Caricature, which emphasises certain characteristic features of an individual at the cost of others less striking must always be an objectionable mode of musical representation. The external features which can be exaggerated by the musician are limited and soon exhausted, the exaggeration of emotional expression to produce a comic effect is a very dangerous device, because music does not possess the resources which enable poetry and the formative arts to represent disproportions of caricature as amusing and comical rather than distorted and hideous. Mozart takes as the foundation for his musical representation a genuine pride, which is only led by chance impulses to express itself in an exaggerated and distorted manner, and it is this temporary self-contradiction which produces the comic effect. The musical device he employs for the purpose is the composition of the air in the traditional heroic form of opera seria, which is opposed to the situation of the moment as well as to the fault-finding words. The compass and employment of the voice show that Mozart had Storace in view, for whom he afterwards composed Susanna. Pulcherio's second air (4) is much more sketchily delineated. Eugenia and Bocconio, after their first meeting, are not on very good terms with each other, and the obliging friend seeks to reconcile them; he draws Bocconio's attention to Eugenia's beauty, and hers to Bocconio's amiability, and as he goes first to one and then to the other with his appeals, he pictures to himself the misery which is sure to follow the union of the two. The contrasting motifs to which the situation gives rise are arranged in animated alternation. The sketch, however, shows only the general design; and the share taken in it by the orchestra, doubtless a very important one, cannot be even approximately arrived at. A terzet (5 cf., Vol. II., p. 424) between Eugenia, Don Asdrubale and Bocconio is completely worked out, and causes regret that it was not inserted in a later opera, that so we might have heard it from the stage. Don Asdrubale coming to greet Bocconio's bride, the lovers in amazement recognise each other. Eugenia, who had been informed of Don Asdrubale's death in battle, falls half-swooning on a couch, and Bocconio hastens off to fetch LO SPOSO DELUSO, 1784. restoratives. Asdrubale, who is on the way to Rome that he may wed Eugenia, overwhelms her with reproaches, and throws himself on a couch in despair. Eugenia has risen, and before Asdrubale can explain himself, Bocconio returns, and to his astonishment finds the scene completely altered. At this point the terzet begins, and expresses most charmingly the confusion and embarrassment of the three personages, who are all in the dark as to each other's conduct, and who put restraint on themselves even in their extremity of suspense. The orchestra carries on the threads independently, joined by the voices, sometimes apart and interrupted, to suit the situation, sometimes together. An excellent effect is given by the sharply accented expression of involuntary painful emotion contrasting with the reserve which otherwise prevails in the terzet. The whole tone of the piece is masterly; while never overstepping the limits of comic opera, it successfully renders the deep agitation of mind of all the three characters. This is contrived, not by the mixture of a comic element in the person of Bocconio, who rather approximates to the frame of mind of the other two, but by the cheerful tone which penetrates the whole without any loss of truth of expression.
This opera again stopped short of completion, and a third seems to have had the same fate. A terzet for male voices, which is preserved in duplicate draft, was intended for the first scene of a comic opera. An opera by Accoromboni, "Il Regno delle Amazoni," was, according to Fétis, performed at Parma in 1782, as well as elsewhere,[ 31 ] with success, and the words of the terzet leave little doubt that this, too, was among the "little books" Mozart had looked through, and that it suggested to him an experiment which must almost have coincided in point of time with the two just mentioned. It can scarcely have been the imperfections of the libretti alone which caused Mozart to leave these operas unfinished, but also the improbability of ever bringing them to performance. The brilliant reception accorded to the Italian maestri, Sarti and Paesiello, in Vienna, only caused MOZART AS AN OPERA COMPOSER. the German masters to fall more into the background. The extraordinary success of Paesiello and Casti with "Il Re Teodoro'' (Vol. II., p. 344), alarmed even Salieri. He had himself begun an opera, "Il Ricco d' un Giorno," but laid it aside rather than enter into competition with the "Re Teodoro." He was always skilful in turning circumstances to account. When his "Rauchfangkehrer" failed in 1781, and Mozart's "Entführung" was rousing great expectations, he received in the nick of time a commission from Munich to write the opera "Semiramide," which was performed during the Carnival.[ 32 ] He then set out, recommended and patronised by Gluck, to produce "Les Danaides" in Paris. Crowned with new laurels, by reason of the success which it there met with, he returned to Vienna and completed his opera, after the first enthusiasm for his rivals had died out. It was given on December 6, 1784, but without success.[ 33 ] Mozart's prospects for the year 1785 were not any more favourable, when suddenly help appeared from an unexpected quarter.
Lorenzo da Ponte (1749-1838),[ 34 ] a native of Ceneda, was exiled from the republic of Venice, where he had been schoolmaster, on account of his opinions and manner of life. After a short stay in Gorz and Dresden, he came to Vienna, warmly recommended to Salieri by the poet Mazzola, just as the Italian opera was in process of being established. Through Salieri's influence he was appointed a theatrical poet by Joseph II., who continued to befriend him; he had thus every reason to be beholden to Salieri. His first attempt was this opera, "Il Ricco d' un Giorno," which he did not himself consider a success; Salieri ascribed its failure, which he felt the more keenly in contrast to Paesiello's success, solely and entirely to the poet, and swore that he would sooner cut off his hand than set to music another word of Da Ponte's. He had no difficulty in obtaining a libretto CASTI—DA PONTE. from Casti, "La Grotta di Trofonio"; and this opera, which was first given on October 12, 1785, was a great success.[ 35 ] Da Ponte now saw himself threatened in his position, for Casti was his declared rival and opponent.
Casti had long been famous as a witty and gallant verse-maker; he was acquainted with the most influential men of the day, and was ambitious of succeeding Metastasio as poeta Cesareo. The rise of Da Ponte, who had to some extent taken Metastasio's place in the theatre, would be altogether against his interests; he sought therefore both by praise and blame to bring his rival into discredit, and ridiculed him personally in his operetta, "Prima la Musica" (Vol. III., p. 47). Casti carried his vanity and self-complacency to such a pitch that Kelly mimicked him on the stage in his own opera ("Demo-gorgone"), to the intense delight of the public.[ 36 ] It was plainly Da Ponte's interest to gain the favour of composers who might do credit to his operatic libretti.
Vincent Martin (1754-1810), born in Valencia, and therefore called "Lo Spagnuolo," had produced some operas in Italy with success since 1781; Storace had made a furore in one of them at Venice.[ 37 ] This caused him to repair to Vienna in 1784, where the wife of the Spanish Ambassador took him under her powerful protection. At the command of the Emperor Da Ponte adapted for him the opera, "Il Burbero di Buon Core," after Goldoni's comedy, which was performed for the first time on January 4, 1786, with complete success; but his next operas, "Il Finto Cieco," composed by Gazzaniga, and "Il Demogorgone," composed by Righini, were not particularly successful. Not satisfied with these composers, he cast his eyes on Mozart, to whom he had promised a libretto as early as 1783. Da Ponte positively affirms[ 38 ] that it was owing to his readiness and decision that Mozart was enabled to place his masterpiece on the stage in defiance of all the cabals and intrigues of his enemies; and he expresses the MOZART AS AN OPERA COMPOSER. hope that an impartial and truthful account of the affair will make this evident. We shall therefore follow his account, but shall correct and modify it in its details by means of other available information.[ 39 ]
Baron Wezlar, a great lover of music, in whose house Mozart had lived for a time (Vol. II., p. 304), had brought about the acquaintance between the latter and Da Ponte, and proved himself a munificent patron on the occasion. On Mozart's expressing anxiety lest an opera composed by him should not be allowed to appear, Wezlar engaged to pay the librettist a suitable fee, and to bring about the performance of the opera in London or Paris if the obstacles in Vienna proved insurmountable. Confiding in the favour and discernment of the Emperor, Da Ponte declined this offer. In discussing a suitable subject Mozart expressed the wish that Da Ponte would adapt Beaumarchais' comedy, "Le Mariage de Figaro," which, after a prolonged struggle, had been given for the first time on April 27, 1784, and was now occupying public attention. The adaptation would be an easy matter, but the Emperor had forbidden the production of the piece at the National Theatre on account of its freedom of tone. Da Ponte, however, hoped to overcome this difficulty; he agreed with Mozart to keep.the undertaking a secret. They set to work, Da Ponte writing the libretto, and Mozart composing it gradually as he received it: in six weeks the whole was finished. Fortunately there was a dearth of new operas at the time. Da Ponte, without consulting any one, went straight to the Emperor, and told him what had happened. The Emperor had misgivings both as to Mozart, who, though an excellent instrumental composer, had written an opera which was no great success ("non era gran cosa"), and as to the piece which he had already suppressed. Da Ponte declared that he would be answerable for Mozart as well as for the piece, which he had adapted in such a manner as to be perfectly fit for representation. The Emperor gave way, summoned Mozart before him with the score, and after ADAPTATION OF "FIGARO," 1785. hearing some portions of it, commanded that it should be performed and put into rehearsal at once. This caused much displeasure to Mozart's opponents, Casti and Count Rosenberg, "a sworn enemy of the Germans, who would listen to nothing that was not Italian,"[ 40 ] and who made as many difficulties as he could. Da Ponte relates one instance of the kind. The manager, Bussani (the singer who was cast for the part of Bartolo), told Count Rosenberg that in the third act of "Figaro," during the wedding festivities, while Susanna is conveying the letter to the Count, a ballet was to be introduced. Rosenberg sent for the poet, reminded him that the Emperor would not allow a ballet, and turning a deaf ear to his remonstrances, tore the scene out of the book. Mozart was furious; wanted to call the Count to answer, to horsewhip Bussani, to appeal to the Emperor, to take back the score—in short, he could with difficulty be pacified. At the full rehearsal the Emperor was present. In obedience to Rosenberg's order the ballet was omitted, and in dead silence Susanna and the Count made their now meaningless gestures. The Emperor, in amazement, asked what it all meant, and on Da Ponte's explanation of the affair, ordered a proper ballet to be at once arranged. This story, although Da Ponte may have exaggerated the importance of his own share in it, doubtless gives a fair idea on the whole of the circumstances under which Mozart's "Figaro" was produced. Kelly's assertion that Mozart was commissioned by the Emperor to write an opera, and selected "Figaro," accords very well with Da Ponte's account. Mozart began his work in the autumn of 1785, as we learn from a letter of his father's to Marianne (November 11, 1785):—
At last, after six weeks' silence, I have received a letter from your brother of November 2, containing quite twelve lines. His excuse for not writing is that he has been over head and ears at work on his opera,
"Le Nozze di Figaro." He has put off all his pupils to the afternoon, so that he may have his mornings free. I have no fear as to the music; MOZART AS AN OPERA COMPOSER. but there will no doubt be much discussion and annoyance before he can get the libretto arranged to his wish; and having procrastinated and let the time slip after his usual fashion, he is obliged now to set to work in earnest, because Count Rosenberg insists upon it.
This contradicts Da Ponte's account of the secrecy with which the opera was prepared; and it may be doubted also whether it was really written in six weeks. The date in Mozarts own catalogue,-April 29, 1786, only proves that he closed his work by writing the overture immediately before the first performance (May 1).[ 41 ] Da Ponte may have exaggerated somewhat tor the sake of effect. Mozart's Thematic Catalogue shows what he was capable of accomplishing even while at work upon "Figaro." There is a hiatus in the catalogue from July 5, 1785, to November 5. It is possible that he was busy with the opera during this interval; but during the time immediately following, when he was working at it in real earnest, we find the following compositions entered:—
1785. November 5. Quartet to the "Villanella Rapita" (Vol. II., p. 331).