=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.
[Illustration: HEINRICH SCHUETZ.]
=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.
[Illustration: CHRISTOPH WILLIBALD GLUCK.]
=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.