BEAUMARCHAIS, PAISIELLO, AND ROSSINI.
At Rome, where no opera reflecting directly or indirectly on the Roman
Catholic religion and the rights of princes, or inculcating patriotism,
or trifling with morality, or touching in any way upon anything that
concerns the Papal Court, is permitted; where, consequently, neither
"Les Huguenots," nor "Guillaume Tell," nor "Lucrezia Borgia," nor "La
Traviata," can be played in the dramatic shape naturally belonging to
them; the authorities were as scrupulous with regard to the choice of
subjects in Rossini's time as they are now.
If the natural instincts of despotic governments have always led them to
favour operatic performances, they have done so on the very reasonable
condition that nothing against themselves or their allies, the
priesthood, should be introduced into the works represented. Thus "Le
Prophète" becomes "L'Assedio di Gand" at St. Petersburgh, "Lucrezia
Borgia" "La Rinegata" at Rome, where the Italians at the Court of Pope
Alexander the Sixth are metamorphosed into Turks.
Auber's "Muette de Portici" and Donizetti's "Martiri" were both
proscribed at Naples (the "Muette" above all!). Even at Paris the
performances of "Gustave," after the first production of the work, were
suddenly stopped; and Verdi, treating the same subject for the San
Carlo, was forced by the Neapolitan censorship to make the action of the
piece take place at Boston in the United States.
Several dramas had been suggested to the Roman censorship, when at last
the unpolitical plot of the "Barber of Seville" was proposed and
accepted. The censor (who could have known little of Beaumarchais)
thought it impossible such a subject could be made a vehicle for the
introduction of political allusions.
All, however, that Rossini wanted was a well-planned "book" for musical
purposes, and he found precisely what suited his genius in the "Barber
of Seville."
In a literary point of view, the "Marriage of Figaro" is no doubt
superior to its predecessor the "Barber;" but notwithstanding the
eminently lyrical character of the page in the former work, the "Barber
of Seville" is the best adapted for musical setting. It was as a
pamphlet, rather than as a comedy, that "Le Mariage de Figaro" obtained
its immense success in Paris, and _Figaro's_ wit cannot be reproduced in
music. Gaiety, however, is as much a musical as a literary quality, and
the gaiety of Beaumarchais' versatile irrepressible hero is admirably
expressed, with even increased effect, in Rossini's "Barbiere."
* * * * *
It would be rendering no service to Rossini to compare him with Mozart,
whom he himself regarded as the greatest of dramatic composers.[12] But
Rossini's genius is very much akin to that of Beaumarchais; whereas that
of Mozart (to the disadvantage certainly of Beaumarchais) was not.
Rossini is Beaumarchais in music; Beaumarchais is not Mozart in
literature.
No wonder that "Le Barbier de Séville" has been found so eminently
suitable for musical treatment. Beaumarchais, who had strong views on
the subject of the musical drama, and who was himself a good
musician,[13] had in the first instance designed it as a libretto.
The subject of "Le Barbier de Séville" is manifestly taken from
Molière's "Sicilien;" but the bare skeleton of the drama, as
Beaumarchais himself points out, is common to innumerable works.
"An old man[14] is in love with his ward, and proposes to marry her; a
young man succeeds in forestalling him, and the same day makes her his
wife under the very nose and in the house of the guardian." That is the
subject of the "Barber of Seville," capable of being made with equal
success into a tragedy, a comedy, a drama, an opera, &c. What but that
is Molière's "Avare"?--what but that is "Mithridates"? The genus to
which a piece belongs depends less upon the fundamental nature of the
subject than upon the details and the manner in which it is presented.
Beaumarchais goes on to say what his original intention had been in
regard to the simple subject of a ward carried away by her lover from
beneath the nose of her guardian. "How polite of you," a lady had said
to him, "to take your piece to the Théâtre Français, when I have no box
except at the Italian Theatre! Why did you not make an opera of it? They
say it was your first idea. The piece is well suited to music."
The author of "Le Barbier de Séville" explains why he abandoned his
original intention. He had doubts on the subject of the form and general
treatment of opera which, to the neglect of the melodic portion of the
work, ought, he considered, to be assimilated to the spoken drama of
real life; (the end of which theory, carried out to its extreme
consequences, would be to substitute recitative for singing, speaking
for recitative--annihilation of the musical drama, in short).
Five years afterwards, in the year 1780, Paisiello proved practically
how well Beaumarchais' "Barbier de Séville" was adapted to musical
setting. Beaumarchais heard it, and was much pleased. What would his
delight have been could he have listened to the "Barbiere" of
Rossini--and with Adelina Patti in the part of _Rosina_!
Rossini was not one of those unconscious men of genius who are unable to
judge of the merit of their own works. He Certainly never expressed too
high an opinion of them, and latterly used to say that his music had
grown old--as if the "Barber of Seville" could grow old. But he knew the
"Barber" to be one of his happiest, as it certainly was one of his most
spontaneous, productions; and whichever of his works he may have
considered the best, he thought the "Barber" the most likely to endure.
"The third act of 'Otello,'" he once said, "the second act of 'Guillaume
Tell,' and the whole of 'Il Barbiere,' will perhaps live;"[15] and there
are reasons why, independently of its musical worth, the "Barber" will
in all probability still be played when the few other operas of Rossini
which still keep the stage are no longer represented. It is composed on
a firm scaffolding, unlike that of "Guillaume Tell," which very soon
broke down, and has never been put together again in a durable dramatic
form. The libretto has not to contend with the impression left by an
unapproachable masterpiece on the same subject, as in the case of
"Otello." Finally, the comedy on which it is founded is not only a
masterpiece in a purely dramatic sense, it is moreover essentially a
drama for music, and for just such music as Rossini loved to write, and
wrote to perfection. There is nothing more felicitous in all operatic
setting than _Basilio's_ air, the crescendo of which exists as much in
Beaumarchais's prose as in Rossini's music.
Indeed, _Don Basile's_ little essay on the efficacy of calumny, read for
the first time by any one already acquainted with Rossini's musical
version, would seem to have been directly suggested by the music. The
elegance and distinction of _Almaviva_ are the same in the opera as in
the comedy; and all the gaiety of Beaumarchais's "Figaro" lives again in
Rossini's music, in a sublimated form.
Rossini was not so fond of writing prefaces as Beaumarchais; but he
departed from his ordinary rule in the case of "The Barber," and has
told us the exact circumstances under which it occurred to him to take
for his subject an admirable comedy which Paisiello had already made
into an opera thirty-five years before.
Paisiello's opera had been played all over Europe, and it has been
mentioned that the curious in musical antiquities may from time to time
hear it even now at the Fantaisies Parisiennes. It is not nearly so full
of music as Rossini's work, but it contains seven very interesting
pieces,--_Almaviva's_ solo; _Don Basile's_ air--a setting of the passage
on calumny, as in the modern "Barbiere;" an air for _Bartholo_; a comic
trio, in which two fantastic and episodical characters (wisely omitted
by Rossini), _La Jeunesse_ and _L'Eveillé_, respectively sneeze and yawn
in presence of _Rosina's_ guardian; a very ingenious trio, based on the
incidents of the letter; a duet, in which the disguised _Almaviva_, on
arriving to give his music lesson, is received by _Don Bartholo_; and a
quintet, in which _Don Basilio_, accused of fever, is sent hastily to
bed--the _buona sera_ scene, which Rossini took good care to preserve.
Rossini is said to have felt rather embarrassed when the impresario of
the Argentina opera told him that the governor of Rome saw no objection
to his setting "The Barber of Seville" to music. Not that any rule of
etiquette forbade him to take a subject already treated by another
composer; Metastasio's best libretti have been set over and over again
by innumerable composers. From the very beginning of opera, the legend
of Orpheus, the story of Dido's abandonment, have been treated by almost
all composers, including Rossini himself, who composed cantatas on both
these subjects. Piccinni and Sacchini had both composed music twice to
the "Olimpiade;" and Paisiello did not enjoy, probably did not claim,
any special right of property in Beaumarchais' "Barbier de Séville."
Nevertheless, Paisiello had put his mark on the work. His "Barbiere" was
celebrated throughout Italy, and Rossini thought it only polite on his
part as a young beginner (he was then twenty-three years of age) to
write to the venerable maestro (Paisiello was seventy-four years of
age), to ask his permission to re-set "The Barber."
The venerable maestro, who had not been over-pleased at the success of
"Elisabetta," thought it would be a good plan to let his youthful rival
attack a subject which, according to Paisiello, had already received its
definite musical form, and wrote to him from Naples, giving him full
permission to turn Beaumarchais' "Barbier de Seville" once more into an
opera.