Part 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES.

Davy.—History of English Music.

QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

What circumstances attended the spread of the Italian Opera?

Which European country was the next to take up Opera?

Who was the founder of this new school?

What efforts had been made prior to his appearance?

Describe Lully’s opera form.

Describe the French Overture.

Describe the Prologue.

Who was Lully’s successor?

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

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

Give an account of Purcell and his works.

What was the Masque?

Describe the typical English Opera. The Ballad Opera.

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

LESSON XXII.

THE OPERA IN GERMANY. HANDEL AND GLUCK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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