CHAPTER XVIII. FRENCH OPERA.

LIFE OF MOZART

By Otto Jahn.

Translated from The German by Pauline D. Townsend.

With A Preface by George Grove, Esq., D.C.L.

In Three Volumes Vol. II.

London Novello, Ewer & Co.

1881.

CONTENTS:

XVIII.--French Opera.................. 1

XIX.--Paris, 1778.....................34

XX.--The Return Home.................. 71

XXI.--Court Service in Salzburg............84

XXII.--" Idomeneo ".....................126

XXIII.--Release .....................170

XXIV.--First Attempts in Vienna............186

XXV.--" Die Entpühruno aus dbm Serail ".........216

XXVI.--Courtship.....................249

XXVII.--Married Life..................264

XXVIII.--Mozart's Family and Friends............312

XXIX.--Social Intercourse...............352

XXX.--Van Swieten and Classical Music.........374

XXXI.--Mozart and Freemasonry...............400

XXXII.--Mozart as an Artist...............410

XXXIII.--Mozart's Pianoforte Music............441

VOL. II.

CHAPTER XVIII. FRENCH OPERA.

MOZART and his mother left Mannheim on March 14, and arrived in Paris on

the 23rd, after a journey of nine days and a-half. "We thought we should

never get through it," writes Wolfgang (March 24, 1778),[1] "and I never

in my life was so tired. You can imagine what it was to leave Mannheim

and all our dear, good friends there, and to be obliged to exist for ten

days without a single soul even to speak to. God be praised, however,

we are now at our journey's end. I am in hopes that, with His help, all

will go well. To-day we mean to take a fiacre and go to call on Grimm

and Wendling. Early to-morrow I shall go to the Electoral Minister Herr

von Sickingen, who is a great connoisseur and lover of music, and to

whom I have letters of introduction from Herr von Gemmingen and Herr

Cannabich." L. Mozart was full of hope concerning this visit to Paris,

and believed that Wolfgang could not fail to gain fame and, as a

consequence, money in the French capital. He remembered the brilliant

reception which had been given to him and his children fourteen years

before, and he was convinced that a like support would be accorded to

the youth who had fulfilled his early promise to a degree that to an

intelligent observer must appear even more wonderful than his precocious

performances as a child. He counted upon the support and assistance

of many distinguished and influential persons, whose favour they had

already experienced, and more especially on the tried friendship of

Grimm, who had formerly given them the benefit of all his knowledge and

power, and with whom they had continued in connection ever since. Grimm

had lately passed through Salzburg with two

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(2)

friends, and was pleased to hear his "Amadeo," as he called Wolfgang.

He chanced to arrive at Augsburg on the evening of Wolfgang's concert

there, and was present at it without making himself known, since he

was in haste, and had heard that Wolfgang was on his way to Paris.

L. Mozart, who placed great confidence in Grimm's friendship and

experience, had made no secret to him of his precarious position

in Salzburg, and of how greatly Wolfgang was in need of support; he

commended his son entirely to Grimm's favour (April 6, 1778):--

I recommend you most emphatically to endeavour by childlike confidence

to merit, or rather to preserve, the favour, love, and friendship of

the Baron von Grimm; to take counsel with him on every point, and to do

nothing hastily or from impulse; in all things be careful of your own

interests, which are those of us all. Life in Paris is very different

from life in Germany, and the French ways of expressing oneself

politely, of introducing oneself, of craving patronage, &c., are quite

peculiar; so much so, that Baron von Grimm used always to instruct me as

to what I should say, and how I should express myself. Be sure you tell

him, with my best compliments, that I have reminded you of this, and he

will tell you that I am right.

But, clever as he was, L. Mozart had miscalculated on several points.

He did not reflect that Grimm had grown older, more indolent, and more

stately, and that even formerly a tact and obsequiousness had been

required in order to turn the great man's friendship to account, which,

natural as they were to himself, his son never did and never would

acquire. He had not sufficiently realised that the attention of the

public is far more easily attracted by what is strange and wonderful,

than by the greatest intellectual and artistic endowments. This was

peculiarly the case in Paris, where interest in musical performances

only mounted to enthusiasm when some unusual circumstance accompanied

them. True, such enthusiasm was at its height at the time of Mozart's

visit, but his father could not see that this very fact was against

a young man who had so little of the art of ingratiating himself with

others. To us it must ever appear as an extraordinary coincidence that

Mozart, fresh from Mannheim, and the efforts there being made for the

establishment of a national German opera, should have come to Paris at

{LULLY, 1652-1687.}

(3)

the very height of the struggle between Italian opera and the French

opera, as reformed by Gluck, a struggle which appeared to be on the

point of being fought out. In neither case did his strong feelings on

the subject tempt him to take an active part; he maintained the attitude

of a neutral observer, in preparation for the tasks to which he might be

appointed.

If we are clearly to apprehend the musical situation, we must remind

ourselves in order of the circumstances which had brought it about.

Jean Baptiste de Lully (1633-1687), a native of Florence, had gained

such distinction by his violin-playing and ballet music, that in 1652 he

was appointed kapellmeister by Louis XIV., and in 1672 he received full

power to establish and direct the Académie Royale de Musique. Not

only was he the founder of this still existing institution,* but he

established by its means the grand opera in France. Faithful to the

traditions of his birthplace, Florence, he kept in view the first

attempts which had been made in Italy to revive ancient tragedy in

opera (Vol. I., p. 154 et seq.). As in Italy, so in Paris, operatic

performances were originally designed for court festivals; Lully's

privilege consisted in his being allowed to give public representations

of operas, "even of those which had been produced at court" ("même

celles qui auront été représentés devant Nous "). They were preceded by

ballets, in which the connection of the action was indicated by vocal

scenes; but the singing was quite subordinate to the long succession of

dances, in which the distinguished part of the audience, and even

the king himself, took part. Dances, therefore, became an essential

ingredient of the opera, and it was the task of the poet and the

composers to give them appropriate connection with the plot; to this

day, as is well known, the ballet is the special prerogative of

the Grand-Opéra at Paris. It was not less important to maintain the

reputation of the most brilliant court in the

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(4)

world by means of variety and magnificence of scenery, costumes,

machinery, &c.; in this respect, also, the Grand-Opéra has kept true to

its traditions.[2]

But whilst in Italy the musical, and especially the vocal, element of

the opera had always the upper hand, in Paris the dramatic element held

its ground with good success. It was the easier for Lully to found

a national opera in Paris, since he found a poet ready to hand in

Quinault, who had the genius to clothe his mythological subjects in

the dramatic and poetical dress of his own day. To us, indeed, his

productions seem far apart from the spirit of ancient tragedy, and more

rhetorical and epigrammatic than poetical in their conception. But his

operas (or rather tragedies) expressed truly the spirit of the age, and

they became more distinctively national in proportion as the reign of

Louis XIV. came to be considered as the golden age of France. It was

Lully's task to give musical expression to the national spirit, and

in this he succeeded to the admiration of his contemporaries and of

posterity. His music is closely connected' with those first attempts

in Italy. We find none of the set forms of the later opera seria, no

regular arie, no duets, no ensembles. The words are for the most

part simply rendered in recitative. There is sometimes a figured bass

accompaniment; but even then it is not the free movement of Italian

recitative, but is much more precisely apportioned, and the harmonies

of the accompaniment change more frequently. When the sentiment

becomes rather more elevated, a sort of compromise is effected between

recitative and song. The words are rendered with a declamatory spoken

accent; and not only are they strictly in time, but the harmonies are

so arranged that a full orchestral chord is given to every note of the

song. The melodies are therefore limited in every respect; the phrases

are generally too small in compass to be well carried out, and hang

loosely together without any proper design; it was difficult to develop

an elaborate musical form out of such elements as these. Independent

songs occur seldom, and then only in the most precise of forms, tending

generally to dance melodies (airs). When several voices unite they

alternate with each other; or if they

{LULLY'S OPERAS.}

(5)

sing together note follows note, with only exceptionally real ensemble

passages. The choruses are formed by a simple harmony in several

parts, the soprano not being always appointed to give the melody.

The orchestra, except in the dance music, has seldom any independent

significance, but simply gives the full harmony to every note of

the bass. Instrumental effect is seldom aimed at, and the different

instruments are only occasionally employed singly. Lully's merit chiefly

consists in his having accentuated his music in a manner which suited

the French language, and also in his having succeeded in throwing a

certain amount of characteristic pathos into some of his passages. It is

comprehensible that at first, musical cultivation being in its infancy,

this quality should be most readily felt and acknowledged; but in

every art, and especially in music, it is the fate of individual

characteristics to become the soonest incomprehensible, and, therefore,

unpleasing. For this reason, the reaction against Lully's music attacked

just this mode of treating the text. It was considered monotonous,

tiresome, and heavy; and the isolated significant phrases having lost

their power to please, were compared with the plain-song (plain-chant)

of church psalmody.[3]

The delivery of the vocalists, male and female, is described as

dreadful; monotonous droning alternating with violent shrieks and

exaggerated accent (_urlo francese_).[4]

Notwithstanding all this, Lully's operas held undisputed possession of

the stage during his life,[5] and even after his death, a sure proof

that his success was not merely the result of the favour personally

accorded to him. The composers whose operas found favour after his (such

as Campra, Colasse, Desmarets, Blamont, and Mouret) are of less

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(6)

importance historically, because they all copied his manner. Any part of

their works which pointed to the influence of the opera seria, as it

was being formed in the Neapolitan school, was rejected by the national

vanity.[6]

Jean Phil. Rameau (1683-1764) came to Paris from the provinces as an

established musician in 1721. He succeeded by his force of character,

and the powerful protection of the Farmer-General, La Popelinière,

in placing his operas on a level with those of Lully in the public

estimation. When he produced his "Hippolyte et Aricie" in 1732, he was

met by the most determined opposition on the part of Lully's supporters;

but the very decided success of his acknowledged masterpiece, "Castor

et Pollux," in 1737,[7] placed him, if not above Lully, certainly on

an equality with him during the remainder of his career. His opponents

became gradually reconciled to his supremacy, and acknowledged that

French music had not been essentially altered by Rameau, only developed

and perfected.[8] And there can be no question that this was the case.

Before Rameau had produced any operas he had made his reputation as an

organist and instrumental composer, and more especially as the founder

of a theory of harmony. On this latter point his operas also show

considerable progress--the harmonic treatment is rich and varied, though

sometimes the straining after novelty and effect

{RAMEAU, 1732-1764.}

(7)

leads to affectation and over-elaboration. Rameau's accompaniments are

free and independent; the orchestra is used with striking effect by

means of variety of tone-colour-ing in the instruments as well as

of independent subjects, which serve to accent the details. Rameau's

employment of the orchestra shows a marked improvement, not only on

Lully, but even on Italian opera as then existing. In the same way we

find the choruses released from the fetters of strict thorough-bass, and

the parts moving freely and expressively. In the lyrical portions of the

opera, much is evidently due to the advance in the art of solo singing,

both rhythm and melody move more freely, and embellishment is not wholly

wanting. But Rameau has not avowedly adopted the Italian style, although

he spent a short part of his youth in Italy. The accepted forms of

Italian opera are entirely disregarded, both in the choruses and solos.

The slow, uniform progress of Lully's operas becomes freer and more

animated in Rameau's, the dramatic expression has more energy and life,

and the music has more of individual colouring; but the foundation

remains. The same is the case with the treatment of the dialogue. It is

still severe, stately, recitative-like singing in varied measure, but

Rameau's harmonic art is displayed in his incomparably greater power of

expression. Rameau's opera, notwithstanding its independent invention

and advance in artistic feeling, is the natural development of Lully's

principles, not a revolution against them. It was debated at the time

with much warmth whether Rameau's peculiarities were to be accepted as

improvements, or to be looked upon as injudicious attempts at novelty.

The points which then excited the liveliest interest now seem to us

most trivial. But the main fact is not to be denied, that Rameau, by the

efforts of his own genius, constructed a national French opera upon the

foundations laid by Lully, and that the further development of the grand

opera proceeded along, the lines laid down by him. Not only can the

framework and design of these early operas be recognised in the grand

opera of the present day, but French dramatic music, spite of many

transformations, betrays its relationship with the early masters in many

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(8)

peculiarities of melody, rhythm and harmony; a sure proof that national

feeling lies at the root of the traditions.

The well-wishers of the national French opera were right in settling

their disputes about Lully and Rameau by the recognition of them both;

for both alike were threatened by a formidable irruption of Italian

taste, which now so completely governed the remainder of Europe that

France could not fail to be in some measure affected by it. In August,

1752, a company of Italian singers came to Paris under the direction

of a certain Bambini, and having received permission to represent comic

operas (intermezzi) in the hall of the Grand Opéra, were called "Les

Bouffons."[9] Their first representation of Pergolese's "Serva Padrona"

was a failure, but subsequently it was applauded with enthusiasm. The

chief singers of the company, Manelli and Anna Tonelli, were highly

esteemed both for their singing and acting, although they did not reach

to the highest level of Italian opera; the others were indifferent.[10]

But they were Italian throats, Italian ways of singing and acting which

lent all their powers to the interpretation of opera buffa, with its

polished, pleasing form, simply and easily grasped harmonies, and

sustained melodies. They found in Paris an appreciative audience, and

very soon even the Parisian orchestra, where the conductor beat time

audibly,[11] while the Italian conductor only directed from the clavier,

was described, in comparison to the Italian, as a company of uneducated

musicians whose great aim was to make as much noise as possible. The

supporters of the national school of music naturally took up arms

against the

{LES BOUFFONS, 1752.}

(9)

Italian enthusiasts, and so arose the well-known struggle between the

"coin du roi" (nationalists) and the "coin de la reine" (Italians).[12]

Grimm, who always manifested great interest in musical matters, had

become acquainted with Italian opera in Germany, and afterwards in

Paris, where he took up his abode in 1749; his intercourse with Rousseau

and other sympathetic friends increased his partiality for it. His

burlesque of "Le Petit Prophète de Boehmischbroda" (1753), which

foretold in the biblical prophetic style the downfall of good taste if

Paris were not converted to Italian music,[13] proved a powerful ally

to Italian music; he was joined by Diderot, who, like all the

encyclopedists, was personally antagonistic to Rameau on account of his

attack on the "Encyclopédie."[14] Jean Jacques Rousseau, who in his "Devin

du Village" had shown the delighted public how far the treasures of the

Italian opera could be turned to good account in the French (Vol. I., p.

87 et seq.), threw all the weight of his influence into the scale of the

Bouffonists; not content with mercilessly exposing the shortcomings of

the French opera, he undertook to prove that the French language

was unfitted for composition, and French music altogether an

impossibility.[15] The enraged musicians threatened to punish this

daring outrage on the nation[16] with horsewhipping, assassination, or

even the Bastille; but a flood of angry discussion was all that actually

resulted.[17] Those, however, whose interests were

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(10)

attacked, especially the proprietors and singers of the opera-house,

took such measures as obliged the Italian singers to quit Paris in

March, 1754.[18]

It may well be wondered at that men like Rousseau[19] and Diderot,[20]

who upheld simplicity and nature as the true canons of art, should have

evinced a preference for Italian music. For though doubtless the Italian

style was grounded originally on the nature of music, it had already

become conventional, and far removed from what the philosophers called

natural. At the same time it must be remembered that their partiality

always turned in the direction of opera buffa, which sought from its

commencement to free itself from the conventional restraint of

opera seria (Vol. I., p. 203). Then, too, the musical element, as

distinguished from the poetical or dramatic, had always been the

foundation of Italian opera, and an opposition directed against the

French opera, with its poetical and dramatic proclivities, would be sure

to uphold the purely musical development of the Italians, even though

the exaggerations into which it was carried might be displeasing to the

philosophers.

The influence of the Bouffons survived their departure. The Comédie

Italienne (aux Italiens) produced Italian comedies in masquerade, French

comedies, and parodies of qperas, the charm of which consisted mainly

in their vocal parts, on which account they were called opéras

comiques.[21] A dangerous rival to the Comédie Italienne was the Théätre

de la Foire, whose representations took place originally on

{OPÉRA COMIQUE--DUNI, 1757-1775.}

(11)

the Feasts of St. Germain, St. Laurent, and St. Ovide. The two companies

were always inimical, and the "Comédiens de la Foire" were from time to

time suppressed by their stronger rival,[22] but always revived, until

at last in 1762 the two companies were amalgamated.[23] In this soil

was planted opera buffa, and, favoured by circumstances, it grew into

a great national institution.[24] Translations and adaptations of

favourite Italian operas satisfied the public at first, and were decried

by the Bouffonists as travesties of the original.[25] But very soon,

especially after the brilliant success of Vade's "Les Troqueurs" in

1753, a new school of composers sought to reconcile the excellencies

of the Italian music, especially in singing, with the exigencies of

the national taste. It was difficult at first to break loose from the

defined outline and simple design of the intermezzi, but gradually the

French taste became apparent in the greater connection and interest

of the plot, and the delicacy and wit of the composition. The lively

interest of the public induced poets of talent, such as Favart, Sedaine,

and Marmontel, to devote themselves to operatic writing, and the French

comic opera soon surpassed the opera buffa, from a dramatic as well as a

musical point of view. These various impulses were all the more lasting

since they were founded on the national character.[26]

Egidio Romoaldo Duni (1709-1775), born and educated in Naples, having

made his reputation on the Italian stage, was led by his connection with

the court at Parma, which was French in manners and in taste, to compose

French operettas, as, for instance, "Ninette ä la Cour." The applause

with which they were received induced him to go to Paris in 1757, where

he made an exceptionally favourable début with the "Peintre Amoureux,"

and during the next

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(12)

thirteen years produced a succession of comic operas, the easy style and

simple form of which secured them both the favour of the public and the

imitation of untrained French composers.[27]

Duni was followed by Pierre Alex. Monsigny (1729-1817),[28] a

dilettante, who was so excited by the performances of the Bouffons that

he applied himself to the study of music, and at once began to compose

operas. In 1759 he put his first opera, "Les Aveux Indiscrets," on

the stage, and this was rapidly succeeded by others. Sedaine was so

interested in Monsigny that he intrusted all his operatic librettos to

him.[29] A wider sphere was opened to him with the three-act opera, "Le

Roi et le Fermier," which was the commencement of the most brilliant

success. It must be allowed that the co-operation of a poet to whom even

Grimm allows all the qualities of a good librettist[30] was an important

element in this success; but Monsigny's work was quite on a level with

that of his collaborateur. His music expresses with instinctive truth

the most amiable side of the French character. Monsigny not only had at

his command a wealth of pleasing sympathetic melodies, but possessed as

decided a talent for pathos as for light comedy, and a sure perception

of dramatic effect, combined with life, delicacy, and grace. His natural

feeling for beauty of form concealed the want of thorough artistic

training,[31] and his operas were universally admired, some of them,

such as "Le Déserteur,"[32] acquiring more extended fame.

{PHILIDOR, 1759-1795--GRÉTRY, 1768-1813.}

(13)

A better theoretical musician was Franç. André (Danican) Philidor

(1727-1795), who enjoyed the reputation of extraordinary genius as

a chess-player before appearing as a composer with his first opera,

"Blaise le Savetier," in 1759.[33] His fame as a musician was soon

established, and he ruled the comic stage with Duni and Monsigny until

Grétry took possession of it. He was reproached with justice for

too great a display of musical scholarship, and for making his

accompaniments too prominent.[34] He had more force and energy than

Monsigny, with greater power of passionate expression, but his fun

is coarser, and he is inferior in grace and tenderness. He finally

abandoned music, partly from disinclination to enter into rivalry with

Grétry, and partly from his passion for chess.

It was characteristic that comic opera, the outcome of vaudeville and

chanson, should have been nursed in its infancy by composers like

Duni, who had no pretensions to great genius, Monsigny, who was half a

dilettante, and Philidor, who only composed music as a pastime. André

Ern. Grétry, on the contrary (1741-1813), threw himself into the pursuit

with all his powers, and with zealous ardour. He it was who perfected

the comic opera, making it, what it still remains, the representative

of the French national character in the province of dramatic music. As

a boy, he had delighted in the performances of Italian opera singers in

his native town of Liège, and as a youth he had been in Rome during the

most brilliant part of Piccinni's career, had studied there for several

years, and at last produced an intermezzo, "Le Vin-demiatrici," which

was well received, and gained even Pic-cinni's approval. In Paris,

although Monsigny and Philidor received him kindly, he had to contend

with difficulties; but

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(14)

after the complete success of his opera "Le Huron," in 1768,[35] even

his remarkable fertility in production could hardly satisfy the demands

of the public for his works. Marmontel, Sedaine, and other poets offered

him libretti which were in themselves pledges of success. The idea that

dramatic poetry should represent human nature in its naked reality,

which had emanated from the encyclopedists, found its realisation in the

drama of common life, and had considerable influence on the development

of the comic opera.

The strict line of demarcation between opera seria and buffa did not

exist in Paris. The effort to give more dramatic interest and freer

scope to operatic music led to the portrayal of the deeper and noble

emotions, and opera approached more and more nearly to serious comedy

in plot, situations, and psychological intention. Merriment gradually

ceased to be the predominating element, and became nothing more than a

flavouring thrown in; it was replaced by that mixture of seriousness

and playfulness which, in opposition to the former prohibition of

any amalgamation of different styles, was now considered as the true

expression of music.[36] A characteristic distinction between comic

and serious opera in France was the adoption by the former of spoken

dialogue instead of recitative.[37] Any attempt to imitate the free,

declamatory recitative of the Italians would have been thought too

daring, and was perhaps actually prohibited by the privileges of the

Grand-Opéra. But in renouncing recitative, the dialogue gained the

freedom of witty and sparkling conversation, without which the French

cannot exist; and this note, once struck, soon regulated the whole

character of

{GRÊTRY.}

(15)

operatic music, which, elevated as it may be, nevertheless starts from

the idea of a conversation.

No one could be better fitted than Grétry for the development of such a

style as this.[38] His was a pliant and amiable nature, but not a great

one. He was excitable and susceptible to any emotion, but without depth;

his wit was delicate and versatile, and he possessed the power of giving

it the most striking and appropriate expression. He was determined that

his music should always faithfully render some definite emotion, even

to the minutest detail of the dramatic situation and characters. He held

that a composer could only attain this end by working himself up into

a pitch of intense excitement,[39] and living for the time in the drama

that was under his hands.[40] The actual means which he employed was

song, that is, melody. He learnt the art of tuneful song from the

Italians,[41] and made its expressiveness depend upon intonation in

delivery, which it is the composer's part to suggest and control.[42]

He laid great stress upon true and strongly accentuated declamation,[43]

which he had studied under good actors.[44] This lent a liveliness

and piquancy to his musical style,[45] and rendered it essentially

French.[46]

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(16)

Grétry accomplished wonders for musical form, as far as grace and

freshness, lively emotion and wit go, but his powers did not attain

to anything truly great or important to art. The art of melodious

expression was developed by him almost to the exclusion of other means,

such as rich and well-chosen härmonies,[47] artistic accompaniments,

and instrumental effects, all of which he treated as subordinate and

unimportant.

He inveighs against the misuse of the instruments, especially of the

wind instruments, which Gluck's example had introduced, even if he were

not personally responsible for it;[48] but he recommends the moderate

use of them for characterisation,[49] and prides himself on his

very questionable invention in his "Andromaque" of assigning special

instruments to the recitatives of each principal character--Andromache,

for instance, having always three flutes.[50] A saying of Grétry's, that

in opera song is the statue, and the orchestra the pedestal, and that

Mozart sometimes put the pedestal on the stage, has often been repeated.

Whether this is authentic or not, the fact remains that Grétry's neglect

of the orchestra was not altogether of set purpose, but that this branch

of artistic education was unknown to him and interested him as little

as did the minute elaboration and hard study which are dear to all

first-rate musicians. His idea that a musician of genius may spoil his

inventive powers by too much study is truly comical; what he tells of

his own studies shows how shallow they were, and his productions are

all of a piece. On the other hand he lays great weight upon reflection,

which does not properly concern music at all; but his simplicity, which

almost amounted to barrenness, served to heighten his truly excellent

qualities, and to make him the popular idol he was. It is quite

conceivable that the encyclopedists, who were the champions of Italian

music, should have seen in him the man who united beauty and melody with

Italian truth and characteristic expression. Diderot wrote under

{GLUCK.}

(17)

Grétry's portrait the motto: "Irritat, mulcet, falsis terroribus implet,

ut magus";[51] Rousseau thanked him for having reopened his heart to

emotion by his music;[52] Grimm, who had received him with approbation

from the first,[53] declared during the heat of the struggle between

Gluckists and Piccinnists that connoisseurs and others were all agreed

that no composer had succeeded like Grétry in fitting Italian melody to

the French language, and in satisfying the national taste for wit and

delicacy.[54] Suard and Arnaud, Gluck's supporters, stood by Grétry,[55]

as well as Marmontel, who was opposed to Gluck.[56] And with what

enthusiasm the public received his operas! Many of them--to mention

only "Zemire and Azor"--made their way throughout Europe, and had

unquestionably much influence on the formation of musical taste.

While comic opera was thus flourishing more and more richly and

abundantly, the grand opera was confined almost exclusively to Lully and

Rameau; it might almost seem that it had reached its limits, and

that the interest of the public was henceforth to be centred on comic

opera.[57] But fresh trials awaited the grand opera. Doubtless the light

breezes which sprang from the reformed comic opera were precursors of

the coming storm; but the actual impulse to it was not given in Paris

itself.

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(18)

Christ. Wilh. Gluck (1714-1787), after doing good service to Italian

opera in Italy and London, went to Vienna in 1748, and there wrote,

partly for the Prince of Hildburg-hausen, partly and chiefly for the

imperial court, a succession of Italian operas of no very striking

originality. It was precisely the time when the traditional forms were

becoming more and more conventional formulas, and when the vocal art was

demanding the sacrifice of simplicity, nature, and truth to the whim

of each virtuoso. The decadence of operatic music, which Metastasio

bitterly laments (Vol. I., p. 163), inspired Gluck with the desire to

lead it back to its first principles. He was a man of earnest thought

and strong will. The tendency of German literature to give dignity and

importance to poetry did not pass by him unnoticed, and he was a warm

admirer of Klopstock, whose odes he set to music.[58] The efforts then

being made to raise the German stage in Vienna had an influence on

him, and his own first attempts at reformation were greeted with loud

applause by Sonnenfels.

Gluck has professed his principles of dramatic composition in the

well-known dedication to his "Alceste." He declares his opposition to

the abuses introduced by the vanity of singers and the servility of

composers, by which the most beautiful and stately drama becomes the

most tiresome; he refused to interrupt the action at a wrong time by a

ritornello, to sacrifice expression to a run or a cadenza, to neglect

the second part of a song when the situation demands that peculiar

stress shall be laid on it, in obedience to the custom which requires

the fourfold repetition of the words of the first part, or to give an

ending to the song against the sense of the text; his overtures were to

be characteristic of the drama which was to follow, and to prepare the

minds of the spectators for it. His fundamental law of operatic music

was its due subordination to the words, so that every turn in the action

should be suitably expressed, without any superfluous adornment, just as

colour gives life and expression to a

{CALSABIGI'S LIBRETTI.}

(19)

sketch. He professed his highest aim to be simple beauty;[59] he

condemned all difficulties which hinder clearness, all novelties which

do not proceed from the necessities of the situation; he set aside all

rule in order to obtain true effects.

There can hardly be a doubt as to the justice of these principles in

general, and we are only concerned with the result of their adoption on

musical progress.[60] Our remarks on a style of music which professes

itself the handmaid of poetry, and is content with giving the fittest

expression to verse, must be prefaced by some notice of the poets who

supplied the verse.

Ranieri de' Calsabigi came to Vienna in 1761, after making himself known

by an edition of Metastasio's works, with an aesthetic introduction

proving their perfection as tragedies and operas; he had also written

several libretti for operas and cantatas. He had formed an idea that

music fitted for dramatic poetry must approach as nearly as possible

to natural, energetic declamation; for since declamation was only

unperfected music, dramatic song could only be elaborated declamation

enriched by the harmonies of the accompaniment. The poetry for such

music must be intense, forcible, passionate, moving, and harmonious, and

it could not fail of its result. Full of this idea he wrote "Orfeo,"

and submitted it to Count Durazzo; the latter wished it to be put on the

stage, and recommended Gluck as the composer who could best carry out

the intentions of the poet. Calsabigi declaimed his "Orfeo" repeatedly

before Gluck, and noted his declamation in the text-book with signs

which he illustrated by remarks.[61] Gluck, while giving full justice to

the impulse

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(20)

which he had received from his poet,[62] could only partially yield to

his whimsical exaggeration of declamatory music. But Calsabigi's ideas

accorded with his own so far as to aid him in giving them clearness and

precision.

Gluck's demands on the musical drama went farther and deeper than

Calsabigi's comprehension and powers could reach.[63] But in the

meantime he accepted what was offered to him, and so were produced

"Orfeo ed Euridice" (1762), "Alceste" (1767), and "Paride ed Elena"

(1769).

Not one of these works betrays any apprehension of true tragedy, any

trace of the antique mind; when the poet seeks to escape from the

rhetoric of Italian poetry, he draws not from the Greek but from the

French tragedy. Nor do the operas possess any proper dramatic interest.

Instead of having a well-connected, symmetrical plot, they consist of a

succession of detached situations closely resembling each other,

which are too often repeated, while in details they are too broad and

rhetorical. Gluck's principle of making music the simple exponent of the

poet's words was calculated to give them dignity and influence.

Gluck possessed not only boldness and energy united with intellectual

acuteness; he had, what is a rare quality at all times, a deep

perception of true grandeur. But although Calsabigi strove to simplify

his plots and to excite the deeper and more powerful emotions of his

audience, of _greatness_ there was no trace in his librettos. Gluck,

perceiving the latent capabilities which the poet had failed to develop,

brought them out, as it were, instinctively, and while he believed

himself to be following the poet, he was in reality himself creating all

that was great and new in the work. His fame will be immortal, and rests

upon the stately breadth of his designs, upon the simple truth of his

representations--in short, upon the greatness of his artistic genius.

His weakness consisted in his one-sided tendency

{GLUCK'S OPERAS.}

(21)

to characterisation, a tendency in no way identical with those qualities

which made his reputation.

Gluck does not abandon any of the accepted forms in his Italian operas;

he rather, in many respects, revives older traditions. His strict

treatment of the aria, the simplicity of his melodies, and the

moderation of his adornments, together with his careful recitative, and

especially his correct expression, were certainly variations on the

then ruling taste, but not innovations on the earlier method. But in

his desire to replace by accurate musical characterisation the

ear-flattering artificial degeneration of operatic singing, he made

use of stronger means than had hitherto been known. His harmonies in

especial are not only more important and interesting in themselves, but

they are used of set purpose for dramatic characterisation. In a similar

manner the orchestra is made of higher use. The instruments are treated

according to their individualities, not as combining to a purely musical

effect, but as giving by their tone-colouring definite expression to

a variety of moods; light and shade are carefully adjusted, and much

lively execution is allotted to the orchestra. The effect is still

further heightened by the frequent use of the chorus, which is

intricately treated, and so becomes a powerful factor in the musical

characterisation.

Gluck extended his care to the details of scenery, to marches and

dances; everything was to be in accordance with and characteristic

of the situation. Here he had been preceded by Jean George Noverre

(1727-1810) who, in his "Lettres sur la Danse et sur les Ballets" in

1760, strove for a reformation in the ballet on the same principles

which Gluck employed for the opera. He condemned stereotyped forms of

set dances, and demanded a plot for the ballet; expression should be

the task of the dancer, with nature for his model, and the ballet-master

should be both poet and painter. The ballets which he produced upon

these principles at Stuttgart until 1764, then at Vienna, and after 1776

at Paris, were finished productions of a very pure taste, and effected a

complete revolution in the art of dancing.

Gluck laid great stress upon recitative. He almost entirely abandoned

the customary plain recitative, and used

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(22)

accompanied recitative as most fitting for the dignified language of

musical drama. Truth and power of expression are combined with a wealth

of delicate and characteristic detail, and Gluck rarely falls into the

error of destroying the impression of the whole by over-elaboration of

detail; his nature was averse to all forms of triviality.

But here again the one-sided application of Gluck's principle becomes a

weakness. As, according to his view, music is to be subservient to the

words, he follows with his strongly marked recitative every turn of the

dialogue, rhetorical and inflated as it might be, so that he not only

employs all the resources of his art on an unworthy object, but fritters

away the interest, on which he makes claims at once too extensive

and too rapidly succeeding one another. Musical representation works

immediately upon the mind and the emotions, and can do this so much

more strongly and vividly than verse, which, however forcibly declaimed,

appeals primarily to the intellect and the imagination, that a painful

incongruity occurs when music, with all her resources of accurate

characterisation, follows step by step the words of the poet. It is

therefore an error to suppose that the music must always yield to the

words; "as in a correct and well-composed picture," adds Gluck, "the

animation of the colouring and of well-disposed light and shade vivifies

the forms without distorting the outlines." But the true painter does

not colour or illumine the naked outline; he considers the form in its

total effect as a piece of colouring, and it exists for him only in this

totality, which it is his object to represent. The distinction between

form and colour is only technically important, and does not affect

artistic perception and production. In the same way the musician has

something more to do with respect to the words of his text than to

colour given outlines. The conceptions which the poet has formed, with

the consciousness that they could only attain complete independence

by their combination with music, must be absorbed by the musician, and

reproduced in the forms appointed by the nature of his art.

The exaggerations attending on all forms of opposition and attempted

reformation will not suffice to explain this

{GLUCK'S MUSIC.}

(23)

important error.[64] In dealing with so great and powerful a mind

as Gluck's we must go deeper, and seek for the cause in his artistic

organisation alone. An ardent admirer of Gluck has pronounced[65] that

he was "more intellectually than musically great"; and certainly his

musical productions do not correspond to the energy of his feelings

and his will. His organisation fitted him for a reformer; as a creative

artist his weakness became apparent. Gluck's works are not exactly

one-sided; he expressed every variety of passion with equal skill, and

he is never wanting in grace and charm; but he cannot be said to be

rich or spontaneous. The lofty sentiment which he expresses in firm and

comprehensive melodies is natural to him, but his exact and confined

mode of composition is in part the result of his limited power of

invention. The final cause of his desire to deprive music of her rights

as an independent art in favour of verse lies in this weakness of his

musical organisation. Closely connected with this is another

phenomenon. It has been justly remarked[66] that Gluck's powers of

characterisation extend only to soliloquies, that he failed to give

proper expression to the dialogue proper, the contrast of voices and

characters which, either in opposition or agreement, demonstrate their

different natures; the polyphonal power of music, in its intellectual

sense, remained undeveloped by Gluck. Failing in this, he failed in the

highest object of music, by virtue of which alone she can make any claim

to dramatic force. The fact that Gluck did not feel himself impelled to

express his dramatic situations after this fashion is a proof that

his imagination was more easily stirred poetically than musically. The

narrow limits within which he occasionally confines even the music whose

expression is intended to be purely lyrical may be traced to the same

source. For Gluck did not think it necessary that action on the musical

stage should maintain the same uninterrupted

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(24)

flow as in real life. He thought it far more important to give a

well-sustained musical representation of some one mood or disposition;

and the more broadly such moods were indicated by the poet the better he

was pleased. It is true that even then he keeps within the limits of

the strictest form, but he is fond of employing frequent repetition,

particularly when the chorus and a solo voice are set in opposition to

each other. This way of rendering a dramatic idea is often of powerful

effect; but, considered from an artistic point of view, it should be

subordinated to the design of a grandly conceived composition expanding

into a living organism.

It cannot be denied, therefore, that Gluck failed in the working out of

his subjects, and that he sometimes betrays a certain amount of weakness

as well in the structure of his compositions as in their details. It

was not for want of industry or care; it was that he did not feel the

necessity for mastering this important side of musical representation,

and the fact affords fresh testimony of the singularity of his musical

organisation.

Gluck's first opera, "Orfeo ed Euridice," adheres most closely to the

usual Italian style, and was indeed successfully performed in Italy.[67]

Of action in this opera there is hardly any; the introduction of Cupid

at the beginning and the end gives it the cold allegorical character

of the then customary festival entertainments. The broadly represented

situations in which Orpheus mourns for Eurydice, and charms by his music

the demons of the lower world, form the main portions of the opera; and

they are expressed with striking fidelity and fervour of sentiment,

as well as with great force and beauty. The use which is made of

the chorus, and the cultivation of the orchestra, betoken great and

important advances on the older style. The opera was well received by

connoisseurs, both in Vienna and Paris,[68] but it does not appear to

have been regarded as the inauguration of a reformation

{"ALCESTE," 1767.}

(25)

in music; indeed, during the next few years Gluck composed several

Italian operas quite after the old fashion.

"Alceste," however, is an avowed attempt towards a reformation of

dramatic music, and it manifests the settled purpose and the complete

individuality of the master. The poet offers nothing but a succession

of situations without any progressive action; the situations turn

exclusively on the decision of Alceste, and are employed less as

psychological developments of character than as opportunities for a

rhetorical representation of certain frames of mind. The character of

Hercules is omitted, and the task of deliverance is entrusted to Apollo

as an apparition in the clouds; this destroys an effective contrast; and

the two confidants retain a suspicious likeness to the _parte seconde_

of Italian opera. But Gluck considered the separate scenes not only with

regard to their fitness for musical treatment; he felt firm ground in

which he might strike root. It testifies to his marvellous energy of

mind that no weakness was discernible in the repetition of such closely

allied situations, and that he had always new shades of expression and

climacteric effects at his command. The connection with the forms of

Italian opera is not by any means completely severed; an unprejudiced

survey discovers numerous traces of this, and many of the main features

of the composition are the results of the particular way in which Gluck

made use of these forms.

The Vienna public received the opera with indifference, but the critics

welcomed it eagerly as the inauguration of a new era. Unhappily the

critics were not by any means competent judges; Sonnenfels and Riedel

were not cultivated musical connoisseurs.[69] The opera scarcely

reached a more extended circle; in Italy little notice was taken of

it; Frederick the Great had several portions of it performed before him

without finding any enjoyment in them;[70] North German

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(26)

critics, while doing full justice to the new work, raised objections to

some of the essential points of Gluck's principles, as carried out in

it.[71] Gluck remarks with some resentment, in his dedication to "Paride

ed Elena," on the lukewarmness of the public, and the want of insight

and justice on the part of the critics; he goes on to blame the

cowardice and stupidity of musicians, none of whom had ventured to

follow his lead, and proudly declares his intention of maintaining his

principles, to the correctness of which this new opera was to testify on

altogether new grounds. This was an unlucky announcement, for "Paride

ed Elena" gave no proof of Gluck's exceptional powers. The subject, a

sufficiently poor one, is deprived of every vestige of interest by the

interposition of Cupid in disguise between the lovers--a fiction which

turns the whole drama into an absurdity. The meagre story is spun out

into five acts, while to the love scenes, which are wanting in any

true passion, independent choruses and dances are attached, calling for

nothing beyond outward display. Gluck's genius for depicting the

wider and deeper emotions found no task fitted to its powers, and the

inclination to mere grace and superficiality was one altogether foreign

to his nature. Beauties of detail do not suffice in the consideration of

a work of art. The opera was a failure, however, and it does not appear

to have been reproduced.

Perhaps Gluck would now have paused in his endeavours,[72] had not new

prospects opened which seemed to promise good results. A Frenchman named

Du Rollet, attached to the embassy at Vienna, and an enthusiast for

poetry and music, asserted that the tendency of Gluck's principles

was in essentials the same as that of French opera style. He therefore

assured him that in Paris only would his

{"IPHIGÉNIE EN AULIDE."}

(27)

reformation meet with approval, and urged that a true tragedy ought

always to be the foundation of an opera. As an example, he suggested

Racine's "Iphigénie en Aulide," and commissioned him to arrange it as

an opera, and to take the preliminary steps for its production in Paris.

Gluck accepted the proposal without hesitation.,

The circumstances were, in fact, very favourable. The principal

difficulty against which Gluck had hitherto to contend, viz., the

deep-rooted partiality for Italian music and its accepted forms, did not

exist in Paris; for opera seria in its developed form had made as little

way there as the display of fine execution, and even lovers of Italian

music would have been loth to introduce its abuses and exaggerations

of set purpose. French opera, on the contrary, in accordance with

the genius of the nation, made its first principle dramatic and

characteristic expression, which could only be attained by correct yet

free treatment of musical forms, and by well-considered treatment of

recitative. Choruses, too, which were for Gluck an important aid to

climax and dramatic effect, were indispensable in French opera; and

since Rameau's time the orchestra had been successfully employed as a

means of characteristic expression. But the French school had hitherto

failed to combine dignity and beauty with their dramatic force and

expression; and here Gluck's Italian training enabled him to supply the

deficiency. As far as comic opera was concerned, Grétry had preceded him

with similar efforts, and had accustomed the ear of the Parisians to

the mingling of French and Italian music. But to carry out such a

reformation in the grand opera required a man of commanding qualities;

and such an one Gluck had proved himself to be.

The choice of subjects was a happy one. Racine's tragedy was known as

a masterpiece to the whole nation, and unless the adaptation were very

clumsily made, success for the poetic share of the opera was assured.

The advance on earlier operas is a very decided one. An important

event forms the centre of the plot, dramatic contrasts, passions, and

characters, are effectively portrayed. It is true that the spirit of the

age of Louis XIV. runs

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(28)

through it all;[73] we have Greeks in patches and powder, Monseigneur

Achille and Princesse Iphigénie behave with becoming courtesy and

gallantry, and even the artistic representation is made subordinate to

the ceremonial. But Gluck had been trained among these impressions,

the forms were not irksome to him, and the greatness of his artistic

individuality is nowhere more plainly seen than in his power of

exhibiting at momentous crises the purely human and poetic emotions

stripped of their outward disguise, and reflecting the ideal spirit

of antique art by means of music in a way of which the poet had never

dreamed. Gluck did not venture to depart from the national form of the

versification; he was well aware that he must yield to the demands of

French taste if he wished to influence the French on his main points. He

not only strove to conform to external conditions, as, for instance, to

the great extension of the ballet,[74] endeavouring to turn them to his

own ends; he carefully studied the language, in order to declaim it and

treat it musically in a way suitable to its character; he also eagerly

studied the operas of his predecessors, Lully and Rameau, that he might

adopt all that was truly and genuinely national in them. The influence

of these studies may be recognised even in details; but Gluck turned to

account whatever he adopted in a perfectly free and independent manner,

and developed it still further. His most important innovation was the

substitution of free Italian recitative, with the grand capabilities

for characteristic expression given to it by Gluck himself, for the

old "psalmodie." He changed throughout the fundamental character of

the musical representation, and here he had no predecessors; for the

treatment of the several parts of the composition after the Italian

style, comic opera had, as we have seen, in some degree prepared the

way. A

{PERFORMANCE OF "IPHIGÉNIE," 1774.}

(29)

further advance, brought about by the greater vividness of the dramatic

impersonations, was the cultivation of ensemble pieces; but this, as has

been already remarked, is the weakest side of Gluck's performances.

Although Gluck's "Iphigénie" might rightfully claim to have perfected

the French grand opera in its national sense, yet it was a difficult

undertaking to gain recognition for this fact in Paris, and to produce

there the work of a foreign, if not of an unknown composer. Du

Rollet published a letter to D'Auvergne, one of the directors of the

Grand-Opéra, in the "Mercure de France" (October, 1772), in which he

acquaints him of Gluck's wish to produce his "Iphigénie" in Paris. He

laid stress on Gluck's having preferred the French language and music to

the Italian, and declared that his composition of Racine's masterpiece

was altogether after the French taste; he hoped in this way to gain the

favour of the public and the theatre management. As this met with no

response, Gluck himself published a letter in the "Mercure" (February,

1773), in which, without undue submission, he reiterates the wish; he

wastes great praise on J. J. Rousseau, who was destined to be the most

determined opponent of the French language and music. At last Gluck

succeeded in gaining the interest of the Dauphiness, Marie Antoinette,

all difficulties were overcome, and in the autumn of 1773 Gluck went to

Paris to put his opera in rehearsal.[75] Again hindrances were thrown in

his way which it required all the force and vigour of his character to

overcome. The hardest struggle was with the vocalists, male and female,

and with the orchestra; they must be attached to him at all costs.

But he was an implacable conductor,[76] and never gave way before

a storm.[77] After six months rehearsing, "Iphigénie" was performed

(February 14, 1774); the success of the first performance was not

brilliant, but the second quite confirmed the victory. Gluck had

succeeded (an important point in Paris) in raising public expectation to

a high pitch

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(30)

beforehand, and he found zealous supporters among the journalists,

especially the Abbé Arnaud; the opposition engendered by the

enthusiastic partisanship of his admirers was in his favour in so far

that it prevented the interest of the public from becoming faint.[78]

Opposition came, as might have been expected, from both sides;[79] the

followers of Lully and Rameau would not grant any progress made, and

saw in Gluck's innovations nothing but the harmful influence of Italian

music,[80] while the partisans of the Italians looked upon Gluck's music

as essentially identical with the "old French," and complained of the

"tudesque" modifications of the Italian style.[81] As usual, neither

party was satisfied with the concessions made to it, and still less

would either acknowledge that its strong places had been overthrown.

J. J. Rousseau alone acknowledged himself vanquished; and as he had

previously done justice to Grétry's efforts, so he now extolled Gluck's

music as being genuinely dramatic.[82] Not so Grimm. He was too well

versed in Italian music not to perceive that if Gluck's ideas became

prevalent, those forms which he held to be essential would soon be

annihilated; Gluck's operas appeared to him a revival of the old French

style, which would

{GLUCK'S OPERAS IN VIENNA.}

(31)

only hinder or retard the triumph of the Italian. It is true that out of

deference to public opinion, and to that of many of his friends and of

Gluck's royal patroness, he does not express himself very positively on

the subject, but his real views cannot be mistaken.[83]

With just discrimination the directors had declared that they would not

risk appearing before the public with one of Gluck's operas; if he would

write six, they might have a chance of success. Gluck himself was aware

that if he was to succeed in the long run, his "Iphigénie" must not be

left long alone. He rapidly revised and elaborated "Orphée et Euridice,"

not at all to the advantage of the opera, in which he was induced, quite

against his principles, to insert a long bravura aria by Bertoni.[84]

It was performed on August 2, 1774, with great success,[85] and was

followed on February 27, 1775, by a one-act opera, "L'Arbre Enchanté,"

and on August 11, 1775, by an opera in three acts, "La Cythère

Assiégée," neither of which had any lasting effect. In order to insure

a fresh and lasting success Gluck took in hand his "Alceste" anew.

The text was thoroughly revised by Du Rollet, with the adoption of

Rousseau's suggestions, especially in the second act; Hercules is

introduced again, but not very skilfully.[86] Gluck's revision was

a very thorough one; the old music was transposed, curtailed, or

lengthened, the details altered, and new passages inserted, generally

with admirable discrimination.[87] Then, in order to put new works in

direct competition with his old compositions, he undertook to set operas

by Quinault to music unaltered, and chose "Roland" and "Armida."

While Gluck was engaged on these works in Vienna, the

{FRENCH OPERA.}

(32)

supporters of Italian music, who were now convinced of the possibility

of procuring foreign composers for the grand opera, sought on their side

to oppose a rival to Gluck. Some time previously Madame Dubarry had

been induced by La Borde's influence to obtain the presence in Paris

of Piccinni, the most esteemed of Italian composers.[88] The Neapolitan

ambassador, the Marquis Caraccioli, by his intellect and position a

powerful patron of the arts and sciences, had been mainly instrumental

in summoning Piccinni; and the young Queen, Marie Antoinette, who saw no

necessity for bending her inclinations to party interests in the matter

of music, and who, like her brother the Emperor, was personally attached

to Italian music, gave her consent to Piccinni's appointment.

Marmontel declared himself ready to adapt an opera by Quinault for

Piccinni, of whose music he announced himself the champion.[89] When

Gluck heard that the work selected was the "Roland," on which he was

already at work, he published a letter ("Année Littéraire," 1776), in

which he bitterly complained of this affront, and violently assailed his

adversaries.

Open war was now declared between the critics of the Gluckists and

the Piccinnists, and carried on in pamphlets, journal articles, and

epigrams, with so much violence that even the public were led into a

partisanship more eager than had ever before arisen from a question of

art.[90] The leaders of the Piccinnists were Marmontel and La Harpe,

while Gluck's faithful partisans were Arnaud and Suard, who appeared

as the Anonymous of Vaugirard.[91] Grimm took no direct share in the

contest; but his comments on it show him,

{GLUCKISTS AND PICCINNISTS.}

(33)

in spite of apparent impartiality, to have been decidedly on the side of

Piccinni.

The first performance of "Alceste," on April 23, 1776, was a failure,

and it only gained in public favour by slow degrees.[92] "Iphigénie,"

too, which was reproduced, was severely criticised. But this severity

served but to increase public sympathy, and Gluck's operas drew full

houses, and became more and more unmistakably popular.

Piccinni arrived in Paris quite at the end of 1776. He was welcomed by

all the composers, Grétry alone failing to pay his respects to him. For

this he was severely censured, since on first coming to Paris he had

announced himself as a pupil of Piccinni, which he was not.[93] Strange

and unknown in Paris, Piccinni took a great distaste to its harsh

climate, its unaccustomed way of living. His ignorance of the French

language isolated him and debarred him from any personal share in the

contest of which he was the subject.

His easy-going and peace-loving temperament prevented his wishing

to join in the fray, while for Gluck's passionate nature it was a

satisfaction to give vent to angry vituperation in the public journals.

Marmontel relates how he had to instruct Piccinni in French by reading

him his opera every day as a task, and translating what Piccinni had to

compose.[94] Thus slowly proceeded the work of the dissatisfied maestro,

and every day he doubted of its success more and more.[95]

Gluck began the rehearsals of his "Armide" in July, 1777, and it was

performed on September 23. The opera, on which Gluck had built such

confident hopes of success, was very coolly received.[96] Its failure

was owing partly to

{PARIS, 1778.}

(34)

the dangerous rivalry of Lully, partly to the fact that the subject was

not suited to his genius,[97] and partly also to the premonitory

shadow of Piccinni's new work. Justice was not done to "Armide" until

later.[98]

La Harpe attacked it bitterly, and Gluck, in a violent retort, called

for the aid of the Anonymous of Vaugirard, which did not tarry. Then

began the rehearsals of Piccinni's opera, and the storm of partisanship

was let loose.[99] Piccinni was incapable of restraining it. While his

friends espoused his cause with zeal, while Gluck himself sought to

restrain the singers and the orchestra,[100] Piccinni looked sorrowfully

to heaven and sighed, "Ah! toutte va male, toutte!" Firmly convinced

that the opera would be a failure, and resolved to return to Naples on

the following day, he went to the first performance (January, 1778),

consoling his family with the assurance that a cultivated nation like

the French would do a composer no bodily harm, even if they did not

admire his operas--and experienced a brilliant triumph.[101]

FOOTNOTES CHAPTER XVIII.

[Footnote 1: Ed. Fournier, Mozart ä Paris (Revue Franç., 1856, II., t. 7, p. 28).]

[Footnote 2: Cf. Histoire du Théätre de l'Opéra en France (Paris, 1753; 2nd

Edit., 1757). Castil-Blaze, L'Académie Imp. de Musique de 1645 ä 1855

(Paris, 1855,1., II.).]

[Footnote 3: Grimm, Corr. inéd., p. 222; cf. Corr. Litt., I., p. 93. The

following is not bad (Corr. Litt., II., p. 205): "M. Hasse, qui avait

entendu parler de la légèreté et de la pétulance françaises, ne se

lassait point, lorsqu'il fut en ce pays-ci, d'admirer la patience avec

laquelle on écoutait ä l'Opéra une musique lourde et monotone." Goldoni

amusingly describes the impression made upon him by the French opera

(Mém., II., p. 182).]

[Footnote 4: Grimm, Corr. Litt., XV., p. 283; cf. IV., p. 165. Grétry gives more

particular instances of the faults of the old style ( Mém., I., p. 301).]

[Footnote 5: The last performance of one of Lully's operas ("Thésée ") was in

1778.]

[Footnote 6: Raguenet, Parallèle des Italiens et François en ce qui regarde

la Musique et les Opéras (.Paris, 1702), translated into German, with

notes, and the rejoinder of Freneuse de la Vieuville ( Bonnet, Histoire

de la Musique, p. 425; Bourdelot, Hist, de la Mus., I., p. 291), in

Mattheson's Critica Musica (Hamburg, 1712), I., p. 91, and in Marpurg's

Krit. Briefen, I., pp. 65, 89, 113, 398. Freneuse, Comparaison de la

Mus. Ital. et de la Mus. Franç. Brussels, 1705 (in Bourdelot'8 Hist, de

la Mus., 1725 and 1743, II.-IV.). Raguenet, Défense du Parallèle (Paris,

1705).]

[Footnote 7: La Harpe, Corresp. Litt., II., p. 302.]

[Footnote 8: When Grimm first came to Paris he wrote to Gottsched: "M. Rameau is

rightly considered by all connoisseurs to be the greatest musician who

has ever lived" (Danzel Gottsched, p. 349). His opinion soon changed,

but the account he afterwards gives of Rameau (Corr. Litt., IV., p. 80),

prejudiced as it is, recognises Rameau's merits, though without giving

him the credit of them. In his Lettre sur "Omphale" (1752, Corr. Litt.,

XV., p. 281), Grimm gave a detailed criticism in a very moderate tone.

A good account of him may be found in Ad. Adam's Derniers Souvenirs d'un

Musicien, p. 39.]

[Footnote 9: Hiller, Wöch. Nachr., 1770, p. 331. Schelle, N. Ztschr. f. Mus.,

LVII., and LVIII., p. 119.]

[Footnote 10: According to Castil-Blaze (L'Opéra Italien, p. 144), the operas

produced by the Bouffons were, "La Serva Padrona," by Pergolese; "ü

Giocatore," by Orlandini: "ü Maestro di Musica," by Al. Scarlatti; "La

Finta Cameri'era," by Atella; "La Donna Superba," by Rinaldo da Capua;

"La Scaltra Gover-natrice," by Cocchi; "ü Cinese Rimpatriato," by

Selletti; "La Zingara" by Rinaldo da Capua; "Gli Artigiani Arrichiti,"

by Ladlla; "II. Paratajo" by Jomelli; "Bertoldo in Corte," by Ciampi; "I

Viaggiatori," by Leo.]

[Footnote 11: The Italian opera was conducted from the pianoforte only, while in

the French opera time was beaten audibly with a stick. Cf. Grétry, Mém.,

I.p. 39.]

[Footnote 12: The heads of the parties had their regular places below the box of

the King and Queen.]

[Footnote 13: It was republished (Corr. Litt., XV., p. 315,) and translated into

German (N. Ztschr. f. Mus., IV., p. 63, where it is wrongly ascribed to

Rousseau). Grimm speaks of its extraordinary success to Gottsched, and

Frau Gottsched speaks of an imitation of it directed against Weisse's

operetta, "Der Teufel ist los" (Danzel Gottsched, p. 350).]

[Footnote 14: The account which he gives to Rameau's nephew of his uncle and

Italian music is graphic enough (Goethe, XXIII., p. 208).]

[Footnote 15: This was in the well-known Lettre sur la Musique Française (1753), to

which the Lettre d'un symphoniste de l'Académie Royale de Musique ä ses

camarades de l'orchestre (1753) was a witty after-piece.]

[Footnote 16: Grétry, Mém., I., p. 279.]

[Footnote 17: Rousseau, Confessions 1., VIII. Grimm, Corr. Litt., I., p. 92.

Fétis, Curios. Hist, de la Mus., p. 107.]

[Footnote 18: Grimm, Corr. Litt., I., p. 114.]

[Footnote 19: Rousseau had apparently a natural musical talent, which was

quickened by Italian music; his logical reflections sometimes led him

into error, but he remained accessible to new musical impressions, even

when they contradicted his expressed opinions.]

[Footnote 20: Diderot appears to have had some musical taste, but not much

cultivation, and in this respect Grimm had some influence upon his

opinions, as he certainly had upon Grimm's in more important matters.

The article "Poème lyrique" in the Encyclopédie (publ. Corr. Litt., XV.,

p. 349), is a curious mixture of Italian taste, and of reflections after

Diderot's manner: the views it upholds are often warped and superficial.]

[Footnote 21: Grimm, Corr. Litt., VI., p. 229. The parodies are collected in Les

Parodies du Nouveau Théätre Italien ( Paris, 1738,I.-IV.). Supplément

aux Parodies (Paris, 1763,1. III.).]

[Footnote 22: Favart, Mém., I., p. XVII.]

[Footnote 23: Favart, Mém., I., pp. 203, 214, 228, 233.]

[Footnote 24: [ D'Orville] Histoire de l'Opéra Bouffon (Amst., 1760).

[Footnote Desboulmiers] Histoire du Théätre de l'Opéra-Comique (Paris, 1769, I.,

II.). Fétis, Curios. Hist, de la Mus., p. 342. Castil-Blaze, Acad. Imp.

de la Mus., I., p. 216.]

[Footnote 25: Grimm, Corr. Litt., VII., p. 289.]

[Footnote 26: Goldoni concedes the superiority of the opéra-comique over the

Italian huffa (Mém., II., p. 227).]

[Footnote 27: Grimm, Corr. Litt., IV., p. 164; VII., p. 126. After 1765 he

thought his style "un peu vieux et faible, mais ailleurs plein de

finesse, de charme, de grace, et de vérité. C'est toujours malgré sa

faiblesse l'homme chez lequel nos jeunes compositeurs devraient aller ä

l'école" (Corr. Litt., IV., p. 414). He afterwards exhorts Philidor and

Grétry to yield the field to him with honour (Corr. Litt., V.» pp. 140,

369; VI., p. 63).]

[Footnote 28: A. Adam, Derniers Souvenirs d'un Musicien, p. 107.]

[Footnote 29: Grimm, Corr. Litt., VI., p. 61.]

[Footnote 30: Grimm, Corr. Litt., III., p. 136.]

[Footnote 31: Grimm judged him so severely (Corr. inéd., p. 219; cf. Corr. Litt.,

III., p. 136; VI., p. 208; IX., p. 463); that one suspects personal

dislike. Madame de Genlis rightly protested against his severity (Mém.,

II., p. 22).]

[Footnote 32: Grimm, even in this case, ascribed all the merit to the poet (Corr.

Litt., VI., pp. 197, 206); Madame de Genlis, on the contrary, maintained

that Monsigny's music caused one to overlook the improbabilities of the

piece ( Mém., II., p. 21)]

[Footnote 33: G. Allen, Life of Philidor (Philadelphia, 1863). At first Grimm

thought his music no better than other French music (Corr. Litt., II.,

p. 346; III., p. 89); after 1764 he notes his increasing progress (III.,

p. 401; IV., p. 200), and praises him highly in 1768 (VI., p. 14). He

was accused of stealing from Italian masters, but Grimm retorted that

it required great talent to steal in such a way (V., p. 25; VI., p. 145).

Later on Grimm considered that Philidor inclined too much to Gluck's

manner (IX., p. 378; X., p. 358), and finally he declared that Philidor

had grown feeble (XII., p. 468; XIII., p. 137).]

[Footnote 34: Tagebuch der Mannh. Schaub'., I., p. 264.]

[Footnote 35: Marmontel relates the affair more circumstantially (Mém., IX.;

Ouvr., II., p. 72).]

[Footnote 36: Grimm discusses this question after the manner of Diderot, on the

production of "Le Déserteur," the first comic opera of the kind (Corr.

Litt., VI., p. 212). Madame du Deffand thought the exhibition of passion

in "Le Déserteur" of very doubtful propriety (Corr. inéd., I., p. 175).]

[Footnote 37: Grimm condemns the "barbarous fashion" of mixing spoken dialogue

and song in the comic opera, and asserts that there can be no great

composers in France until real recitative is made use of (Corr. Litt.,

IV., p. 166; VI., pp. 120, 209).]

[Footnote 38: He has given a detailed account of his education, of the

suggestions for his works and of his views on dramatic music in his

Mémoires ou Essais sur la Musique (Paris, 1789; Brussels 1829,1.-III.).

The naïveté of intense vanity is apparent everywhere. His opinions

show some power of observation, but are for the most part trivial and

arbitrary.]

[Footnote 39: He describes his way of working to the celebrated physician

Tronchin (Mém., I., p. 21): "Je lis, je relis vingt fois les paroles que

je veux peindre avec des sons; il me faut plusieurs jours pour échauffer

ma tète; enfin je perds l'appétit, mes yeux s'enflamment, l'imagination

se monte, alors je fais un opéra en trois semaines ou un mois." He

maintains that this excitement is more likely to lead a composer aright

than attention to rules ( I., pp. 168, 204).]

[Footnote 40: Prince Henry of Prussia paid him the most appropriate compliment in

the words: "Vous avez le courage d'oublier que vous êtes musicien pour

être poète" ( Mém., I., p. 121, cf., p. 346).]

[Footnote 41: Mém., I., p. 112.]

[Footnote 42: Mém., I., pp. 141, 238; III., p. 144.]

[Footnote 43: Mém., I., p. 169.]

[Footnote 44: Mém., I., pp. 146, 170.]

[Footnote 45: Mém., I., p. 231.]

[Footnote 46: He declared the French language to be the one best suited to music

( I., p. 400), although he does not conceal its difficulties ( I., p.

134), and demonstrates that France is destined to be pre-eminent in

music.]

[Footnote 47: Mém., I., p. 212; cf. pp. 224, 260.]

[Footnote 48: Mém., I., p. 339; II., p. 45.]

[Footnote 49: Mém., I., pp. 237, 375.]

[Footnote 50: Mém., I., p. 356.]

[Footnote 51: Mém., II., p. 10. He sometimes gave him good advice (I., p. 215)

and Grétry embraced his views (III., p. 377).]

[Footnote 52: Grétry, Mém., I., p. 270; cf. II., p. 331.]

[Footnote 53: Grimm says, after the performance of "Le Huron" (Corr. Litt., VI.,

p. 34): "M. Grétry est un jeune homme qui fait ici son coup d'essai;

mais ce coup d'essai est le chef-d'ouvre d'un maître, qui élève l'auteur

sans contradiction au premier rang." His praise of the "Lucile".]

[Footnote 54: Grimm, Corr. Litt., X., p. 228.]

[Footnote 55: Grétry, Mém., I., p. 150.]

[Footnote 56: He himself examines the grounds on which his music has become

naturalised in France, "sans me faire des partisans enthousiastes et

sans exciter des ces disputes puériles, telles que nous en avons vu

(Mém., I., p. 169).]

[Footnote 57: It is almost comical to observe the pertinacity with which the

Grand-Opèra brought out its old pieces, to be as pertinaciously attacked

by Grimm.]

[Footnote 58: A collection of Klopstock's odes, set to music by Gluck has often

been published; he had the "Herrmannsschlacht" ready in his head,

according to his habit, but it was never written out. For Gluck's

intercourse with Klopstock in Karlsruhe. (see Strauss, Kl. Schr., p. 42.

p. 122) and the "Tableau parlant" (VI., p. 251) was equally strong, and

he accompanied it with a respectful and appreciative criticism.]

[Footnote 59: It is worthy of note how certain intellectual currents, running

through an age, take simultaneous effect in different spheres. The

tendency to individuality in art, to truth and nature, which was due to

the encyclopedists, made itself manifest side by side with the principle

of simple beauty which Winckelmann laid down as characteristic of

ancient art.]

[Footnote 60: Planelli, Dell' Opera in Musica (Neap., 1772), p. 148, approves of

Gluck's principles, and the latter praises Planelli's performance of

"Alceste"; Vine. Manfredini (Regole Arm., p. 163) takes much exception

to it.]

[Footnote 61: Schelle has (N. Ztschr. f. Mus., LIX., p. 42) published Calsabigi's

letter (Mercure de France, Aug. 21,1784), in which the latter, who

considered himself neglected, represents his relations with Gluck.]

[Footnote 62: Mém. pour servir ä l'Hist. de la révolution opérée dans la Musique

par Gluck, p. 8.]

[Footnote 63: Calsabigi retracted his opinion on the opera in the letter prefixed

to his "Elfrida" in 1794. At that time he believed in Paesiello as the

true philosophical composer.]

[Footnote 64: Berlioz rightly protests against Gluck's views (Voy. Mus., II., p.

269; X Travers Chants, p. 150). Cf. Hanslick, Vom Musikalisch-Schönen,

p. 24.]

[Footnote 65: A. B. Marx, Musik des neunzehnten Jahrh., p. 82.]

[Footnote 66: Marx ibid., p. 183; he modified his opinion afterwards (Gluck u. d.

Opera, II., p. 67. II.]

[Footnote 67: It failed in Naples in 1774 (Galiani, Corr. inéd., II., p. 96).]

[Footnote 68: Count Durazzo had the score printed there; Favart tells him how

highly Mondonville and Philidor thought of the opera. (Favart, Mém.,

II., pp. 67, 102, 180).]

[Footnote 69: Sonnenfels, Briefe IIb. d. Wien. Schaubühne (Ges. Schr., V., p. 155;

Hiller, Wöch. Nachr., 1768, p. 127). Riedel, Ueber die Musik des Ritter

Gluck, p. IX.]

[Footnote 70: Allgem. deutsche Bibl., X., 2 p. 31. Nicolai, Reise, IV., p. 529.

Reichardt relates (A. M. Z., XV., p. 612; Schletteier Reichardt, I., p.

264) that the King afterwards expressed himself in violent terms against

Gluck. Cf. A. M. Z., III., p. 187.]

[Footnote 71: Agricola criticised "Alceste" in the Allgem. deutschen Bibliothek

(X., 2 p. 29, XIV., 1 p. 3; also in Forkel's Musik. Krit. Bibl., I., p.

174) in a pedantic, trivial spirit, but not ill-naturedly.]

[Footnote 72: Calsabigi says that he wrote the libretti for "Semiramide" and

"Iperm-nestra" on Gluck's commission, and they were afterwards taken as

the foundation of Salieri's "Danaides" (Cramer, Magaz. d. Mus., I., p.

366; N. Ztschr, f. Mus. LIX., p. 42).]

[Footnote 73: This is correctly put forward by Marx ( Musik des neunzehnten

Jahr-hunderts, p. 84).]

[Footnote 74: His admirable ballet music was slow in making its way in Paris; it

was so confidently assumed that the French were the first masters in

the world for ballet music, that a foreigner had to contend against much

prejudice. La Harpe remarks that want of success in this respect was

in Gluck's favour, for that his system, consistently carried out, would

exclude ballet.]

[Footnote 75: Interesting details of this visit are given by Frz. M. Rudhart,

Gluck in Paris (Munich, 1864).]

[Footnote 76: Burney, Reise, II., p. 253. Cf. Cramer's Magazin, 1783, p. 561.]

[Footnote 77: Madame de Genlis, Mém., II., p. 248.]

[Footnote 78: A number of pamphlets and newspaper articles of this and following

years are collected in Mémoires pour servir ä l'Histoire de la

révolution opérée dans la musique par M. le Chev. Gluck (ä Naples et

ä Paris, 1781), partly translated by Siegmeyer: Ueber Gluck und seine

Werke (Berlin, 1823). Here again the dispute is chiefly carried on by

men of literary rather than musical knowledge (Madame de Genlis, Mém.,

II., p. 250). The first favourable notices were at once translated by

Riedel and published with an enthusiastic preface, Ueber die Musik

des Ritters Gluck ( Vienna 1775). This called forth Forkel's criticism

(Musik. Krit. Bibl., I., p. 53). He was incapable of appreciating

Gluck's true greatness, and as partial and philistine as other Berlin

critics of that day; he was spiteful besides; but some of his remarks

are true enough. The personal animosity which Forkel afterwards threw

into his attacks is quite repulsive.]

[Footnote 79: Grimm, Corr. Litt., VIII., p. 320.]

[Footnote 80: Grimm, Corr. Litt., VIII., p. 321; IX., pp. 34, 350.]

[Footnote 81: Grimm, Corr. Litt., VIII., pp. 321, 427; IX., p. 350.]

[Footnote 82: Grimm, Corr. Litt., VIII., p. 321. Garat, Mém. sur M. Suard, II.,

p. 238. La Harpe, Corr. Litt., I., p. 86. Rudhart, Gluck in Paris, p.

xo. A speaking testimony of his reverence for Gluck is the "Réponse

sur un morceau de l'Orphée de M. le Chev. Gluck," and the unfinished

"Observations sur l'Alceste Italien de M. le Chev. Gluck," where some

striking observations are made.]

[Footnote 83: Grimm, Corr. Litt., VIII., pp. 78, 322. When he remarked that Gluck

influenced other composers, such as Grétry, he turned the full sharpness

of his criticism upon them.]

[Footnote 84: Berlioz, À Travers Chants, p. 127.]

[Footnote 85: Mdlle. de l'Espinasse, in Stendsal, Vie de Rossini, p. 607. As

might be expected, Grimm bestowed his highest praise upon "Orphée"

(Corr. Litt., VIII., p. 390).]

[Footnote 86: Winterfeld, Zur G each. heil. Tonk., II., p. 308.]

[Footnote 87: Berlioz, Voy. Mus., II., p. 279; À Travers Chants, p. 142. Schelle,

N. Ztschr. f. Mus., LV., p. 205. LVI., p. z.]

[Footnote 88: Galiani, Corr. inéd., II., p. 106.]

[Footnote 89: Marmontel, Mém. Litt., IX.; Ouvr., II., p. no.]

[Footnote 90: Grimm, Corr. Litt., IX., p. 348. Dorat describes very comically

in an Irishman's letter the party-fight in the pit (Coup d'Oeil sur la

Littér., I., p. 211). Amusing incidents were not wanting. At one

concert a song by Gluck was announced; as it began the Piccinnists

ostentatiously left the hall, and the Gluckists applauded noisily; it

afterwards appeared that the song was by Jomelli (Grimm, Corr. Litt.,

X., p. 440).]

[Footnote 91: An account of the whole dispute from this side is given by Garat,

Mém. Hist, sur M. Suard, II., p. 231.]

[Footnote 92: Grimm, Corr. Litt., X., p. 34. Schelle, N. Ztschr. f. Mus., LV., p.

197.]

[Footnote 93: Grimm, Corr. Litt., IX., p. 352. Galiani, Corr. inéd., II., p. 292.]

[Footnote 94: Marmontel, Mém. Litt., IX.; Ouvr., II., p. 115. P. L. Ginguené,

Not. sur Piccinni, p. 25.]

[Footnote 95: Grimm, Corr. Litt., IX., p. 352. Galiani, Corr. inéd., II., p. 291.]

[Footnote 96: To Marie Antoinette's question as to whether his opera, "Armida,"

was finished, and how he liked it, Gluck is said to have answered

composedly: "Madame, il est bientöt fini, et vraiment ce sera superbe!"

(Madame Campan, Mém., 7 p. 131.)]

[Footnote 97: Grimm, Corr. Litt., IX., p. 428.]

[Footnote 98: Grimm, Corr. Litt., IX., p. 469.]

[Footnote 99: Grimm gives a minute and amusing account of all this.]

[Footnote 100: So Grimm says. His friendliness towards Piccinni is confirmed by

Galiani (Corr. inéd., II., p. 248), and Madame de Genlis (Mém., II., p.

248). Cf. Gin-guené, Not. sur Piccinni, p. 45]

[Footnote 101: Grimm, Corr. Litt., IX., p. 500; X., p. 23.]