‘Though I am glad to hear of a new manner of composition it would be more edifying to find in these madrigals reasonablepassagi, but this kind of air-castles and chimeras deserves the severest reproof.’ Like all critics he cites the example of the masters: Palestrina, Porta, Merulo, Gabrieli, Gastode, Lasso, etc., whose works these ‘moderns’ should emulate, but instead ‘are content to concoct as great a noise as possible—a confused mixture of unrhyming things, and mountains of imperfections.’ ‘Behold, for instance,’ he cries, ‘the rough and uncouth passage in the third example (by Monteverdi). After a rest the bass attacks on a diminished fifth against the upper voice.’ Not after a consonance, mind you, as the masters have done, but after a rest—and, as for sevenths unprepared—preposterous!
Monteverdi had had the temerity not only to use the dominant seventh without ‘preparation’ according to the established rules, but to use other dissonances, diminished and secondary sevenths, ninths and elevenths in connection; he had introduced a freedom in the movement of voices and a sequence of chords the audacity of which still startles us to-day. ‘Modern! Certainly he is modern by these tokens,’ says Tiersot, after hearing the Paris revival ofOrfeo. ‘But truly and spontaneously has he made his discoveries, they were so little searched for, that neither his contemporaries, nor his successors, perhaps not even himself, have understood their value; and it has taken us centuries to arrive at a true appreciation of their merit.’
Monteverdi replied to his critics (for the cry had been taken up by others and the argument developed into an open war) with the publication of his fifth book of madrigals, containing all the criticized compositions with not a note changed. He even travelled to Venice to supervise the printing so as to insure accuracy. In his preface he said that, having endeavored to express emotions hitherto unexpressed in music, it was necessary to invent new tone combinations. New harmonies, moreover, required new modulations. He insisted that more than one point of view is worthy of consideration and advised thecognoscentito study further and learn ‘that the modern composer builds upon a foundation of truth.’ These madrigals reached eventually nine editions, were reprinted in Antwerp and Copenhagen and spread their composer’s fame throughout Europe.
Moreover, Monteverdi stood in high favor with his patron, a man of understanding who shared his ancestors’ leaning to lavish patronage of the arts. He accompanied Duke Vincenzo on his war expedition to Hungary, when in 1595 he supported Rudolph II against the Turks, and in 1599 went with him to Flanders, whence he brought a new style of composition, thecanto alla francese, which he afterwards adopted in hisScherzi musicale a tre voci.
His domestic circumstances, however, were none too favorable. He had married in 1595 Claudia Cattaneo, the daughter of a violist and herself a singer at the ducal court, where her salary even exceeded Monteverdi’s meagre pay. She had borne him two sons and existence became more and more difficult. In 1607 she was taken seriously ill, and continued hardship and solicitude for his family spurred Monteverdi to complaint, but without result. His duties were most onerous, for besides directing the music at court he was obliged to participate in the church service and the many special performances which the duke’s love of festivities occasioned.
One of these occasions was the carnival of 1607, when Vincenzo, familiar with the successes of Peri and Caccini at Florence, determined to surpass them at Mantua, and intrusted the preparation of the work to Monteverdi. The result was theFavola di Orfeo, the text for which had been written by Alessandro Striggio, son of the famous madrigalist. It was performed, first in theAcademia degl’Invaghite, and again, on February 24th, and March 1st, in the ducal theatre. Its success was enormous; the music aroused the most profound admiration, as did also the book, which, by order of the duke, was printed, so that the audience might follow it during the performance. AsOrfeois the only opera of Monteverdi preserved to us in its entirety, we may examine the score in Robert Eitner’s edition with modern notation and the figured bass harmonized, and so realize the tremendous advance it shows, over Caccini’s ‘Euridice,’ for instance (reprinted in the same publication).[134]The style of the recitative is similar, though it shows much greater fluency, the harmonies are beyond all comparison richer and more varied; dissonances, especially the diminished seventh, being used with great dramatic effect; suspensions and anticipations are particularly frequent and there are many daring chromatic modulations, such as from G# minor to G and from E♭ major to E, reminding of Wagner’s use of these same progressions. Instead of a simple figured bass we have in the instrumental numbers at least a completely worked-out harmonic structure, and for the first time instruments are used in definite combinations with respect to their varioustimbres. There is an agreeably varied sequence oftoccata(overture), recitative,arioso,ritornelle, chorus andsinfonie(at ends of acts); in fact, we find inOrfeoall the elements of the later opera, from the instrumental introduction to the final movement, even though in small proportions and of modest pretentions. The ternary form, later so important, opens its way here and there, i. e. in the first movement of the second act. The great bravura aria is also represented and offers opportunity to the skillful singer to exhibit his technique. (Sometimes the vocal part appears in two ways; first in the simple unadorned form, and directly under it in elaborate coloratura arrangement, evidently leaving the choice to the singer.) The orchestra instruments play together only in the instrumental numbers; in the choruses they simply double the voice parts; but in accompanying the solo voices the composer has made use of a curious device of associating the tone quality of a certain instrument or group of instruments with each character. This is indicated in the table of characters, which at the same time shows the composition of Monteverdi’s orchestra:
CHARACTERSINSTRUMENTSMusic, prologueTwogravicembani(similar to spinets)OrfeoTwo bass violsEuridiceTen violasChorus of nymphs and shepherdsOne double harpSperanzaTwo small French violinsCaronte (Charon)Twochitaroni(zithers)Chorus of infernal spiritsTwoorgani di legno(small pipe organs)ProserpinaThreebassi da gamba(large viols)PlutoFour trombonesApolloOneregale(reed organ)Chorus of shepherds who dancetheMorescaat the endTwo cornets, a flutealla vigesima seconda; aclarino(small trumpet)and three muted trumpets
This recognition of a psychological correspondence between characters or situations and the timbre of instruments is interesting because it points the way to the dramatic utilization of orchestra color.
Directly afterOrfeo, Monteverdi produced hisBallo delle Ingrate, a ballet scene in the manner of the usualintermezzi. The arduous labor and nervous strain incident to these performances forced upon him thenecessity of a rest, which he spent in a visit to his father’s house at Cremona. There his wife, again stricken, died, and, plunged into grief, he himself succumbed to illness. His income reduced to his own earnings, he sent through his father an earnest appeal to the duke for greater emolument, and, that denied, a request to be released from further duty. But instead he was speedily summoned to return, in order to prepare a musical spectacle for the coming nuptials of the heir apparent, Don Francesco, and Margherita, infanta of Savoy. His financial condition was now slightly improved and, spurred by the prospect of greater fame, he plunged into the task of setting the music of a new opera,Arianna, for which Rinuccini had been commissioned to write the book. The work was to be staged on a scale far beyond anything attempted till then, the best singers available were engaged, and the rehearsals occupied five months. It is interesting to note that another opera,Tiede, by Cini and Peri, competed for the honor of the performance at these festivities, but was rejected in favor ofArianna. Peri was, however, commissioned to write the recitatives forArianna.
The performance took place May 28th, 1608. The theatre, we are told by the official historian, Follino, was not large enough to accommodate all the nobles visiting in the train of foreign princes and the natives had to be denied admittance. While the play itself made a deep impression, in the music Monteverdi had surpassed himself. ‘The orchestra behind the scenes,’ continues Follino, ‘accompanied the beautiful voices throughout, following the character of the singing most faithfully. The lament of Arianna, abandoned by Theseus, was performed with great feeling and pictured so touchingly that all the auditors were profoundly stirred and not a lady’s eye remained tearless.’ This ‘Lament’ afterwards became one of the most popular pieces in Italy. After Cosimo II (deMedici) in 1613 obtained the score ofAriannafrom the duke and performed it in Florence it was said that the favorite selection was heard in every house that contained a clavicembalo or a lute.
The sumptuous balletIdropica, for which Monteverdi composed the prologue, was produced during the same festivities. The succeeding period saw no diminution in the output of this indefatigable composer. In 1610 we see him in Rome suing for the favor of Clement VIII, to whom he presents his ecclesiastical compositions, which were, however, inferior to his secular works. In 1612 Duke Vincenzo died, and Monteverdi resigned his post to accept the most coveted musical office in Italy—that of choirmaster at St. Mark’s, Venice. His position there became the source of the greatest satisfaction to him, for, aside from the fact that he received three hundred ducats yearly, and after 1616 four hundred, while finally his total income increased to six hundred and fifty, he was honored and esteemed better even than his illustrious predecessors, Willaert, de Rore, Zarlino, etc. He enjoyed the title ofmaestro di capellato the republic, brought the music of St. Mark’s, where he had a choir of thirty singers and twenty instruments, to a high degree of perfection, superintended the chamber music of the city as well and earned the most general popular appreciation.
In 1621 he composed the music for a requiem in memory of Duke Cosimo II of Tuscany, and from Strozzi’s enthusiastic description it was a most gorgeous tone creation, better fitted for a theatre than a church. Similarly in 1631 he was called upon to provide the music for a great thanksgiving in St. Mark’s after the terrible plague raging through Italy, and responded with a mass, in theGloriaandCredoof which he introduced a trombone accompaniment. His creative power in the dramatic field remained unabated.Il Combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda(half dramatic, half epic, with narrativetesto, connecting the speeches), composed in 1624, was followed in 1627 byLa finta pazza Licori(by Strozzi and Striggio) and five intermezzi for the marriage of Odoardo Farnese at Parma, and in 1630 byProserpina rapita. The first public opera house in Venice, the Teatro di San Paolo, and soon after the Teatro S. Giovanni e Paolo, for which Monteverdi furnishedL’Adone(1639),Le nozze di Enea con Lavinia(1641) andIl ritorno d’Ulisse in patria, which last is preserved. Thus, even in his last two years he was occupied on a series of operas, of whichL’Incoronazione di Poppea(1642) was his last great effort. It might be added that his seventh book of madrigals had appeared in 1619 and his eighth, the famousMadrigali guerrieri et amorosi, in 1638.
In hisCombattimentoMonteverdi introduced a new effect, now familiar as the orchestraltremolo, which so startled the musicians that at first they refused to play it. His own explanation for its use is curious: ‘I have recognized,’ he says, ‘that our passions or emotions are expressed in three grades: anger (violence), temperate moderation, and humility or petition.... These three grades are clearly reflected in music, namely, in that of excited, tender, or moderate character (concitato, molle e temperato).’ Finding only the two last represented in the older music, he studied the question of spondeic and phyrric verse metre which the Greeks had transferred to music. Taking thesemi-breve(whole note) for the unit of the former, he proposed to break it up into sixteensemicromes(sixteenths), which are to be played in succession upon one note to obtain the faster measure, which he callsconcitato(tremolo).
This is but one instance of how Monteverdi constantly sought instructions from the ancients. In his letters of 1633 and 1634 he tells of his labors to rediscover human melody and the music of the passions.He had no one to guide him, and no books but Plato. The information which Galilei conveyed interested him, but he was careful not to be misled by the phantom of a lost art. He believed that in following his own principles he would be more true to classic thought than by trying to apply its formulas. He claimed that modern art has profited more from a study of Greek thought than from old-fashioned harmonic exercise. Thus the ancients had rendered to music the same service which the century before they had rendered to sculpture. They had taken it out of the studied formulas and had led artists back to the sole observation of nature. ‘Indeed, a real Renaissance opens at the beginning of the seventeenth century with Monteverdi—the Renaissance of the heart in the language of music.’
Monteverdi’s artistic creed and theories are to some extent perpetuated in hisSelva morale e spirituale, dedicated to the Empress Eleonora Gonzaga, and published in 1640. Monteverdi died in Venice November 29, 1643, and was buried with great honors at theChiesa dei Frari. With his death we see opera finally established in that place in the heart of the Italian people which it has held to this day. Others had already taken up the work, notably his pupil, Pietro Francesco Cavalli, whose genius burst upon the world in 1639 with hisNozze di Teti.
With the next generation the Florentine school divides into the new Venetian school founded by Giovanni Legrenzi (1635-1672), of which Antonio Lotti was to become the leader, and the Neapolitan, which found its guiding genius in Alessandro Scarlatti, one of the most conspicuous musical figures of the seventeenth century. From him and his teacher Francesco Provenzale (ca.1669) there issued a long chain of masters and pupils—Francesco Durante (1684-1755); Leonardo Leo (1694-1744); Francesco Feo (1685-1740); Gaetano Greco (b. 1680), etc.—who developed the Italian opera in its narrowest sense—an opera that was purely vocal, whose chief aim was the production of beautiful melody and which paid a minimum of attention to orchestration and dramatic pathos. It was a purely musical school, and even more than that of Venice removed from the ideal of the Florentines. Against this school were ultimately to be directed the reforms of Gluck, whose theories are solidly founded upon the creed of Florence. Florence, then, is the true cradle of opera, also in its more modern sense, for the precepts there laid down have remained valid even to Wagner and the music drama of to-day.
C. S.