CHAPTER V.

EARLY ITALIAN, FRENCH, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH OPERA.

Monteverde—Scarlatti—Cambert—Lully—Keiser—Purcell—Handel in London—Handel’s rival, Buononcini—Handel’s operas now obsolete by reason of their lack of dramatic truth.

[Sidenote: =Monteverde, 1568-1651=]

Opera in Italy, after its initial stages, as represented by the works of Peri and Caccini, fell under the commanding sway of Monteverde, of whose influence we have already said much in the chapter upon the “Reformers of Opera.” An example of his melodious, although, of course, somewhat crude style, may be seen in the “Moresca” which we append:—

[Music: Fragment of a “Moresca” (Dance) from Monteverde’s “Orfeo” (1609).]

Monteverde was followed by his pupil Cavalli, who worked in Venice, and who improved the recitative; in his operas, male sopranos (Castrati) were first employed on the stage, a practice in vogue for many years subsequently. Cavalli also foreshadowed the aria, or set melody, soon to become so prominent a feature of Italian opera. Among other prominent composers of this period are Cesti and Legrenzi, Caldara and Vivaldi.

[Sidenote: =Scarlatti, 1649-1725=]

These men, however, stand completely overshadowed by that Colossus of early opera, Alessandro Scarlatti. Naples was the scene of his activity, and here he wrote, amongst countless other compositions, over one hundred operas, most of which made their mark. In Scarlatti we have the turning-point between antiquity and modernity in stage music. Of course his operas sound old-fashioned to us, but it would be quite possible to listen to them, whereas those of a former date could only have antiquarian interest if produced now. His great genius for melody caused him to modify very considerably the stiff, though dramatically correct, recitative of earlier composers, and to substitute beautiful, and sometimes inappropriate, airs in its place.

In this dangerous method of exalting the music at the expense of the other arts employed in music drama he was followed by almost all composers for very many years—until, in fact, the recognition by Gluck of the falseness of the situation. Opera writers there were by the hundred: the names of most of these are now forgotten—many remembered; Rossi, Caldara, Lotti, Buononcini, all had their successes, and contributed in various degrees to the development of early Italian opera.

[Sidenote: =Cambert, 1628-77=]

But before this, Opera had found its way to France; the world-renowned _Euridice_ had been performed in Paris as early as 1647, and its influence was quickly felt. Masques and ballets had been staged before this time, but Robert Cambert was the first French writer to produce opera. At first successful, Cambert was ousted from his deservedly high position as the founder of French opera by the unscrupulous and brilliant Lully.

[Sidenote: =Lully, 1633-87=]

For Lully “came, saw, and conquered.” Although an Italian,[1] his name is one of the most prominent in the history of opera in France. Coming from Florence to Paris at an early age, he quickly saw his way to improving on the popular operas of Cambert, and his inventive and fertile talent soon put the older writer into the background. Lully’s great gift lay less in aptitude for the conception of melody, or even in his skill with the orchestra, than in the powers he possessed of writing truly dramatic and suitably expressive recitative. Moreover, he employed his chorus as an integral factor in the situation, not as a mere collection of puppets encumbering the stage; he is credited, too, with the invention of the “French” overture, a form in which an introductory slow movement is followed by another in quick fugal style, with a third short dance movement to conclude. Like Scarlatti in Italy, Lully in France towers high above all opera composers of that period, and his mark upon French Grand Opera exists till this day.

[1] The name is often spelt with _i_, not _y_.—ED.

[Illustration: LULLY.]

[Sidenote: =Keiser, 1673-1739=]

Germany at the same period can boast of no name of like importance, but operatic development was taking place in this country also, the chief agent in its progress here being Keiser, who produced a great number of operas in Hamburg. Although not the first to write such works in Germany, he is important as being an early factor in the popularization of opera during the forty years in which he laboured in this direction: he had also many followers, among whom must be named Handel, who wrote a few operas for Hamburg at an early period of his career. German opera at this time, however, gave but little promise of the grand future before it: the operas of Keiser and Hasse contain but few indications of the glories of a school of composers that includes Mozart, Beethoven, and Weber.

[Sidenote: =Purcell, 1658-95=]

And what was England doing at this period? One genius of the highest rank, some would say the greatest child of music that England has ever produced, was at work in the form of Henry Purcell, whose too short life was in part occupied by the composition of opera. Spontaneity of melody, freshness and boldness of thought, and rare dramatic conception are the chief characteristics of the works of our early English master. Many of these are operas by courtesy only, for in only one of them, _Dido and Æneas_, is the music continuous throughout; this, however, may claim for itself the title of the first English opera. Before this time (about 1675) masques and plays had employed music incidentally, but _Dido_ is the earliest known instance of its continuous use. Purcell did not follow up his early operatic success, most of the other stage works, such as _King Arthur_, containing spoken dialogue. It is unfortunate for England and her musical sons that the dominating personality of Handel so soon overshadowed all other musical life in this country: the wholly sound and æsthetically true national influence of Purcell would undoubtedly have been large, and it is not too much to say that an early school of genuine English opera might have flourished, had it not been that the great Saxon composer was, within a few years of Purcell’s death, turning his attention to the production of opera in London.

[Sidenote: =Handel, 1685-1759=]

For although Handel produced operas in Germany, in Italy, and in England, it was in London that the very large majority of his pieces first saw the light, and that he achieved the greatest success. Between the date of the first performance of _Rinaldo_ at the Haymarket, February 24th, 1711, and that of his last opera, _Deidamia_ in 1741, Handel composed no less than forty-two grand operas. With indomitable energy, and in face of very frequent misfortune, he poured forth these works, many of which contain powerful music. Undeterred by failure, he took one theatre after another in London, sometimes making much money, at other times becoming bankrupt. The final stage in Handel’s operatic career was brought about by a lengthy and expensive rivalry between him and a clever Italian composer, Buononcini, who had been brought to England by an influential body of nobles and politicians whom the fiery Handel, and his supporters, had offended. The dispute became more than a musical one, and developed social and political sides: an amusing epigram by one John Byrom neatly sums up the situation:—

“Some say, compared to Buononcini, That Mynheer Handel’s but a ninny; Others aver, that he to Handel Is scarcely fit to hold a candle; Strange all the difference there should be ’Twixt Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee.”

[Sidenote: =Handel’s Rival=]

The sentiment of the two last lines was probably voiced by many, especially as both composers were men of great talent and capable of producing excellent work. In the end, the genius of Handel triumphed, but at the expense of both his pocket and his health; bankruptcy and paralysis came upon him, and he in future turned his attention to the more lucrative and less expensive art form, Oratorio.

[Sidenote: =Handel’s Operas Obsolete=]

That we have been the gainers thereby is undoubted, for whereas many of his oratorios are constantly performed, and are of commanding interest, few would care to sit through a performance of any of his operas, or indeed those of any of the composers mentioned in this chapter. It is not so much that the music is expressed in the idiom of a bygone era, for the style of Handel’s oratorio and opera music is, especially in the arias, very similar; and we are frequently able to listen with pleasure to old works, written for the clavier and for stringed instruments by the Continental contemporaries of the men of this period. It is rather that the dramatic situation is so absurdly poor, that the stereotyped method of procedure in the distribution of the airs, the concessions to the solo singers and the character of the music given to them, and the stiff, unnatural use of the chorus in these operas, combine to make their presentation to-day a matter of artistic impossibility.