The heroine of the opera was a Miss Hopkins, daughter of a vulgar cheesemonger. H. Phillips was willing to play the cheesemonger, but the prima donna would not play the daughter. She had been used to play spangled princesses, with feathers in her hair; or picturesque peasants, with short petticoats and striped stockings; and the idea of her appearing as a cheesemonger's daughter, minus spangles, feathers, short petticoats, and striped stockings! In vain it was represented to her that the opera was a comic opera; she did not wish to excite laughter, but sentiment; and she was dogged in her resolution.
The second tenor was a sentimental warbler. He not only objected to Wilson playing the best part, he also objected to his own part us "out of his line."
Owing to the beautiful arrangements of our dramatic system, the "stars" have not only absolute right to dictate to authors and composers, but also, in effect to dictate to managers. They would all cut down a play or an opera to single parts if they could; and while ludicrously sensitive to their own reputation, are remorselessly indifferent to the author's, as well as to the manager's purse.
What would Shakspeare, Jonson, Moliere, or Calderon say, could they rise from their graves to witness our beautiful dramatic system? How is it some Churchill does not take the whip in hand to lash this miserable arrogance of the stage? While vanity, pretension, and injustice, in other shapes, are laughed at and exposed, why do they escape when they appear in the preposterous demands of actors, singers, and dancers?
In his indignation, Cecil wrote a satire. Unfortunately he was not a Churchill: his satire was violent, but weak, and weak because of its violence. Besides, he was fighting his own cause; indignatio fecit versum, and the public only saw an angry author smarting from imaginary or exaggerated injuries.
Cecil's discouragement may be imagined. He who at no time was able to contend manfully against obstacles, was the last person to rise with the occasion and vanquish opposition by determined will.
To complete his discouragement the Exhibition had opened, and no wondering crowds collected round his "Nero." Very few of the critics noticed it, and they noticed it coldly or contemptuously. One who recognised a certain grandeur in the idea, was pitiless in his criticism of the execution; which he pronounced "crude," "chalky," "opaque," "slovenly," and "incorrect."
Cecil sneered at the "envy" and "ignorance" of the critics, as authors usually sneer at those who do not admire them; though why a man who does not paint, should be "envious" of a man who paints badly, I have not yet discovered. Vauvenargues has an admirable remark: "Un versificateur ne connait point de juge compétent de ses écrits: si on ne fait pas de vers on ne s'y connait pas; si on en fait on est son rival." How constantly do painters illustrate this remark!
Cecil parodied Coriolanus, and to his critics said "I banish you." He wrapped himself up in his own greatness, and waited the impartial judgment of enlightened judges. By impartial, he meant favourable: that is the meaning of the word in every artist's lexicon. No one, it would seem, was enlightened enough, for no one talked about "Nero;" above all, no one thought of purchasing it. The "envy" of critics seemed to have been shared by connoisseurs and noblemen.
There is something really tragic in certain conditions to which men of superior faculties are daily subject, in their efforts to cut a pathway for themselves through the crowded avenues of fame. Fancy the poor poet unable to find a publisher, and unable to print his work himself. He cannot now, as heretofore, stand up in the market-place, and so get a hearing. The press is the only possible mode of proclaiming to the world, that which the poet feels will rouse that world to rapture, and will make him a sort of demigod. Fancy the young barrister sitting in his chambers day after day, in fruitless expectation of a brief. He cannot offer his services: he must wait till they be demanded. He can do nothing; but must sit there day after day, day after day, seeing little chance of being required, yet forced to remain there on the chance. Fancy also the painter who sees persons crowding the Exhibition, passing over his work, to look out for the works of favourite artists, giving handsome sums for various pictures, yet making no offer for his. Day after day this is renewed, till the last hope ends with the closing of the Exhibition, and he is then forced to congratulate himself, if the dealers will give him a small sum for what he considers a chef-d'œuvre.