée dans la musique par
M. le Chevalier Gluck." (Memoirs: a Contribution to the History of the
Revolution brought about in Music by M. le Chevalier Gluck.)
When, at the beginning of the year 1776, Gluck returned in order to
rehearse "Alceste," he found the cultured people divided into two parties
under the names "Gluckists" and "Piccinists," drawn up in line of battle.
Again, as in 1752, at the appearance of the Italian bouffe-singers there
were formed in the theatre the King's party and the Queen's party; for
the king, though not in the least musical, thought it his duty to defend
the older opera, while the queen with unwavering fidelity remained true
to her countryman and former instructor. At the head of the Gluckists
stood the _Abbé Arnaud_ and _Suard_, the proprietor of the "Journal de
Paris," while for Piccini, who had arrived in Paris before Gluck, stood
_Marmontel_ and the editor of the noted paper "Mercure de France,"
_Laharpe_. At the first representation of "Alceste" victory for the
Piccinists seemed assured, so utterly did the opera fail, the last act
being actually hissed. But, as frequently upon former occasions, the
public altered its opinion with each successive performance and bestowed
ever richer applause upon the "Alceste" in the thirty-eight consecutive
representations. Gluck's fame rose still higher, however, with the
presentation of "Armide" (Sept. 23, 1777), in consequence of which his
bust was placed near those of Lully, Rameau and Quinault in the foyer of
the Grand Opera.
And what were the personal relations of the two masters whose adherents
fought so bitterly? Fairly friendly, as among fellow-artists, after they
had become acquainted at a banquet which _Berton_, one of the directors
of the Grand Opera, had happily given in their honor. Later, they had
occasion to put this friendly feeling into action; when Piccini's
"Roland" was being studied and at a rehearsal the composer was thrown
into the utmost confusion, being unused to conducting and unfamiliar
with the French language, Gluck, who happened to be present, rushed
impulsively into the orchestra, threw aside wig and coat and led with
such tremendous energy that everything ran smoothly; he also joined
most cordially in the applause given his rival upon the appearance of
"Roland" in January, 1778. Piccini, on the other hand, when he heard
of Gluck's death, expressed his regard for the departed by starting a
subscription for the establishment of a yearly concert to be given upon
the anniversary of Gluck's death at which nothing but his compositions
should be given. The friendly relations of the rivals had another severe
test. After Gluck had found a new co-laborer in the poet Guillard, and
had gone to Vienna with the text of "Iphigénie in Tauris" to set it to
music, the directors of the Grand Opera, as in the case of "Roland," were
again speculating on the Parisians' love of sensation and induced Piccini
also to compose an "Iphigénie in Tauris," which should appear before that
of Gluck. This time, however, our master did not propose to relinquish
his rights; toward the end of the year 1778 he returned to Paris, and
with the aid of the queen so carried his point that the supposed warfare
"man to man" ceased and his work gained the precedence. His "Kampf ums
Recht" (Fight for the Right) was crowned with brilliant success; not
only did those who were co-operating in the production of "Iphigénie"
show themselves well-disposed and even enthusiastic in their task, but
at the first performance of this work (May 18, 1779) the effect upon its
hearers was magical. The ideal of all earnest friends of the opera seemed
attained in the "Iphigénie in Tauris," and even the cautious Grimm,
overcome by the impressions of this representation, wrote: "I know not if
what we have heard be a melody. Perhaps it is something much better; I
forget the opera and find myself in a Greek tragedy."
After this memorable evening it could no longer be doubted that the war
between the Gluckists and Piccinists was over; that the German master had
been victorious. True, the "Iphigénie in Tauris" of Piccini, given about
a year later (January, 1781), was also extremely successful, but when the
experiment was made, soon after, of producing alternately the operas of
the two masters, after slight hesitation, the public decided by a large
majority--as is shown by the receipts--in Gluck's favor.[5]