In the dedicatory epistle to the duke of Tuscany, prefixed to the score, Gluck defines his intentions. He says: "I seek to put music to its true purpose; that is, to support the poem, and thus to strengthen the expression of the feelings and the interest of the situation, without interrupting the action. I have therefore refrained from interrupting the actor in the fervor of his dialogue by introducing the accustomed tedious ritournelle; nor have I broken his phrase at an opportune vowel that the flexibility of his voice might be exhibited in a lengthy flourish; nor have I written phrases for the orchestra to afford the singer opportunity to take a long breath preparatory to the accepted flourish; nor have I dared to hurry over the second part of an aria, when such contained the passion and the most important matter, to find myself in accord with the conventional repeat of the same phrase four times. As little have I permitted myself to close an aria where the sense was incomplete, solely to afford the singer an opportunity of introducing a cadenza. In short, I have striven to abolish all these bad habits, against which sound reasoning and true taste have been struggling now for so long in vain."
There were several numbers in "Alceste" which exercised an influence upon subsequent composers, among the more notable being the speech of the oracle, which Mozart must have had in mind in writing the commandatore's reply to Don Giovanni; and the sacrificial march, which probably influenced the priests' march in the "Magic Flute." Gluck was forty-eight when he wrote "Orpheus," and fifty-three when "Alceste" appeared.
Galled by the criticisms of his countrymen, and encouraged by the friendship of the French ambassador, Gluck now went to Paris, where his operas were presently brought out, but with the same varying favor as at home. Marie Antoinette, who had been his pupil, befriended him and granted him a pension of 6,000 francs. Thus supported, he brought out still another grand opera in the French language, "Iphigenie en Aulide," produced at Paris in 1774. In this work classical severity was scrupulously observed, and the opera is full of telling points of dramatic musical coloration. In "Armide," 1777, he endeavored to show that he was equally at home in richly conceived sensuous music, and succeeded so well that the famous controversy was precipitated with the Italian composer, Piccini, who had just arrived in Paris, preparatory to bringing out his opera of "Roland." Volumes were written in praise of Italian music, and in disparagement of the roughnesses of that of Gluck. On the other hand, the friends of Gluck stood up for him manfully, and the contest raged fiercely—with the usual result of thoroughly advertising the music of both. Gluck's last opera for Paris was "Iphigenie en Tauride," 1779, the same subject already having been treated by his rival Piccini. The superiority of Gluck's was incontestable. He died at Vienna, of apoplexy, November 15, 1787.
Gluck's place in art has been well summed up by Padre Martini, and the opinion is all the more worthy of attention from the general charge of Gluck's enemies that his music had overturned the traditions of pure Italian art. He says: "All the finest qualities of Italian, and many of those of French music, with the great beauties of the German orchestra, are united in his work." This is tantamount to crediting Gluck with having created a cosmopolitan music—which is precisely the position which posterity has assigned him. For the time when he wrote, his music is wonderfully fine. It still retains its vitality, as has been vividly shown in several revivals of his "Orpheus" within recent years, in two of which (in America and in Italy) the American prima donna, Mme. Helène Hastreiter, has nobly distinguished herself.
The third force alluded to at the outset of the chapter, as having been mainly influential in German opera during the eighteenth century (and until our own time, it might be added), was Mozart, whose works have already received attention in former pages of the narrative. It must suffice here to remind the reader of the successes and qualities of his operas, in order that he may be remembered in this connection; for, like Gluck, his art was cosmopolitan, having in it the sweetness of the Italian, the richness of the German, and occasional traces of the declamation of the French.
II.
After Lulli, the next great name in the history of French opera was that of Jean Philippe Rameau (1683-1765). This great master was one of the most versatile men of whom we have a record in music. He was a mathematician, physicist, a profound theorist, and a virtuoso upon the piano and harpsichord. He is one of the four great names in music of the period of Bach and Händel, the fourth being Scarlatti. His education in music began while he was very young, and it is said of him that such was his talent that he could improvise a fugue upon any theme assigned, when he was but fourteen years of age. His father wished him to be trained for the law, but music had greater charms for him, and the margins of his books were marked over with crotchets and quavers. Having become desperately in love with a fascinating young widow, whom his father was opposed to his marrying, he was sent at the age of seventeen to Italy, ostensibly to study. He came, therefore, to Milan about 1701, a few years before Händel came there. Italian music was little to his taste. The dignified declamation of the Lulli operas seemed to him better worthy the attention of men than the tunes of the Italians. Accordingly he took service as a violinist with a traveling operatic troupe, and in this capacity visited the south of France. In Paris he became a pupil of the court organist Marchand, of whom we hear again in connection with certain tests of proficiency with Händel. Marchand was at first delighted with his new pupil, but presently dropped him when he discovered how talented he was, and liable to prove a dangerous rival. Accordingly he left Paris and took service as organist at Lille, which post he exchanged afterward for one at Clermont. In this quiet town he devoted himself to the study of harmony, and to reflection upon the principles of music. He read here the works of Zarlino, and other Italian theorists, and in 1721 he returned to Paris and published his treatise on harmony, in which he propounded the theory of inversions. His second treatise on harmony, "New System of Musical Theory," was published in 1725. These works excited a great deal of attention and brought the author renown, but his soul yearned for recognition as composer, and in 1730 he obtained from Voltaire a libretto, "Samson." This work was declined at the national opera, on the ground that the public was not attracted by Biblical subjects. Three years later, however, he composed another, "Hypolite et Arcie," which was performed with moderate success. He had now reached the age of fifty, and entered upon the second stage of his artistic career, and the second period of the French opera. The admirers of Rameau invited appreciation of the new works upon the ground of their being better than those of Lulli, and all Paris was divided into two opposite camps. Rameau is entitled to having developed his operas more musically than those of Lulli, and the later ones became still richer upon the orchestral side.
The entire list of operas by Rameau numbers about thirty. That they did not preserve their popularity so long as those of Lulli is due to their deficiency upon the dramatic side, especially to the inherent inexpressiveness of the music itself. The treatment of the orchestra is clever in many places, showing a manifest improvement over that of Lulli, especially in the freedom of thematic work. He also ventures occasionally on enharmonic changes.
Contemporaneous with him was that remarkable genius, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), the father of the kindergarten idea, and of many other humanitarian and educational novelties. Rousseau's importance in the history of music is not sufficient to justify an account of his early days. With a great fondness for music, he found it extremely difficult to read by note, as he was almost entirely self-taught. This led him to devise a simpler notation, which he did about 1740, publishing an account of it in 1743. His system was substantially that of the tonic sol fa, except that he used figures in place of letters. He presented a memorial to the Academy of Sciences upon this subject in 1742, but his plan was so vigorously opposed by Rameau that nothing came of it; nevertheless the idea was afterward worked out by M. Paris, in the present century, and has proven very useful among the Orphéonistes. In 1752 Rameau produced his first opera "Le Devin du Village," a very light affair, somewhat on the order of what Germans call a Singspiel. The most remarkable piece that he produced was his comedy "Pygmalion" in 1775. There is no song in this opera. The only music in it is that for orchestral interludes in the intervals between the phrases of declamation.
The continuation of French opera was due to Philidor, the celebrated chess player (1726-1795). He was very talented in many directions, and from the production of his first opera in 1759, to his last, Bélisaire, finished by his friend Berton, and produced in 1796, he enjoyed an uninterrupted popularity, having brought out in that time about twenty-one operas, some of them comic, one or two of them serious. His music is light and pleasing, and he is credited with having been the first to produce descriptive airs ("Le Maréchal") and the unaccompanied quartette ("Tom Jones," 1764). The great merit of his works was their clever construction for the stage. Contemporaneous with him was Pierre Alexander Monsigny (1729-1817). Not having been intended for the profession of music, he had a classical education, and upon the death of his father obtained a clerkship in Paris. He belonged to a noble family, and at first pursued music as a recreation. His first opera was produced after five months' tuition in harmony and theory, in 1759; this was followed by about thirty other works. His greatest skill was melody and ease of treatment. In 1812 he was appointed inspector of the Conservatory, and in 1813 he succeeded Grétry in the Institute, and in 1816 he received the cross of the Legion of Honor.