At five in the morning, Louis XVIII. was by the side of his dying nephew. An attempt had been made, the making of which was little less than an insult to the king, to dissuade him from being present at the duke's last moments.

[Sidenote: A MURDER AT THE OPERA.]

"The sight of death does not terrify me," replied His Majesty, "and I have a duty to perform." After begging that his murderer might be forgiven, and entreating the d.u.c.h.ess not to give way to despair, the Duke de Berri breathed his last in the arms of the king, who closed his eyes at half-past six in the morning.

Opera was now to be heard no more in the Rue Richelieu. The holy sacrament had crossed the threshold of a profane building, and it was necessary that this profane building should be destroyed; indeed, a promise to that effect had been already given. All the theatres were closed for ten days, and the Opera, now homeless, did not re-commence its performances until upwards of two months afterwards, when it took possession for a time of the Theatre Favart. In the August of the same year the erection of the theatre in the Rue Lepelletier was commenced.

The present Theatre de l'Opera, (the absurd t.i.tle of Academie having recently been abandoned), was intended when it was first built, to be but a temporary affair. Strangely enough it has lasted forty years, during which time it has seen solidly constructed opera-houses perish by fire in all parts of Europe. May the new opera-house about to be erected in Paris, under the auspices of Napoleon III., be equally fortunate.

I am here reminded that both the Napoleons have proved themselves good and intelligent friends to the Opera. In the year eleven of the French republic, the First Consul and his two a.s.sociates, the Minister of the French republic, the three Consuls, the Ministers of the interior and police, General Junot, the Secretary of State, and a few more officials occupied among them as many as seventeen boxes at the opera, containing altogether ninety-four places. Bonaparte had a report drawn up from which it appeared that the value of these boxes to the administration, was sixty thousand four hundred francs per annum, including fifteen thousand francs for those kept at his own disposition. Thereupon he added to the report the following brief, but on the whole satisfactory remark.

"_A datter du premier nivose toutes ces loges seront payees par ceux qui les occupent._"

The error in orthography is not the printers', but Napoleon Bonaparte's, and the doc.u.ment in which it occurs, is at present in the hands of M.

Regnier of the Comedie Francaise.

A month afterwards, Napoleon, or at least the consular trio of which he was the chief, a.s.signed to the Opera a regular subsidy of 600,000 francs a year; he at the same time gave it a respectable name. Under the Convention it had been ent.i.tled "Theatre de la Republique et des Arts;"

the First Consul called it simply, "Theatre des Arts," an appellation it had borne before.[90]

Hardly had the new theatre in the Rue Lepelletier opened its doors, when a singer of the highest cla.s.s, a tenor of the most perfect kind, made his appearance. This was Adolphe Nourrit, a pupil of Garcia, who, on the 10th of September, 1821, made his first appearance with the greatest success as "Pylade" in _Iphigenie en Tauride_. It was not, however, until Auber's _Muette de Portici_ was produced in 1828, that Nourrit had an opportunity of distinguishing himself in a new and important part.

[Sidenote: LA MUETTE DE PORTICI.]

_La Muette_ was the first of those important works to which the French Opera owes its actual celebrity in Europe. _Le Siege de Corinthe_, translated and adapted from _Maometto II._, with additions (including the admirable blessing of the flags) written specially for the Academie, had been brought out eighteen months before, but without much success.

_Maometto II._ was not one of Rossini's best works, the drama on which it was constructed was essentially feeble and uninteresting, and the manner in which the whole was "arranged" for the French stage, was unsatisfactory in many respects. _Le Siege de Corinthe_ was greatly applauded the first night, but it soon ceased to have any attraction for the public. Rossini had previously written _Il Viaggio a Reims_ for the coronation of Charles X., and this work was re-produced at the Academy three years afterwards, with several important additions (such as the duet for "Isolier" and the "Count," the chorus of women, the unaccompanied quartett, the highly effective drinking chorus, and the beautiful trio of the last act), under the t.i.tle of _le Comte Ory_. In the meanwhile _La Muette_ had been brought out, to be followed the year afterwards by _Guillaume Tell_, which was to be succeeded in its turn by Meyerbeer's _Robert le Diable_, _Les Huguenots_ and _Le Prophete_, (works which belong specially to the Academie and with which its modern reputation is intimately a.s.sociated), by Auber's _Gustave III._, Donizetti's _la Favorite_, &c.

_La Muette de Portici_ had the great advantage of enabling the Academie to display all its resources at once. It was brought out with magnificent scenery and an excellent _corps de ballet_, with a _premiere danseuse_, Mademoiselle n.o.blet as the heroine, with the new tenor, Nourrit, in the important part of the hero, and with a well taught chorus capable of sustaining with due effect the prominent _role_ a.s.signed to it. For in the year 1828 it was quite a novelty at the French Opera to see the chorus taking part in the general action of the drama.

[Sidenote: LA MUETTE DE PORTICI.]

If we compare _La Muette_ with the "Grand Operas" produced subsequently at the Academie, we find that it differs from them all in some important respects. In the former, instead of a _prima donna_ we have a _prima ballerina_ in the princ.i.p.al female part. Of course the concerted pieces suffer by this, or rather the number of concerted pieces is diminished, and to the same cause may, perhaps, be attributed the absence of finales in _La Muette_. It chiefly owed its success (which is still renewed from time to time whenever it is re-produced) to the intrinsic beauty of its melodies and to the dramatic situations provided by the ingenious librettist, M. Scribe, and admirably taken advantage of by the composer.

But the part of Fenella had also great attractions for those unmusical persons who are found in almost every audience in England and France, and for whom the chief interest in every opera consists in the skeleton-drama on which it is founded. To them the graceful Fenella with her expressive pantomime is no bad subst.i.tute for a singer whose words would be unintelligible to them, and whose singing, continued throughout the Opera, would perhaps fatigue their dull ears. These ballet-operas seem to have been very popular in France about the period when _La Muette_ was produced, the other most celebrated example of the style being Auber's _Le Dieu et la Bayadere_. In the present day it would be considered that a _prima ballerina_, introduced as a princ.i.p.al character in an opera, would interfere too much with the combinations of the singing personages.

I need say nothing about the charming music of _La Muette_, which is well known to every frequenter of the Opera, further than to mention, that the melody of the celebrated barcarole and chorus, "_Amis, amis le soleil va paraitre_" had already been heard in a work of Auber's, called _Emma_; and that the brilliant overture had previously served as an instrumental preface to _Le Macon_.

_La Muette de Portici_ was translated and played with great success in England. But shameful liberties were taken with the piece; recitatives were omitted, songs were interpolated: and it was not until _Masaniello_ was produced at the Royal Italian Opera that the English public had an opportunity of hearing Auber's great work without suppressions or additions.

The greatest opera ever written for the Academie, and one of the three or four greatest operas ever produced, was now about to be brought out.

_Guillaume Tell_ was represented for the first time on the 3rd of August, 1829. It was not unsuccessful, or even coldly received the first night, as has often been stated; but the result of the first few representations was on the whole unsatisfactory. Musicians and connoisseurs were struck by the great beauties of the work from the very beginning; but some years pa.s.sed before it was fully appreciated by the general public. The success of the music was certainly not a.s.sisted by the libretto--one of the most tedious and insipid ever put together; and it was not until Rossini's masterpiece had been cut down from five to three acts, that the Parisians, as a body, took any great interest in it.

[Sidenote: GUILLAUME TELL.]

_Guillaume Tell_ is now played everywhere in the three act form. Some years ago a German doctor, who had paid four francs to hear _Der Freischutz_ at the French Opera, proceeded against the directors for the recovery of his money, on the plea that it had been obtained from him on false pretences, the work advertised as _Der Freischutz_ not being precisely the _Der Freischutz_[91] which Karl Maria von Weber composed.

The doctor might amuse himself (the authorities permitting) by bringing an action against the managers of the Berlin theatre every time they produce Rossini's _Guillaume Tell_--which is often enough, and always in three acts.

The original cast of _Guillaume Tell_ included Nourrit, Leva.s.seur, Dabadie, A. Dupont, Ma.s.sol, and Madame Cinti-Damoreau. The singers and musicians of the Opera were enthusiastic in their admiration of the new work, and the morning after its production a.s.sembled on the terrace of the house where Rossini lived and performed a selection from it in his honour. One distinguished artist who took no part in this ceremony had, nevertheless, contributed in no small degree to the success of the opera. This was Mademoiselle Taglioni, whose _tyrolienne_ danced to the music of the charming unaccompanied chorus, was of course understood and applauded by every one from the very first.

After the first run of _Guillaume Tell_, the Opera returned to _La Muette de Portici_, and then for a time Auber's and Rossini's masterpieces were played alternate nights. On Wednesday, July 3rd, 1830, _La Muette de Portici_ was performed, and with a certain political appropriateness;--for the "days of July" were now at hand, and the insurrectionary spirit had already manifested itself in the streets of Paris. The fortunes of _La Muette de Portici_ have been affected in various ways by the revolutionary character of the plot. Even in London it was more than once made a pretext for a "demonstration" by the radicals of William the Fourth's time. At most of the Italian theatres it has been either forbidden altogether or has had to be altered considerably before the authorities would allow it to be played. Strange as it may appear, in absolute Russia it has been represented times out of number in its original shape, under the t.i.tle of _Fenella_.

[Sidenote: FRENCH NATIONAL SONGS.]

We have seen that _Masaniello_ was represented in Paris four days before the commencement of the outbreak which ended in the elder branch of the Bourbons being driven from the throne. On the 26th of July, _Guillaume Tell_ was to have been represented, but the city was in such a state of agitation, in consequence of the issue of the _ordonnances_, signed at St. Cloud the day before, that the Opera was closed. On the 27th the fighting began and lasted until the 29th, when the Opera was re-opened.

On the 4th of August, _La Muette de Portici_ was performed, and created the greatest enthusiasm,--the public finding in almost every scene some reminder, and now and then a tolerably exact representation, of what had just taken place within a stone's throw of the theatre. _La Muette_, apart from its music, became now the great piece of the day; and the representations at the Opera were rendered still more popular by Nourrit singing "_La Parisienne_" every evening. The melody of this temporary national song, like that of its predecessor (so infinitely superior to it), "_La Ma.r.s.eillaise_" (according to Castil Blaze), was borrowed from Germany. France, never wanting in national spirit, has yet no national air. It has four party songs, not one of which can be considered truly patriotic, and of which the only one that possesses any musical merit, disfigured as it has been by its French adapters, is of German origin.

Nourrit is said to have delivered "_La Parisienne_" with wonderful vigour and animation, and to this and to Casimir Delavigne's verses (or rather to Delavigne's name, for the verses in themselves are not very remarkable) may be attributed the reputation which the French national song, No. 4,[92] for some time enjoyed.

_Guillaume Tell_ is Rossini's last opera. To surpa.s.s that admirable work would have been difficult for its own composer, impossible for any one else; and Rossini appears to have resolved to terminate his artistic career when it had reached its climax. In carrying out this resolution, he has displayed a strength of character, of which it is almost impossible to find another instance. Many other reasons have been given for Rossini's abstaining from composition during so many years, such as the coldness with which _Guillaume Tell_ was received (when, as we have seen, its _immediate_ reception by those whose opinion Rossini would chiefly have valued, was marked by the greatest enthusiasm), and the success of Meyerbeer's operas, though who would think of placing the most successful of Meyerbeer's works on a level with _Guillaume Tell_?

"_Je reviendrai quand les juifs auront fini leur sabbat_," is a speech (somewhat uncharacteristic of the speaker, as it seems to me), attributed to Rossini by M. Castil Blaze; who, however, also mentions, that when _Robert le Diable_ was produced, every journal in Paris said that it was the finest opera, _except Guillaume Tell_, that had been produced at the Academie for years. It appears certain, now, that Rossini simply made up his mind to abdicate at the height of his power.

There were plenty of composers who could write works inferior to _Guillaume Tell_, and to them he left the kingdom of opera, to be divided as they might arrange it among themselves. He was succeeded by Meyerbeer at the Academie; by Donizetti and Bellini at the Italian opera-houses of all Europe.

Rossini had already found a follower, and, so to speak, an original imitator, in Auber, whose eminently Rossinian overture to _La Muette_, was heard at the Academie the year before _Guillaume Tell_.

[Sidenote: ROSSINI'S FOLLOWERS.]

I need scarcely remind the intelligent reader, that the composer of three master-pieces in such very different styles as _Il Barbiere_, _Semiramide_, and _Guillaume Tell_, might have a dozen followers, whose works, while all resembling in certain points those of their predecessor and master, should yet bear no great general resemblance to one another.

All the composers who came immediately after Rossini, accepted, as a matter of course, those important changes which he had introduced in the treatment of the operatic drama, and to which he had now so accustomed the public, that a return to the style of the old Italian masters, would have been not merely injudicious, but intolerable. Thus, all the post-Rossinian composers adopted Rossini's manner of accompanying recitative with the full band; his subst.i.tution of dialogued pieces, written in measured music, with a prominent connecting part a.s.signed to the orchestra, for the interminable dialogues in simple recitative, employed by the earlier Italian composers; his mode of constructing finales; and his new distribution of characters, by which ba.s.ses and baritones become as eligible for first parts as tenors, while great importance is given to the chorus, which, in certain operas, according to the nature of the plot, becomes an important dramatic agent. I may repeat, by way of memorandum, what has before been observed, that nearly all these forms originated with Mozart, though it was reserved for Rossini to introduce and establish them on the Italian stage. In short, with the exception of the very greatest masters of Germany, all the composers of the last thirty or forty years, have been to some, and often to a very great extent, influenced by Rossini. The general truth of this remark is not lessened by the fact, that Herold and Auber, and even Donizetti and Bellini (the last, especially, in the simplicity of his melodies), afterwards found distinctive styles; and that Meyerbeer, after _Il Crociato_, took Weber, rather than Rossini, for his model--the composer of _Robert_ at the same time exhibiting a strongly marked individuality, which none of his adverse critics think of denying, and which is partly, no doubt, the cause of their adverse criticism.

[Sidenote: ROSSINI'S RETIREMENT.]

What will make it appear to some persons still more astonishing, that Rossini should have retired after producing _Guillaume Tell_ is, that he had signed an agreement with the Academie, by which he engaged to write three grand operas for it in six years. In addition to his "author's rights," he was to receive ten thousand francs annually until the expiration of the sixth year, and the completion of the third opera. No.

1 was _Guillaume Tell_. The librettos of Nos. 2 and 3 were _Gustave_ and _Le Duc d'Albe_, both of which were returned by Rossini to M. Scribe, perhaps, with an explanation, but with none that has ever been made public. Rossini was at this time thirty-seven years of age, strong and vigorous enough to have outlived, not only his earliest, but his latest compositions, had they not been the most remarkable dramatic works of this century. If Rossini had been a composer who produced with difficulty, his retirement would have been more easy to explain; but the difficulty with him must have been to avoid producing. The story is probably known to many readers of his writing a duet one morning, in bed, letting the music paper fall, and, rather than leave his warm sheets to pick it up, writing another duet, which was quite different from the first. A hundred similar anecdotes are told of the facility with which Rossini composed. Who knows but that he wished his career to be measured against those of so many other composers whose days were cut short, at about the age he had reached when he produced _Guillaume Tell_? A very improbable supposition, certainly, when we consider how little mysticism there is in the character of Rossini. However this may be, he ceased to write operas at about the age when many of his immediate predecessors and followers ceased to live.[93]

And even Rossini had a narrow escape. About the critical period, when the composer of _Guillaume Tell_ was a little more than half way between thirty and forty, the Italian Theatre of Paris was burnt to the ground.

This, at first sight, appears to have nothing to do with the question; but Rossini lived in the theatre, and his apartments were near the roof. He had started for Italy two days previously; had he remained in Paris, he certainly would have shared the fate of the other inmates who perished in the flames.

Meyerbeer is a composer who defies cla.s.sification, or who, at least, may be cla.s.sified in three different ways. As the author of the _Crociato_, he belongs to Italy, and the school of Rossini; _Robert le Diable_ exhibits him as a composer chiefly of the German school, with a tendency to follow in the steps of Weber; but _Robert_, _les Huguenots_, _le Prophete_, _l'Etoile du Nord_, and, above all _Dinorah_, are also characteristic of the composer himself. The committee of the London International Exhibition has justly decided that Meyerbeer is a German composer, and there is no doubt about his having been born in Germany, and educated for some time under the same professor as Karl Maria Von Weber; but it is equally certain that he wrote those works to which he owes his great celebrity for the Academie Royale of Paris, and as we are just now dealing with the history of the French Opera, this, I think, is the proper place in which to introduce the most ill.u.s.trious of living and working composers.

[Sidenote: REHEARSALS.]

"The composer of _Il Crociato in Egitto_, an amateur, is a native of Berlin, where his father, a Jew, who is since dead, was a banker of great riches. The father's name was Beer, Meyer being merely a Jewish prefix, which the son thought fit to incorporate with his surname. He was a companion of Weber, in his musical studies. He had produced other operas which had been well received, but none of them was followed by or merited the success that attended _Il Crociato_." So far Mr. Ebers, who, in a few words, tells us a great deal of Meyerbeer's early career. The said _Crociato_, written for Venice, in 1824, was afterwards produced at the Italian Opera of Paris in 1825, six years before _Robert le Diable_ was brought out at the Academie. In the summer of 1825, a few months before its production in Paris, it was modified in London, and Mr. Ebers informs us that the getting up of the opera, to which nine months were devoted at the Theatre Italien, occupied at the King's Theatre only one.

Such rapid feats are familiar enough to our operatic managers and musical conductors. But it must be remembered that a first performance in England is very often less perfect than a dress rehearsal in France; and, moreover, that between bringing out an original work (or an old work, in an original style), in Paris, and bringing out the same work afterwards, more or less conformably to the Parisian[94] model, in London, there is the same difference as between composing a picture and merely copying one. No singers and musicians read better than those of the French Academie, and it is a terrible mistake to suppose that so much time is required at that theatre for the production of a grand opera on account of any difficulty in making the _artistes_ acquainted with their parts. _Guillaume Tell_ was many months in rehearsal, but the orchestra played the overture at first sight in a manner which astonished and delighted Rossini. The great, and I may add, the inevitable fault of our system of management in England is that it is impossible to procure for a new opera a sufficient number of rehearsals before it is publicly produced. It is surprising how few "repet.i.tions"

suffice, but they would _not_ suffice if the same perfection was thought necessary on the first night which is obtained at the Paris and Berlin Operas, and which, in London, in the case of very difficult, elaborate works, is not reached until after several representations.

However, _Il Crociato_ was brought out in London after a month's rehearsal. The manager left the musical direction almost entirely in the hands of Velluti, who had already superintended its production at Venice, and Florence, and who was engaged, as a matter of course, for the princ.i.p.al part written specially for him. The opera (of which the cast included, besides Velluti, Mademoiselle Garcia, Madame Caradori and Crivelli the tenor) was very successful, and was performed ten nights without intermission when the "run" was brought to a termination by the closing of the theatre. The following account of the music by Lord Mount Edgc.u.mbe, shows the sort of impression it made upon the old amateurs of the period.

[Sidenote: MEYERBEER'S CROCIATO.]

It was "quite of the new school, but not copied from its founder, Rossini; original, odd, flighty, and it might even be termed _fantastic_, but at times beautiful; here and there most delightful melodies and harmonies occurred, but it was unequal, solos were as rare as in all the modern operas, but the numerous concerted pieces much shorter and far less noisy than Rossini's, consisting chiefly of duets and terzettos, with but few choruses and no overwhelming accompaniments.

Indeed, Meyerbeer has rather gone into the contrary extreme, the instrumental parts being frequently so slight as to be almost meagre, while he has sought to produce new and striking effects from the voices alone."