It is remarkable that the direct successors of Monteverde should have been more or less blind to the latent powers of this newly vitalized organism,—this prototype of the modern orchestra. Even Carissimi (1604) cannot be included among the progressive writers for the orchestra, indeed, his art of scoring stands lower than Monteverde's. Of course, in the development of oratorio, his dramatic influence was of great importance. He caused the monodic style to advance rapidly, by infusing intorecitativoand theariamore spontaneity, into instrumental accompaniment greater interest. Though inferior to Monteverde in originality, Carissimi evinced a keener appreciation for plastic and tonal effects. His eminent pupil, Cesti (1620), is likewise to be remembered less for his instrumentation than for his further development ofrecitativoand theda capo ariain connection with the operatic stage.
On the other hand, Cavalli (1600), apart from the fortuitous influence his sojourn at the court of Louis XIV had upon Lulli, inherited a more decided talent for orchestration from Monteverde, whose pupil he was. His interesting experiments in writing accompaniments for two violins and a bass established a precedent that survived the test of many years. Like Monteverde, his instincts were strongly dramatic, but perhaps his connection with St. Mark's Church modified his style of writing for the orchestra. For more especially hisa capellasacred works are imbued with considerable warmth of expression, and show sentient regard for melody, rhythm, and form. And thus, even as Carissimi displayed but little feeling for purely instrumental effects, though holding a unique position as a composer of oratorio, so Cavalli must be regarded as primarily a dramatic writer,—indeed, among the immediate successors of Monteverde, he alone succeeded in substantially furthering dramatic development in Italy, that is to say, the development of dramatic ideals as had been attempted by the Florentine neophytes of Greek tragedy. For as Langhans expresses it: "After him Italian opera gradually diverges from the path originally taken, and sacrifices the antique simplicity aimed at by its founders to the ever increasing demand for sensuous charm. The alliance of poetry and music, dissolved in the Middle Ages and renewed but a few decades before, is again broken off, and the equilibrium that had just been acquired is sacrificed anew to the claims of music."
But while the nature of Italian music after Cavalli's time was subject to variable influences, France took up the cause of drama with enthusiasm, and in this fieldLulli(1633-1687) looms up as the sole dictator of his age. Favoredby the extravagant demands for display and spectacular effects prevalent at the court of Louis XIV, Lulli proceeded to develop dance forms as had been inaugurated by his predecessor, Cambert, whose position he usurped. Theballet de cour, already in vogue in France, consisted of dances, dialogues set to music, combined with dramatic episodes. Out of this native form of entertainment, modern French opera was destined to germinate. Having found this a suitable prototype as a basis for his operas, Lulli proceeded to imbue it with exotic principles. Like Monteverde, he discarded the ecclesiastical modes. Again, he adhered strictly to the requirements of his text, and developed declamatory recitative as promulgated by Cavalli. And to the reactive influence of the Italian monodic theorem upon French literature during this brilliant period of Corneille, Molière, Racine, does France owe the excellence of her declamation.
But, considering the versatility of the man, once again a disappointing analogy to the peculiarly prominent deficiency of Carissimi and Cavalli confronts us. For Lulli's orchestration was, like that of Meyerbeer two hundred years later, sensational rather than of enduring worth. By no means is Lulli's universal genius as organizer, composer and orchestrator to be undervalued, nor is the importance of his influence upon subsequent French music to be lost sight of. But it is evident that the direct evolution of really stable instrumentation was benefited, during this period, more by the crowning achievements of Scarlatti, and by the labors of the secondary Italian composers, who devoted themselves more especially to purely instrumental music, and thereby sowed the seed for subsequent purely orchestral music in Germany. It is true that credit is due to Lulli for having introduced into his orchestra a large variety of instruments, which he used with considerable skill, although all of them were not suitable for permanent retention; but it would appear to the present writer that Lavoix, in his "Histoire de L'Instrumentation," page 216, is, perhaps, somewhat extravagant in his eulogy of Lulli's orchestration, especially since he previously makes but passing reference to that of Scarlatti. Again, similar use of solo effects and of contrasted groups of instruments as cited by Lavoix is also to be found in the scores of Lulli's predecessors and contemporaries in Italy. Indeed one might say that in general the efforts of these early composers to obtain genuinely characteristic tone-color are apt to be overestimated, for, as Lavoix himself subsequently acknowledges in regard to Lulli:—"Il faut l'avouer, c'était encore au violon qu'il avait confié ses scènes symphoniques les plus délicates et les plus expressives." Finally, even though strings formed the basis of his orchestra, augmented by wind instruments both wood and brass, the irrepressible harpsichord, solicitous for the welfare of her flock, and fearful lest emancipation from her protectorate should result in chaos, still closely followed the harmonic delineations of the legitimate orchestral instruments, supporting them, as it were, in concentual leading-strings! Had Lulli and his contemporaries understood the art of judiciously distributing the notes of a chord throughout the orchestra, not to mention the proper choice in number and species of instrument, this custom would have soon fallen into disuse; and, as we know, not until this did take place one hundred years later, was it possible to obtain ideal solidity, balance of tone, contrast, and variety. By a coincidence, the year of Beethoven's birth sounded the death-knell of the orchestral harpsichord, for in the opera "Mitridate," written in that year, Mozart was the last of the great composers to employ it as a regular component of the orchestra.
To Lulli, therefore, orchestration was but a secondary issue, in spite of the importance he attached to it. Form, on the other hand, was permanently benefited by his labors, whereas, in musical history, he occupies the second of the four pedestals sustaining the arch that spans the realm of pure music drama, and retires into the mythical haze of Hellenic tragedy.
As intimated above, further survey of the field of instrumentation in Italy discovers commendable activity, such as was displayed by Legrenzi; by Steffani and Clari; by the violinists Torelli, Vivaldi, and especially Corelli; finally, by the greatest musician both active and creative of the seventeenth century, Scarlatti.
The labors of Legrenzi (1625) are worthy of consideration on account of his logical development of the constituency of the orchestra. As Maestro at San Marco, Venice, he increased the number of instrumentalists at that church to over thirty. It is noteworthy that he employed almost exclusively violins and viols, supported in the bass by four theorbos (i.e.bass instruments of the lute family). The wood-wind was represented by a solitary bassoon, whereas two cornets and three trombones replaced Monteverde's earlier assortment of brass. And thus, already in the seventeenth century was found a man whose perspicuity in the choice of a modest band of loud-voiced instruments commended itself for some of the mightiest climaxes of Beethoven's immortal works.
The significance of chamber music as fostered by Steffani (1655) and Clari (1669) is, of course, well known in musical history. And the wonderful impetus given to the art of violin-making, by stimulating a development of executive technique, brought forth fruit that culminated in the regency of a number of famous violinist-composers. Among these, Torelli (died 1708), for the creation of theconcerto grosso, Vivaldi (died 1743), for the development of harmonic design and figuration characteristic of his instrument, and Corelli (1653-1713), for combining principles of harmony with contrapuntal devices, rendered invaluable service tothe nascent architecture of modern string writing. For by exploring the possibilities of the violin, by establishing its superiority as a solo instrument, by demonstrating not only its potentiality but also its limitations in relation to other instruments, there arose, in consequence, a more delicate perception as to the necessary constitution of an evenly balanced string band. This acquirement was accompanied by improved methods of writing for the strings.
No composer of his time combined these requirements more successfully than Corelli, for the types of composition which occupied his attention were the precursors of the classic sonata, and his contributions thereto mark the starting point of genuinely artistic instrumental music. Corelli's relation to chamber music and the concerto is as that of Monteverde to the orchestra. Neither of them was a radical reformer; they both proceeded along the more conservative lines of evolution, selection, elaboration. The scaffolding of their respective spheres of activity had already been reared by that countless throng of forgotten and unappreciated workers, whose mission it is to make smooth the path for the greater lights, that appropriate and mould into collectaneous form the puny though individual originality of the lesser. But whereas nothing more than a pious interest in an historic heirloom has preserved Monteverde's efforts from falling into oblivion, those of Corelli have been perpetuated by reason of their intrinsic merit.
The highest development of productive musical art during the seventeenth century culminated inScarlatti[5](1659-1725). And orchestration was aided by him to no small degree. Of course, his name is primarily coupled with the Neapolitan operatic principles,—principles that ultimately led to baneful results, in spite of having enriched the world with sensuous and beautiful melody. Only a cursory review of Scarlatti's expansive activity is permissible as being mostly irrelevant to our subject. Reared in the characteristic atmosphere of Carissimi's cantatas and oratorios, impelled by poetic instinct and fondness for melodic design, he enlarged upon theda capo aria, therecitativo accompagnato, and in general paid careful attention to the external structure of the separate numbers in his operas. Above all, Scarlatti became the knight errant though eventually the thrall ofil bel canto.[6]Now highly developed vocal phraseology demands judicious accompaniment, and good orchestral accompaniment requires a nice adjustment of dynamic force combined with skill in writing. It was fortunate, therefore, that Scarlatti possessed both these attributes; and through the channels of this importantbranch of orchestration, independent orchestration received permanent form. Let us see how this metamorphosis took place.
Retrospection shows us that Peri, initiating a rudimentary dramatic style in place of Flemish polyphony, contributed but slightly to the advancement of instrumental accompaniment. He and his collaborators wrote little more than a figured bass for the harpsichord, and at performance they evoked the aid of the adventitious efforts of a motley aggregation of instrumentalists. The printed scores of Schütz are equally primitive. In France, the lyrical stage piece of Perrin and Cambert, "La Pastorale" (produced in 1659—the year of Scarlatti's birth) showed some slight improvement in the art of scoring; but it has been said that even Lulli composed his operas at the spinet, and at times delegated various details of instrumentation to his secretary. Monteverde established a nucleus of strings. Cavalli developed three-part writing for two violins and a bass. Legrenzi regulated the "distribution" of instruments. Corelli and his contemporaries advanced technique of performance and cultivated instrumentation in the miniature.
The task allotted to Scarlatti was, therefore, not difficult. He accepted the already established supremacy of strings, but soon realized that three-part writing did not produce even balance of tone. Consequently, he adopted a manner of writing which comprised a division of the violins into firsts and seconds. He added, moreover, an individual part for the violas, and thereby established a canon of phonetics that has been accepted by all erudite composers since his time. It is true that these characteristics of orchestration cannot be said to have originated with him, but his persistent use thereof established a precedent of permanent value. In three-part writing, not only the violoncellos and basses progressed simultaneously in unison or octaves, but also the viola, if present, reënforced the bass in slavish delineation. It is obvious that this practice was the result either of sophism or of indifference and ignorance. And the fact that as late as the eighteenth century no less a composer than Haydn and even Mozart should have continued to frequently employ three-part writing for the strings is certainly a paradox, and tends to prove how circuitous the process of evolution is. However, Haydn and Mozart had such perfect command of florid counterpoint, that no matter what the distribution of string parts might be, the results were invariably effective.
Four instead of three notes of a chord being now properly dispersed among the strings,[7]Scarlatti proceeded to enrich his orchestra by a logical employment of wind instruments in pairs. The harpsichord, of course, continued to hold its own, but the Händelian principle of long held notes in the wind against more agile string passages is already to be found in his scores, a principle of which Lulliwas also cognizant. But Scarlatti's orchestra was more plastic than Lulli's, and his overtures more purely instrumental.
As has been stated, Italian culture of the violin and the increasing regard in which that instrument was held, led to the development of execution as well as to an appropriate style of writing for it on a well defined harmonic basis. These improvements were, moreover, further reflected by a more earnest attention to the progress of other instruments, both as to mechanism and technique. As a result, musical performances improved rapidly, and the isolated, purely instrumental numbers of the opera, heretofore utterly disregarded by the public, began to excite comment. Whereupon Scarlatti, keen to perceive any nascent inclination on the part of his audience, turned to a more careful consideration of the overture. His motives for doing so may not have been of the highest, but the results were directly beneficial in that by eliciting warm approval, these overtures were eventually performed as concert numbers apart from the opera. Though short in form, they consisted of three or four distinct, well-rounded movements, and were destined to become the prototype of the classic symphony.
In specifically instrumental music, Scarlatti paved the way for Bach and Händel by writing for two violins and a violoncello, treated as soli instruments to an accompaniment of a string orchestra.
Finally, the components of his orchestra—represented in his most felicitous scoring by violins, violas, 'cellos, double-basses, two oboes, two bassoons, two horns—were practically identical with those of the early classicists.
So we see that the orchestra as bequeathed by Scarlatti was based upon a well organized body of strings, supported by a modest array of wood and brass instruments. Differentiated style of choral and instrumental writing was accentuated, and although polyphonic mannerism was still prevalent in orchestration, a tendency for individualistic instrumentation was at least apparent. On the other hand, the latent passion of the violoncello, when emancipated from the double-bass, was as yet unknown; and the harpsichord, by reënforcing the inner harmonies, covered the deficiencies of the wind instruments. That the mechanism of the latter should have remained in so immature a condition at a time when the delicate organism of the ideal string quartet had already been perfected, is but the result of natural causes. For when the supremacy of the viols was once for all established, it was of primary importance thattheirefficiency, above all others, should be enhanced; and thus subsidiary instruments were for the time subjected to at least comparative neglect.
The varied labors of Purcell (1658) were without the zone of eclectic progression. Although he adapted the cyclic style of Corelli, and kept in touch with the music of Lulli, whom, it is claimed, he even excelled in instrumentation, he remained true to the traditions of the English Church and English drama.
While examining the progress of orchestration, the parallel growth of organ and clavier music should not be forgotten. A comprehensive glance at the series of important writers in these branches will suffice to refresh the memory.
A distinctive style, initiated by the earlier Italian composers, Merulo, Andreas and Giovanni Gabrieli, was first exploited by Frescobaldi (1583). He promulgated a novel style of organ playing and contributed to the development of the fugue. After him, organ composition became the prerogative of the Germans, and the seventeenth century is represented by Scheidt, Froberger, Kerl, Reincken, Buxtehude, finally Pachelbel (1653). In Germany, Italy, and France, the subsequent chief exponents of clavier music were respectively Kuhnau, Domenico Scarlatti, and Couperin. Coincidentally, all three were born in the same decade as Bach.
By thus comparing the prodigious activity displayed in every branch of music, we find, as the ultimata of this epoch, that homogeneity in general had given place to a system of related tonalities, vitalized rhythm, diversified figuration, and a rational mode of expression. Moreover there were two distinct elements to build upon,—polyphony, as embodied in the contrapuntalsonata da chiesa, and the popular dance, the pivot of thesonata da camera. These two styles were capable either of further unassociated development or of reconciliation. By still further adding to such an amalgamation the principle of reiteration and thematic development of a single thought as the motive for a composition, we have as a resultant the cyclic form—first the Suite, earliest of complex forms, then the Sonata.
Musical art was now ready for a master hand who should weld its component parts firmly together. And that master was Bach.
(Summaryonpage 27.)
I. Two impelling forces: emotional expression of human feeling and pagan religious rites, account for musical development among primitive men.
Authentic history traces higher development through Egypt and the Orient to the Hellenic races, when poetry and music became conjoined.
II. Under the protectorate of the Roman Church, melody acquired plastic form, and systems of harmony, notation, and measure were established.
III. The lyrics of the troubadours revived a cult for individual emotionalism—the inherent characteristic of the Folk-song, which now influenced, and finally dominated the Gregorian Chant.
IV. Polyphonic choral art of the Netherland School developed consecutively contrapuntal technique, euphony, objective emotionalism, and culminated in the works of Lasso, when it was rivalled if not eclipsed by the creations of Palestrina. But the style of this era lacked rhythm and form. These essentials, together with tonality and a distinctive secular style, were subsequently to be developed in connection with solo singing and independent instrumental music.
I. A desire for increased vitality and florid figuration led to embellished organ accompaniment. This process devolved to other instruments. Hence instrumentation acquired individuality, contrast, expansibility.
II. Search for intensified expression and dramatic effects led to attempts at monody. The principles of monody are to be traced to the Miracle Plays, the Troubadours, the Greek tragedies. A semblance of these tragedies as transfused into Florentine monody led to recitative and lyric solo. These contained the germ of opera and oratorio, for which accompaniment was a requisite. In consequence, selective acumen for species, balance, quality, variety, developed orchestration.
From primitive stringed instruments played with a bow, such as the Celtic crwth and the Oriental rebab, devolved the vielle, thence the subsequent varieties of viols proper, finally, at the end of the sixteenth century, the modern string quartet.
The pianoforte owes its origin to the monochord and psaltery with keyboard attachment, as developed from the dulcimer of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the clavichord and harpsichord of the sixteenth to the Hammerklavier of the eighteenth century. The clavichord was derived from the monochord, the harpsichord from the psaltery, the pianoforte from the dulcimer. The strings of the dulcimer were played upon by hammers held in the hand; the clavichord strings were mechanically pressed up; those of the harpsichord were plucked by quills; whereas the pianoforte is supplied with hammer-action.
The invention of wind instruments probably antedates that of strings. Emanating from the ancient Egyptian vertical flute, the flûte à bec of the Middle Ages matured into the modern horizontal flute. Akin to the single-reed species of the Greek aulos, Latin tibia, were the popularized schalmei, predecessors of the pommer and oboe families. The single-reeded modern clarinet, that came into existence the end of the seventeenth century, was an outgrowth of the chalemiax of mediævalism.
From the Roman lituus and buccina devolved side by side the trombe and Zinken of the Middle Ages. Experimental development through the stages of bent tubes, slide mechanism, finger holes, removable crooks, chromatic valves, perfected the valve-trumpet, the bugle-horn, the slide-trombone.
Instruments of percussion are the parents of all other instruments. Certain species subsequently became distinctly characteristic of certain distinct races; those most effective are now incorporated in the modern orchestra. Of significant importance are the kettle-drums by reason of their unalloyed artistic value.
Monteverde'screative genius led to three tangible results:—(1) Dramatic expression; (2) the founding of a serviceable orchestra based on bowed instruments; (3) diversity of style between vocal and instrumental composition.
(1) In writing for the stage, he aimed at an intensification of dramatic effects, variety in tone-color, a freer accompaniment, and relief from the monotony of recitative by the employment of a primitive arioso form. The fruits of these dramatic efforts were reaped by Carissimi in Italy, Schütz in Germany, Lulli in France.
(2) The founding of a serviceable orchestra was the result of his expressive and dramatic instinct fostered by the attempts of the Florentine experimentalists,—orchestral music and the drama being, moreover, at that time practically inseparable. His orchestration emphasized the value of strings, readjusted the balance of the wind, and suggested contrasted choirs of instruments.
(3) Diversity of style between vocal and instrumental music pointed the way to independent orchestral composition.
It was not the greatest of his successors that directly furthered the cause of orchestration. Carissimi in oratorio, Lulli in opera, only incidentally enriched instrumental accompaniment as a means to an end. Of greater stability were the orchestral efforts of the secondary composers of this era, of whom Cavalli, Legrenzi, Corelli are the most important. Cavalli established the precedent of three-part string writing, Legrenzi of equilibrium and a fairly adequate supply of strings, whereas their superior, Corelli, by developing violin technique, made possible a style of writing that ultimately matured into the classic sonata. Further originality was displayed in the chamber music of Steffani and Clari, in theconcerto grossoof Torelli, in the combined harmonic and rhythmic effects of Vivaldi.
In direct lineage from Monteverde,Scarlattistands as the second great orchestral innovator. His three principal achievements were:—(1) Balance of tone in the strings by the judicious distribution of the four notes of a chord; (2) numerical suppression of overpowering wind-instruments, and a logical usage of the same in pairs; (3) enlargement of the exterior and thematic development of the interior construction of his overtures. Incidentally, through readjustment of dynamic force, the viola gained individuality, and the strings were enabled to stand out in relief against the wind.
The general tendency of the era was one of universal musical progress in specialized instrumental writing. Homogeneity yielded to systematic harmonic progressions and well defined rhythm. Upon this basis, a unification of the dance movement, polyphony, and thematic treatment was effected in the following century.
Anattempt to portray in a felicitous manner the progress of orchestration during the classic era is apt to carry one between Scylla and Charybdis. On the one hand lies the temptation to enlarge upon the biography and extraneous achievements of the great masters, on the other, the danger of superficiality. Minuteness of detail as aimed at in theprevious chapterwhen the beginnings of orchestration rested in the hands of a comparatively small number of men is here incompatible, in view of the desire for conciseness. Moreover, extended panegyrics would of necessity consist of but a flatulent plagiarism upon the voluminous and admirably written works already in existence. The safe course to pursue is therefore to survey the era as a whole in its relation to the orchestra, merely touching upon a very few of the distinctive characteristics peculiar to the most celebrated exponents.
Naturally one turns to that unbroken chain of Teutonic peers, beside whom all contemporary efforts were puny. Of these six,—Bach, Händel, Gluck, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, it might be said that only the last three were direct evolutionists of the symphonic orchestra; for Gluck was absorbed in exploring thedramaticcharacteristics of instrumentation, and as to Bach and Händel, in spite of their titanic contributions to music itself, neither of them can be regarded as an orchestral innovator, though this statement savors of heresy.[8]
Bach(1685-1750), comparatively a recluse, was but little known to his contemporaries. His mode of life, however, was only partially responsible for this neglect, for the fact that a German imitation of Neapolitan methods was in predominance at that time, is of especial significance. Thus Haydn and Mozart, who might have reaped incalculable benefit from his experience, were unfamiliar with the greater portion of his works. This fact alone is sufficient to disconnect his name from the direct lineal chain of orchestral evolution. However, in view of the stupendous posterior influence his music was destined to wield, one cannot thus summarily pass over his contributions to orchestration.
Tersely stated, the ideal of this polyphonic giant revealed itself in subtle expression as concealed in his filigree of mercurial counterpoint, in the portrayal of inner feeling, and in profound religious fervor. A Teuton to the core, he stands as the symbolic exponent of organ and Protestant Church music. His arias are imbued with dramatic intensity and lyric pathos, and if at times portions of them seem archaic, one must remember that his art had assimilated the earlier church style and was but the corollary of it. His Passion Music not only still exists, but retains its full vitality. His church style is that of the organ, and the organ was for him the intermediary to orchestration.
Although Bach's instrumentation was by no means equal to the substance of his wonderful conceptions intended for orchestration, he did not neglect to study the prevalent Italian style of scoring, and was, to say the least, a progressive orchestrator, even if not an innovator. In his great organ works, the employment of chromatic and enharmonic modulation, the perfection of the fugue, the development of earlier strict forms eventually caused vocal music to yield precedence to instrumental. And Bach transplanted this polyphonic style into the orchestra with the result that the treatment of each individual instrument was distinctly melodic. Now this interwoven texture of austere polyphony, though resulting in a complete negation of analyzed tone-color, contained the essence of effective orchestral solo writing, as typified in hisconcerti grossi. Bach frequently employed the organ as the centre of his orchestra, though the instrument was never aggressive. Around it were clustered differentiated groups of the usual variety, whose mission it was to add specific unities of color rather than volume of sound.
But when Bach had occasion to introduce episodes of simplicity by way of contrast to his usual polyphony, his scoring for wood-wind was not so felicitous, and in loud passages, even when adequately represented, they were prone to be eclipsed by the strings. It is true that he was frequently hampered by a paucity of instrumentalists, but subsequent renditions of his orchestral works tend toprove that he failed to extract the best results from the wind. In uniting choral writing with the organ, Bach must evidently have been aware of the acoustic phenomenon that a literal redoubling of vocal and organ parts results in the complete absorption of the latter. For in his choral masterpieces, where the organ and orchestra are simultaneously used, we find, as a means of insuring contrast, passages wherein entire chords in the orchestra are employed as passing notes against held chords in the chorus and organ.
Bach's orchestration, therefore, stands for polyphony; melodic treatment in the voice-leading of each and every part both inner and outer; contrasted choirs of affiliated instruments for giving variety to the various sequent movements in relation to each other, rather than for episodic contrast or variety in the separate movements by themselves.
A striking contrast to Bach's secluded and uneventful career is to be found in that of his illustrious contemporary.
Händel(1685-1759), the man of the world, represents the realistic, and the æsthetics of melodic form. As suzerain of oratorio, he handled the orchestra primarily as subsidiary to the voices. Unlike Bach, his influence upon organ and clavier music was small. And the value of his forty insipid Italian operas lies only in the experience it gave him in manipulation of vocal forces, and the benefits derived from keeping in touch with a cosmopolitan public. His oratorios are the composite of the orthodox style of the church, the traits of the Neapolitan School deprived of their meretricious tendencies, and a precocious expressive and dramatic instinct, the birthright of his own genius. Ultimately was added to this composite the inspiration offered by the English anthem and the talent of Purcell. Indeed, although the centripetal ideal that guided him was spontaneous and original, it must be acknowledged that in the setting of his brilliants is to be found an extraneous aggrandizement, resulting, not from eclecticism, but from plagiarism. Thus unvarnished phrases of Corelli and Alessandro Scarlatti were boldly transfused into the works of Händel when his own Muse failed him. This Italian influence betrays itself in the comparative simplicity of his modulations, and in his but moderate use of striking dissonances. The skeleton of his harmonic structures was reared on a simpler basis than Bach's; on the other hand, the massed effects of his choral polyphony have never been surpassed.
His instrumental forms were likewise Italian, and his orchestration, though masterly, was not so conspicuously original as that of his immediate great successors. Strings as the nuclei were supported by a large number of reeds. In orchestras which included twenty-five strings, frequently no less than five oboes andfive bassoons would be employed. Even our modern mighty aggregation of from fifty to sixty strings would hardly bear the adjunct of ten reeds,—indeed, three oboes, one English horn, three bassoons, one contra-bassoon (eight in all) would represent the maximum if tonal equilibrium were to be preserved. However, two extenuating circumstances for this Händelian custom should not be overlooked. His method of writing for the wood did not embody those characteristics subsequently discovered by Haydn and Mozart; again, the instruments themselves lacked power. The criterion of Händel's orchestration rests almost exclusively in his oratorios. Here the mission of instrumental accompaniment was to support, strengthen, intertwine; for Händel was in quest of solidity, sonority, vitality,—terms which in this connection might be considered the synonym for the above three.
His usual method for full scoring was to double the violin parts with oboes, and the basses with bassoons. Clarinets had as yet no status; flutes added ornamentation; the brass was fully represented in logical proportion, though it was then the custom to write high trumpet parts. Next to the violins, the oboe was Händel's as well as Bach's favorite solo instrument. The organ played an important rôle in his oratorios, and he employed the harp freely for historic representations. Together with Bach, he was practically the last to make use of the theorbos. At least passing reference is due to his trios, which constitute so important a contribution to the literature of chamber music. His contrapuntal overtures and interludes, where the wood-wind are allowed greater freedom, display considerable variety. Finally, at this period the harpsichord was fortunately losing its fallacious value as a musical component of the orchestra, being retained rather as a means for conducting.
But as already stated, Händel learned to regard the orchestra not as an unenthralled entity, but rather as the chief ally of oratorio, for which the corner stone was Italian melody, the foundations comparatively simple harmonic progressions, and the superstructure the human voice, surrounded by an orchestral trellis. And the resultant was a massive tonal edifice.
Before proceeding to a survey of Gluck's revolutionary accomplishments, it would seem in place to analyze the artistic progress of the lesser lights of this period. And since the crisis of Gluck's life was not reached until a century after the birth of those two giants, Bach and Händel, even though they were his direct predecessors and eventual contemporaries, chronological dates must needs give place to the logic of evolution.
Italy.In theprevious chapter, the progress of orchestration in relation to its beneficent guardian, the drama, was traced from the improvements initiated by Monteverde through those of Scarlatti. These new doctrines were, of course, assiduously seized upon by the latter's contemporaries and immediate successors. But indeed it was not until the advent of Spontini as late as the first part of the nineteenth century that Italian orchestration was again represented by an exponent of more than secondary importance, taking into consideration the achievements of Rameau in France, not to mention the great German masters. For Pergolesi excelled particularly in string writing, whereas Cherubini's scoring shows German influence rather than Italian. Nevertheless, Neapolitan propagandism exerted world-wide influence, and was directly fostered by such men as Buononcini, Durante, Porpora, Leo, Logroscino, all of whom were born in the last quarter of the seventeenth century; to the same chronological period belongs also Lotti (1667), a worthy representative of the Venetian School, who, although primarily a composer of sacred music of marked individuality, wrote a number of operas for Venice as well as several for Dresden and Vienna. Having resided for two years in Dresden, he aided the diffusion throughout Germany of operatic and orchestral principles that were conspicuously Italian even if not specifically those of Naples. Like him, Durante devoted himself almost exclusively to sacred writing. Leo, though producing many dramatic works as well as oratorios and chamber music, aided the advance of Italian art more as the teacher of Jomelli and Piccini than by his creations. Both G. Buononcini and the singing teacher, Porpora, were through the irony of fate led to aid artistic evolution by negative means, so to speak, since the trend of their ambitions brought them face to face with the genius of Händel, upon whom their machinations acted but as a stimulus. For, as will be remembered, Buononcini's defeat in London was followed fifteen years later by a second unsuccessful rivalry instigated by Porpora's faction. Logroscino is to be remembered for his development of opera-buffa and of the Finale as subsequently applied by Piccini. But it is clearly evident that none of these representative Italian composers contributed materially to orchestration with the exception that their instrumental accompaniments acquired greater freedom.
The brief career of Pergolesi (1710-1736) was consummated during the interim dating approximately from Gluck's birth to Haydn's. His fame is confined not alone to his sacred works, such as the Stabat Mater, but to his dramatic productions as well, of which the finest example is, of course, "La serva padrona," of opera-buffa propinquities. His proclivity for employing an orchestra of strings alone, as exemplified in the above mentioned representative works, was fortunatein that thereby he was able to concentrate his thoughts upon finish and detail, such as served as a valuable model for the period in which he was living, when string writing was as yet at an immature stage.
Germany.In Germany itself Italian influences predominated, and interest was centered chiefly upon the opera, in connection with which Scarlatti's tenets of writing for the orchestra were diligently copied. German dramatic activity paved the way to the establishment in 1678 of a permanent opera house in Hamburg, which enjoyed uninterrupted existence for sixty years. Most prominent among the composers for and directors of this enterprise were Theile (1646), Keiser (1674), Mattheson (1681), and Telemann (likewise 1681). Of these, Keiser accrued the greatest temporary popularity by reason of his prolific and sensational though shallow versatility. His orchestration, which was of the lightest kind, included various alternating groups of instruments. Fétis states that Keiser employed in his opera "Frédegonde" sometimes the strings alone, or the clavichord together with plucked stringed instruments and a bass. Again, the voice was accompanied by a single violin, an oboe and a bass, oboes alone, or a flute and viols. These combinations present nothing new; they were but in accordance with the customs of the times. Telemann also was possessed of a reputation sufficient to overshadow in his day that of Bach. Though the importance of his activity has since been reduced to insignificance, credit is at least due to him, not alone for his dramatic writings, but also for his contribution to concert and chamber music, which frequently revealed strong German tendencies, all too rare in the midst of Neapolitan sovereignty. So-called symphonies, overtures, concertos, quartets and the like are included in Telemann's exhaustless list of compositions, and in view of his intimacy with Bach, these works must have wielded at least transitory influence upon the experimental stage of that master's instrumentation and orchestral form. Händel likewise for three years devoted his energies to writing operas for the Hamburg stage; but this was in his youthful days, and, as has been already intimated, these attempts were but puerile and can have no possible bearing upon the art of orchestration.
Emanuel Bach (1714-1788) was also unquestionably attracted by the doctrines of this histrionic circle, although he was never directly associated with it. (Incidentally, therefore, it should be noted that he was not the successor of Telemann as director in operatic lines, a statement erroneously set forth by one historian of repute; he did succeed him as church musical director but not until later in life. In support of this correction it is but necessary to call attention to the fact that in 1738, the very year in which the degeneracy of the Hamburg operaticexperiments culminated in the relinquishment of the enterprise, Emanuel Bach, being but twenty-four years old, went to Berlin, where two years later he became chamber cembalist to Frederick the Great.) The results of his efforts are of value to posterity in that he was instrumental in causing musical composition to be established on a more decidedly harmonic rather than contrapuntal basis. For although he honestly endeavored to fathom the profundity of his illustrious father, the subtle influence of his courtly surroundings and the effervescent superficiality of Neapolitanism could not but have its effect upon his art. Again, his early training was such as to foster a regard for what has been called the "gallant" style, and, as Dr. Riemann states it: "to this very tendency he owes his greatness, for by it he became the father of modern instrumental music, the precursor of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven in the department of the sonata, symphony, etc., which he clothed in more pleasing modern dress;" and thus "the son of the last master of the old school became the founder of the new school."
Passing reference is due to three further German contemporaries of Händel who were slaves to Italian principles. These were Hasse (1699), Graun (1701), Naumann (1741). After the downfall of the Hamburg stage, two distinct efforts were made to establish Italian opera at Dresden. Now the Dresden orchestra is over three hundred and fifty years old, and the interest attached to the name of Hasse is due to his prominent connection with that organization and the constitution of the same under his management. This band had been noted for its excellence already in the earlier stages of its existence, and even at the time of Monteverde it enrolled no less than thirteen strings and ninety-three instruments of wood, brass, and percussion. These dimensions were of gigantic proportions for those days, indeed, they compare favorably with the present size of the Dresden orchestra. That of Hasse was but half as large, but the distribution of parts was, of course, infinitely superior, and an orchestra of even fifty instruments, of which only half were strings, could readily have overpowered singers of Italian opera, had it not been for the subservience of the accompaniment to "il bel canto," the meagre quality of tone of the wood-wind, and the "thin" scoring then in vogue. It consisted of twenty-five strings in judicious apportionment, two flutes, five oboes, five bassoons, two horns, besides trumpets, trombones, kettle-drums and two clavichords. The prominence of reed quality and the incorporation of two clavichords, from one of which Hasse conducted, was in accord with the usages which Händel accepted. Hasse stands as the most successful native exponent of extraneous ideas, and, like his method of conducting which originated in Italy, his harmonic progressions as well as his instrumentation are of the simplest kind and disclose the same influence.
Graun achieved renown first as an opera singer, next as an opera composer; but of more enduring worth are his sacred compositions. Nevertheless he andHasse were for a time the onlymaestriwho wrote for the Berlin Opera, and the orchestral scores of Graun are considered by some to suggest a transition from the earlier symphonies to those of Haydn. One of his cantatas is scored for three flutes, three oboes, two violins, one viola, a bassoon, and a chorus in six parts. To this series of composers belongs properly the name of Naumann, even though he was born in the following generation; he displayed a fatal facility in expressing himself in conventional formulas, and his career was interrupted only by the ascendency of Gluck and Mozart.
France.French musical art owes the stability of her early dramatic growth to three eminent composers: Lulli, Rameau, Gluck; and the first and the last of these were foreigners. Moreover into their hands was entrusted the moulding of French orchestration, for French orchestral music was not destined to disengage itself from bondage to the drama and assert itself as a clearly defined indigenous product until the nineteenth century. A sharp line of demarcation must be drawn between each respective career of these three pillars of the nascent stage. For Lulli had appropriated to himself all the glory attendant upon the Royal Opera, not alone as the director but as composer as well. Not until after his death did it become possible for others to reap the benefits of experience in hearing their own works produced, in consequence of which, latent talent had had no chance to expand. And the interim between Lulli and Rameau is signalized as a period of reaction during which the efforts of even the most prominent writers were but a pale reflection of those of their illustrious master.
Three composers, born in the second half of the seventeenth century, namely Campra, Destouches, Mouret, were the immediate successors of Lulli, and dedicated their services, such as they were, to the conservation of his ideals. Of these three men, Campra is popularly called the link between Lulli and Rameau. Campra possessed genuinely dramatic instincts, exercised his talents along sacred lines as well as secular, and revealed certain traits of independence and originality in that he dared to depart from Lulli's somewhat austere style by emphasizing the necessity for augmenting rhythmic effects, which was distinctly beneficial in the development of orchestration. It is interesting to note that he was the first Frenchman to employ thecor de chassein opera, although Lulli introduced it into some of his ballets. The contributions of Destouches were of small intrinsic value other than the fact that the chivalrous surroundings of his earlier career as an officer had nurtured his natural temperament for the graceful and refined. And so with this æsthetic touch of a composer otherwise lacking in musical education, he added his mite to the development of daintiness in instrumentation, such as the use of two piccolo flutes in thirds in one of his ballets, and other minor thoughinteresting details. Of Mouret's operas little can be said; but he deserves honorable mention for his labors as a conductor of the "Concerts spirituels," which, as the name implies, had been founded in 1725 to occupy theinterregnawhenever the opera houses were closed for religious reasons. Consequently, his name is rightfully connected with the evolution of the concert orchestra, for the "Concerts spirituels" exercised a discriminating influence at a critical time in French musical history, especially since subsequently, about the date of Beethoven's birth, it was reorganized by Gossec, with the result that it sprang into prominence equal to that of some of the foremost orchestras of Europe.
With the advent ofRameau(1683-1764), who was born two years before Bach, theOpérawas again lifted out of the lethargy into which it had fallen. Rameau, first to offer to the world a theoretical explanation of harmonic relationship built upon a logically scientific basis, was exactly fifty years old when he made his début as an operatic writer, indeed, he did not reach the summit of his success until about the time of Mozart's birth. And since Gluck's Parisian career dates from the decade in which Beethoven was born, the chronological relationship in the labors of Rameau and Gluck can the more readily be compared. Rameau's handling of dramatic resources was superior to that of Lulli, in fact, his methods were of sufficient merit to be subsequently absorbed by Gluck himself. The three cardinal points of departure from traditional usage that have caused the name of Rameau, first of the genuinely French masters, to be so highly respected are his daring harmonic innovations, the important rôle assigned by him to the dramatic chorus, and what is more, the importance attached to orchestral accompaniment, together with increased independence and prominence for the orchestra itself, as well as enriched instrumentation in detail. Since most of his operas are published in condensed form, which, with the exception of theritornelli, contain but the vocal, violin, and bass parts, facilities for a satisfactory examination of his instrumentation are usually lacking. This is a matter for regret, since many of his detached instrumental numbers are veritable little gems of descriptive writing in the miniature, not dissimilar in style to those written by his contemporary, François Couperin, who was mentioned in theprevious chapteras one of the three earliest exponents of characteristic clavier music.
Though Rameau made but few changes in the constituency of the orchestra, there was assigned to each instrument an individual and appropriate rôle, and the tone-colors cross and intermingle. He extended the range of the violins, aided the independency of accompaniment by the frequent use of arpeggios in the strings, and was the first to usepizzicatochord effects in the entire body of strings at once. Although he did not employ the harp, he imitated its characteristics by means ofpizzicatistrings. Two horns and even two clarinets are frequently to be found in his scores, and lighter touches, such as the accompaniment of thevoice by two flutes and a violin, or three oboes and a bassoon, are also to be met with.
As has been already intimated, the triumphs of Rameau were followed by a second interim that lasted for nearly twenty years. But in the case of this second interim, France was not destined to remain so comparatively unproductive as during the first. For the same period that heralds the crowning point of Rameau's fame ushers in the beginnings of French comic opera, for which date Mozart's birth is again a convenient reminder. As a result of partisanship for the Italian "bouffons," the philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), wrote both the words and music of a little French pastoral in the style of the prevailing Italianintermezzi, and thereby excited the interest more especially of the younger composers. Duni, Philidor, and Monsigny, who were born in approximately the same quarter century as Rousseau, were particularly happy in their efforts to evolve from this germ a lighter and more popular style, and are therefore to be regarded as the founders ofopéra comique, which, in the next generation, was to be moulded into plasmic form by Grétry. And no style could have been more beneficial for extricating orchestral writing out of the stiff and prosaic confines within which serious opera was prone to restrict it. On the other hand, Italian orchestration was leaning more and more toward pernicious conventionalism and tawdry superficiality. Here again the earlyopéra comiqueappeared as a felicitous counterbalance, and infused into the orchestra that sparkle and piquancy for which French instrumentation has ever since been famed. True, none of these minor composers contributed signally to the advancement of orchestration, but each helped in little ways, and their instrumentation was more correct and finished than that of their prominent successor, Grétry. Their orchestras were still somewhat massive, but showed progress in vigor and sonority, variety and lightness of instrumentation.
And so when Gluck arrived in Paris there existed already four distinct schools for orchestral writing—the rising classic purity of his own native land; the Neapolitan traditions, fast deteriorating into triviality; the legacies of Lulli, revivified and improved upon by Rameau; and the virginal essays at phosphorescent scoring in lighter vein.
(Summaryonpage 68.)
Gluck(1714-1787), the third of the great drama reformers, and predecessor of Wagner in the establishment of dramatic continuity, did not appear as the champion of revivified Hellenic ideals until advanced in years. Though he had long harbored an intense antagonism to the paltry conventionalities of the existing lyric drama, his tenets awoke no sympathetic chord in his native land. And thus it came about that the arena of Lulli's scintillating pageantry witnessed the rehabilitation of genuine, legitimate, and unaffected histrionic art. This was attained by a return to a severe and truthful mode of musical declamation, by clothing the several stage characters with distinctive individuality, and by instilling into his music-dramas in their entirety, reflection, simplicity, sincerity, pathos, nobility. The chorus was raised to importance, the function of accompaniment rendered more virile, and the orchestra was made to enhance the dramatic situations. Three defects are noticeable. Gluck made no attempt to break down the barriers of stereotyped operatic forms, his melody is at times stilted, and his music is guilty of frequent grammatical errors. Despite these facts, his choruses are worthy examples of dramatic effect, and the formal structure of his overtures is more rounded than those of even Bach or Händel. But it cannot be said that his genius was conspicuously original; he was essentially a reformer, not an innovator. For as Mr. Edward Dickinson expresses it in general terms: "Gluck's success was not due to his melodic invention or mastery of musical science, for in neither of these particulars can he be ranked among the greatest composers. His ability consisted rather of producing great effects with simple means; the severe grandeur of his style was especially suited to the antique subjects which he chose, and this style was in conformity to the peculiar genius of Greek tragedy."
To independent orchestration Gluck contributed but little, but, considering the age in which he lived, none have excelled him as an interpreter, by means of the orchestra, of pathetic expression, or in the use of appropriate instrumentation, varied and rich tone-coloring. To quote from Parry's "The Art of Music," page 220: "Moreover, the expressive qualities of his admirable recitatives are very much enhanced by his way of dealing with the accompaniment. He neglected no opportunity to make use of the qualities of his orchestral instruments—asfar as in him lay—to enforce and accentuate the situations, and even to intensify the passing moment of feeling implied by the dialogue. Composers were successfully developing the sense of the functions and resources of instrumentation. Even Gluck's rival, Piccini, made some very appropriate effects by using his instruments consistently with the spirit of the situations. But Gluck applied himself to the matter with far more intensity, and far more genuine perception of the characters of the instruments. Indeed it would be hardly an exaggeration to say, that he was the first composer in the world who had any genuine understanding of this very modern phase of the art. Mozart was the first to show real natural gift and genuine feeling for beautiful disposition of tone, but Gluck anticipated modern procedure in adapting his colors exactly to the mood of the situation. A good deal had been attempted already in a sort of half-hearted and formal manner, but he was the first to seize firmly on the right principles and to carry out his objects with any mastery of resources." On the other hand, "his orchestration has none of the roundness or balance or maturity of Mozart's. It is unequal and uncertain, and requires humoring in performance to make it produce the effect which is intended."
Gluck relied to an excessive degree upon the string band, and his orchestral writing lacked that balance which the contemporary and sequent classicists regarded as the fundamental requirement. Notwithstanding, his instrumentation exhibits many original insignia that are worthy of record. Thus he demonstrated the dramatic power of low-written viola parts, made varied and characteristic use of the tremolo, was the first to introduce mutes into the orchestra in his "Armide," and caused the trombones to emerge from their hitherto menial subservience, and stand forth in all their dignity and tragic power of portraying peace, sorrow, fear, religion, majesty. And by proving the superior effectiveness in employing a group of three trombones, he established a precedent that has been endorsed by all subsequent composers.
But it must be confessed that in turning over page after page of his scores, one discovers the fact that in deploying his wood-wind Gluck usually laid but modest demands upon them. Their duties were more commonly restricted to the lending of comparatively simple tone-color for heightening dramatic action, or for relieving the monotony of prolonged use of strings alone. Of weird and tragic effect is his concentration of all high wood-windunisono. But many of his other orchestral characteristics bear the impress of conventionalism then in vogue, which soon becomes monotonous; and his manner of writing for the deeper instruments causes much of his orchestration to sound heavy.
All things considered, the same must be said of Gluck as of his vancourier, Lulli, and of the great oratorio composers, Carissimi and Händel—neither he nor they were attracted by the kaleidoscopic potentiality of the orchestra whenisolated from its kindred rivals, the opera and the oratorio. And although his name is to be revered for having opened up the resources of the orchestra, the attention he bestowed upon it was but a reflection of the greater glories that he offered up to the shrine of dramatic lustration.
For two hundred years dramatic writing had now dominated musical art, therefore orchestration as well. The best fruits of these two centuries of experiments having culminated in the reforms of Gluck, his music dramas, with their continuity of action and dignity of subject-matter, were to be surpassed only by Mozart's splendid attainments, by reason of the latter's perfect melody, pure form and admirably adjusted orchestration.
A final glance at the dramatic situation of Europe with the date of Beethoven's birth as a consistently convenient landmark will be necessary in order to comprehend the significance of Mozart's operatic constellation as it appeared on the horizon. For the decade beginning with 1770 was replete with big events, preordained, as it were, to do homage to the future master—Beethoven. Of the generation born between 1714 and 1756, further mention has yet to be made of the Frenchman, Grétry, of the Germans, J.A. Hiller and Dittersdorf, and of the conservators of declining Italian dogmas, Jomelli, Piccini, Sacchini, Paesiello, Cimarosa, Salieri.
France.After the defeat of the kindly Piccini,—who deserves more credit than is usually awarded him, not alone for his graceful melody, clear and sonorous orchestration, but especially for his judicious application of the orchestral instruments to the demands of a situation,—the stage of the French capital, now monopolized by foreign composers, patronized for a brief period the productions of the Neapolitan Sacchini, and of Salieri. The former was also a fair composer of chamber music, whereas the latter is signally notorious for his intrigues against Mozart. Both of them were pupils of Gluck, and their instrumentation was but an imitation of his. But meanwhile, afterGrétry(1741-1813) had fairly launched his graceful conceptions, the public soon recognized in him a worthy successor to Rameau, even though thegenreof his offerings was of a different mould. Interest in imported art waned, and the career of the second great French composer began.
Grétry, though founding a permanent and powerful national school that was distinctly the opposite of tragedy, was an ardent disciple of Gluck's doctrines, being himself even more of a radical in his indifference for actual singing as a mode of dramatic interpretation. But in spite of his sensitive perception not alone for truthful interpretation, but as well for melodic design and novel scenic effects, his comparative neglect of the orchestra is unique in the annals of musical history. His strings were generally written in three parts, with frequent gaps between the bass and the two upper voices. His harmonies were usually too thin, and his orchestration as a whole was conventional and uninteresting. Fortunately his delicate musical thought did not require elaborate instrumentation as a means for expression, and so he rarely drew upon the resources of the orchestra for more than was absolutely necessary in simple accompaniment to the voice. Grétry is cited as having declared that the accompaniment to solo singing should be as the pedestal to the statue; but unfortunately his own orchestral accompaniments do not conform to this pretty saying, for his pedestals were feeble and lacked the essentials of ornamentation. And although Grétry towers above his contemporaries as the first great representative ofopéra comique, he contributed practically nothing new to orchestration other than the introduction, in a few isolated cases, of some unusual instruments of percussion and other minor details of instrumentation.
Italy.In 1770, Jomelli, who for fifteen years had occupied the post of Hofkapellmeister in Stuttgart, had just returned to Italy, where he found Paesiello in high favor, and Cimarosa about to begin his operatic career. Both Paesiello and Cimarosa were soon to pose as rivals to Piccini as well as to each other, but of the two, Paesiello was possessed of more scholarly attributes which found outlet in numerous independent instrumental works, including twelve symphonies and six quartets, whereas Cimarosa displayed simpler though more spontaneous fertility, and his works are better known to posterity with whom he ranks as one of the greatest Italian composers of his day. Nevertheless, the instrumentation of both Paesiello and Cimarosa was weak and non-progressive. The most prominent contemporary exponent of chamber music was Boccherini, who is credited with the authorship of no less than three hundred and sixty trios, quartets, quintets and the like, besides twenty symphonies. In antithesis to the transportation into Germany of exotic ideas, Jomelli and other Italians living in Germany showed the influence of their new surroundings by improved orchestration, though unfortunately this had but little immediate effect on their compatriots at home. For the Italians still held tenaciously to their traditions, and handled the orchestraprincipally as a means of support for and contrast to the human voice. Fearful lest the singer should be overpowered, they were overcautious; as a result, their scoring was thin, and decidedly weak in the bass. Jomelli's efforts are therefore especially praiseworthy. In his operas, the orchestra acquired greater importance, and, like Sammartini, he awakened also a keener interest for purely instrumental music. He was one of the first to make really effective use of thecrescendo, increased the efficiency of the violins by adding richer and more varied ornamentation, and showed a tendency to make proper use of tone-color. In a word, his instrumentation, together with that of Pergolesi, ushered in a new epoch in Italy.
Germany.The seed of the new movement in France soon bore fruit in Germany in the form of the Singspiel, which, however, sturdily maintained its indigenous characteristics, since not the form but the spirit only of the French comic opera with spoken dialogue had been accepted. J.A. Hiller, as the prime mover in thus establishing a national form of operetta, was emulated by Dittersdorf, who learned much from the French composers, though more from Haydn, as is evidenced by the form and instrumentation of his symphonies. The climax of German operatic enterprise in the eighteenth century was reached when in 1778 the "Deutsches Nationalspiel" was founded in Vienna, bringing to that city lasting prominence in dramatic affairs. For the liberal spirit that was shown in throwing open its doors to all worthy applicants, irrespective of nationality or style of writing, attracted such composers as Gluck, Dittersdorf, Salieri, Mozart. And the eclecticism in objective, in form, in orchestration, that consequently pervaded the artistic atmosphere which Beethoven was soon to breathe, must have unconsciously struck a sympathetic chord in the insatiable longings of Beethoven's soul to find food for his selective and synthetical methods of procedure.