Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. A 
 charge is made on all overdue 
 books. 
 
 U. of L Library 
 
 Ht'c - i la 
 
 41 
 
 APHY1 
 
 8057-8 
 
 JObJO^H OJbJNINJblT 
 
 
 
 i! 
 

 
 M 
 
LETTERS 
 
 FROM 
 
 BAYREUTH 
 
 BY 
 
 JOSEPH BENNETT 
 
 Special Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, 
 WITH AN APPENDIX. 
 
 Price One Shilling, 
 
 In addition to a notice of the performance at Bayreuth in 1876, this 
 work contains a full description of the plot of Wagner’s greatest Musik- 
 Drama, a critical notice of the music, and a full discussion of the 
 artistic principles involved. 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS:— _ 
 
 “Mr. Bennett is well-known to English musicians as one of our ablest 
 critics. A musician himself, he adds to remarkable insight and critical 
 judgment—intensified by long experience—the gift of a fine, lucid, and 
 nervous English style. ... As a permanent record of these famous perform¬ 
 ances, Mr. Bennett’s little book cannot be too highly recommended, and those 
 amateurs who wish to have a general idea of Wagner’s theories will find them 
 described in language less enthusiastic certainly than in the letters of the 
 composer’s avowed disciples, but without prejudice, and above all without a 
 trace of intention to ridicule. ... In the appendix are interesting sketches of 
 Nuremberg and Salzburg, and an account of a visit to the graves of Mozart, 
 Beethoven, and Schubert .”—Manchester Examiner. 
 
 “We find so much which we can cordially endorse that we have great pleasure 
 in recommending the little volume as an interesting record of the important 
 events which it describes.”— Academy. 
 
 LONDON NEW YORK 
 
 NOVELLO, EWER AND CO. 
 
NOVELLO’S PRIMERS OF MUSICAL BIOGRAPHY. 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER 
 
 JOSEPH BENNETT. 
 
 PRICE ONE SHILLING. 
 
 LONDON NEW YORK 
 NOVELLO, EWER ^AND CO. 
 
 May also he had cloth gilt, price Two Shillings. 
 
NOVELLO, EWER AND CO., 
 TYPOGRAPHICAL MUSIC AND GENERAL PRINTERS, 
 I, BERNERS STREET, LONDON (W.) 
 
r> 
 
 
 
 "1 
 
 ' /A V 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE PROSPECTUS OF THE 
 SERIES:— 
 
 “The intention of Novello’s Primers of Musical Biography 
 
 is to convey, as clearly as the limits of an elementary work will 
 
 allow, a just idea of each composer’s personality, and to record 
 
 the principal events of his life. Knowledge of what a man is 
 
 ^ helps the understanding of what he does. These little books 
 S 
 
 ^ may serve, therefore, as a first step towards acquaintance with 
 
 - the genius and compositions of the masters to whom they are 
 
 devoted.” 
 
 s 
 
 d 
 
 a 
 
 
 P 
 
 
 
\V 
 
 
 
 ' I-*' 
 
 / 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive i ' ■: 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 . j ■ 
 
 https://archive.org/details/giacomomeyerbeerOObenn 
 
GIACOMO MEYERBEER. 
 
 The date of Giacomo Meyerbeer’s birth, like that of many 
 other eminent musicians, is matter of dispute. M. Blaze de 
 Bury, who had ample opportunity to question the master on 
 the subject, gives it as 1794, and M. Fetis is on the same 
 side, but others hesitate between 1794 and 1791. The 
 difference is little, and signifies less ; enough that shortly 
 after the eighteenth century had entered upon its last decade, 
 a son and heir was born to Herr Beer and Amalie Wulf, his 
 wife. Beer, a rich Jew banker of Berlin, does not appear to 
 have made any mark save as a rich Jew banker. He moved 
 to Berlin from Frankfurt, and was, no doubt, a worthy 
 member of a proverbially shrewd fraternity, none of whom 
 ever slept without keeping one eye open and steadily fixed 
 upon the “ main chance.” But if Herr Beer was merely a 
 successful man of business, his wife took higher rank. She 
 appears to have been a true “mother in Israel”—one of 
 those grand characters in whom we still recognise the heroic 
 outlines of the women of the Bible. With great faith and a 
 large heart, of austere morals and tenderest feelings, Amalie 
 Beer was just the woman to have great sons, and to develop 
 in them the qualities they derived from herself. The mother’s 
 influence over her eldest boy was immense. She loved him 
 passionately and guided him wisely, while he, in return, felt 
 for her absolute veneration. A characteristic story is told 
 of their relationship in after life. Just before “ Robert le 
 Diable” was produced in Paris, Meyerbeer received from 
 his mother a letter marked “To be opened after the first 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 representation of * Robert.’ ” In returning from the theatre 
 at the close of an eventful night, the composer eagerly broke 
 the seal and read :— 
 
 The Lord bless thee and keep thee. The Lord lift up the light 
 of His countenance upon thee and be gracious unto thee. The 
 Lord cause His face to shine upon thee and give thee peace. 
 
 Profoundly touched at receiving, under such circumstances, 
 the ancient benediction of his people, Meyerbeer ever after¬ 
 wards kept the letter on his person as a talisman. This 
 tender love of mother and son continued till Amalie Beer 
 was called to the reward of her faithful service, and it would 
 be well if the letters she wrote to the composer during the 
 years of their separation were collected and given to the 
 world. Other sons she had, and two of them became 
 eminent—one, Wilhelm, as an astronomer (he made a famous 
 map of the moon); the other, Michael, is still remembered 
 by his dramas, “ Paria” and “ Struensee,” for the last-named 
 of which Jacob Beer composed music. 
 
 It is said that young Jacob showed musical tendencies at 
 the very early age of four years. We do not lay too much 
 stress upon this. All infants are wonders, more or less, in 
 the eyes of the home circle, and record of their precocity is 
 duly made for the benefit of a posterity which shall have 
 learned to admire their developed greatness. Let it stand, 
 however, that the baby Beer picked out upon the pianoforte 
 tunes he had invented or heard in the street, accompanying 
 them with such harmony as instinct prompted him to make. 
 Father Beer—unlike his fellow Hebrew, Father Mendelssohn, 
 sixteen or seventeen years later—was pleased to note in his 
 little son such signs of a true vocation, and straightway put 
 the child under one Lauska, a pupil of Clementi, and a 
 favourite teacher in the Prussian capital. Under his care 
 the little fellow soon developed into a prodigy. All his 
 friends, being sensible people, were proud of him, and one, 
 Meyer (or Mayer), went so far as to leave him a considerable 
 fortune on condition that he assumed the benefactor’s name. 
 In consequence of this Jacob Beer became Jacob Meyer 
 Beer—afterwards Italianised and consolidated into Giacomo 
 Meyerbeer. 
 
 It may be that the pride of the Beers in their young scion 
 was greater than the wisdom that regulated it, even than the 
 wisdom of the good mother who must have consented to the 
 
HIS LIFE, 
 
 3 
 
 public appearance of her boy when he was onl}^ in his 
 seventh year. One is reminded of baby Mozart by the 
 apparition on a public platform of this little Hebrew, at a 
 time when he should have been in the nursery eating bread 
 and butter and generally building up a sound fleshly temple 
 for the spirit that was in him. Genius, however, must not 
 be submitted to ordinary rules, and so probably thought the 
 Beers as they decked out little Jacob for the show. The 
 child played at a concert given on October 14, 1800, and 
 obtained the honour of a flattering press notice. What did 
 he play ? Only the D minor Concerto of Mozart! At any 
 rate, so declare his biographers, and those who doubt may 
 consult the contemporary journals for satisfaction. Young 
 Meyerbeer appeared again in December, 1803, and January, 
 1804, by which time he had become famous, and was spoken 
 of as one among the best pianists in Germany. His exe¬ 
 cution was facile and correct, his style elegant, his grasp of 
 the work set before him firm and comprehensive to a 
 marvellous degree considering his age, and he could im¬ 
 provise with rare power, although, as he had never taken 
 lessons in harmony, his progressions were not always correct. 
 Owing to his growing repute, little Jacob came under the 
 eye of two remarkable men at this period. Abbe Vogler 
 saw and heard him, and prophesied for the youthful Israelite 
 a brilliant career, while Clementi was so struck that, despite 
 an aversion to teaching, he gave him lessons during the 
 whole of his stay in Berlin. All this the Beers noted and 
 were glad of their first born. ‘‘The Lord hath blessed 
 him,” said the fond mother. 
 
 Meyerbeer was about twelve years old when his parents 
 placed him under a master for harmony and composition. 
 Some biographers tell us^' that he was first sent to Zelter, 
 “ whose rigid severity was insupportable to the young pro¬ 
 digy.” This statement, however, derives no authority from 
 Fetis or Blaze de Bury, who assert that Bernard Weber 
 first took young Jacob in hand. Weber—who must not be 
 confounded with Carl Maria’s friend, Gottfried of that ilk— 
 had a high position in Berlin, where, indeed, he reigned as 
 chef d'orchestre at the Opera. He was a pupil of Abbe 
 Vogler, but, according to Fetis, did that eminent contra¬ 
 puntist little credit. The authority just named states that, 
 while able to enlighten his pupils in matters of taste and 
 * See article “ Meyerbeer” in Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians. 
 
4 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 style, Weber was a weak harmonist, and so far unacquainted 
 with the different kinds of counterpoint and fugue as to be a 
 very incompetent teacher. In these matters Meyerbeer tried 
 to teach himself, and out of this arises a story, which we may 
 allow Fetis to tell;— 
 
 One day he (Meyerbeer) brought a fugue to his teacher, and 
 Weber was so struck that, proclaiming it a masterpiece, he sent 
 it off to Vogler, as a proof that he also could turn out learned 
 pupils. For some time there was no reply, but at length came a 
 voluminous packet which was opened with ardour. O doleful 
 surprise ! instead of the hoped-for praises was found a kind of 
 treatise on fugue, written by Vogler, and divided into three parts. 
 The first part succinctly laid down the rules for the construction 
 of a fugue ; the second, entitled “ The Pupil’s Fugue,” contained 
 that of Meyerbeer, analysed in full and proved to be anything but 
 good. The third part, called “The Master’s Fugue,” contained one 
 by Vogler himself on the theme and counter-subjects of Meyer¬ 
 beer. It was also analysed, bar by bar, the master setting forth 
 reasons why he had adopted such and such a form and no other. 
 
 In this elaborate manner did the Abbe abate the pride of 
 his ex-pupil—no doubt deriving a grim satisfaction from the 
 process. As to whether he was right or wrong, connoisseurs 
 can judge for themselves, the paper having been published 
 as a “ System fiir den Fugenbau.” In any case, it had a 
 great effect upon Meyerbeer. The scales fell from his eyes, 
 and he saw what Bernard Weber had never been able to 
 make clear. At once the lad set about composing a fugue 
 in eight parts. This he himself sent to the Abbe, who wrote 
 back: “ There is a great future for you in art. Come to me, 
 come to Darmstadt; I will receive you as a son, and will 
 cause you to drink from the fountains of musical knowledge.” 
 There was no more question of Bernard Weber after this. 
 The boy set his heart upon going to Vogler, and his indulgent 
 parents were not long in granting his prayer. Jacob was 
 fifteen when he went to Darmstadt. 
 
 Abb6 Vogler was a curious individual. He had in his 
 nature more than a little of the charlatan ; he was vain to 
 excess, and subordinated the better part of himself to the 
 unworthy object of making a figure in the eyes of the world. 
 Educated by the Jesuits, he knew how to touch the weak 
 points of those whom he wished to turn to account; he 
 imposed upon the imagination by studied eccentricities, and 
 trusted as much in tricks and dodges as in his undoubted 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 5 
 
 musical talent. Briefly, Vogler was a “ bit of a humbug.” 
 Till the Darmstadt period he had led a wandering life; 
 turning up unexpectedly in the great European capitals, 
 getting pupils round him (for he was a born teacher), and 
 then suddenly vanishing—all for the purpose of exciting 
 wonder and making talk. Vogler thus became a famous 
 personage, and as such was much desired by Ludwig of 
 Hesse, whom, fate had made a Grand Duke but nature a 
 Capellmeister. Ludwig’s Court was nothing if not musical, 
 since every official and his family were obliged to play or 
 sing, while his Highness himself acted as teacher and con¬ 
 ductor. Naturally, Grand Duke Ludwig cast a covetous 
 eye upon Abbe Vogler, who, once caught and secured, would 
 make Darmstadt “ like a city set upon a hill.” The 
 Abbe was not unwilling to be caught for a consideration, 
 and, a bargain concluded, he went to reside in the Grand 
 Ducal capital, with the title of Privy Councillor, the grand 
 cross of the Hessian order, a handsome pension, a good 
 house, dinners and suppers from the Palace kitchen, and 
 four wax candles a day. All these fine things consoled him 
 for being, in a musical sense, kept at a distance by the 
 Grand Duke. His Highness rejoiced to have Vogler attached 
 to his Court, but wanted none of his advice, and went on 
 drilling his artistic forces and conducting at the Opera in his 
 own way. Meanwhile the Abbe was an imposing presence 
 in the streets of Darmstadt. Baron Max von Weber writes :— 
 
 His appearance was not prepossessing, however. The old 
 Abbe was short and corpulent; his features were strongly marked, 
 but of no very friendly expression. His peculiarly long arms 
 and enormous hands, which enabled him to stretch with ease two 
 octaves on the organ, gave him somewhat the aspect of a large 
 fat ape. Vanity was one of his ruling passions, and, vainer now 
 than ever, he delighted to exhibit himself in all the elegance of 
 black satin breeches, red silk stockings, and gold buckles in his 
 shoes, with the great cross of the Order of Ludwig on the left 
 breast of his rich broad black coat, and his black silk ecclesiastical 
 mantle jauntily hung over his right shoulder. 
 
 Such was the man to whom young Meyerbeer went as pupil 
 to master. 
 
 Through Max von Weber we get a good view of Jacob as 
 he was on entering Abbe Vogler’s school:— 
 
 In the Abbe’s house Carl Maria (von Weber) was destined, 
 moreover, to make acquaintance with another young musical 
 
6 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 genius as yet unknown to him. This was Jacob Mayer Beer 
 (more generally known under the name of Mayerbeer), the son of 
 a rich banker in Berlin. Mayerbeer was then scarcely sixteen 
 years of age, but his eminent musical talents had developed 
 themselves so early that he already possessed a very consider¬ 
 able reputation as a pianist. He was now studying music under 
 the Abbe Vogler, in whose house, for the better furtherance of his 
 labours, he was lodged and boarded. His master was enchanted 
 with his unwearying industry and zeal, his restless activity, and 
 his almost incredible quickness of conception, which, in all the 
 technical portion of the science, seemed to amount to divina¬ 
 tion. Although but a boy as yet, he possessed such powers of 
 execution on the piano that he might already have earned a 
 handsome independence as a professional performer had not 
 fortune raised him above any such necessity. He was able to 
 play the most elaborate instrumental scores at sight, with a full 
 mastery of every part, which amounted to the marvellous, and 
 this peculiar talent he was accustomed to exercise upon the 
 principal scores of all the great masters, which he was fortunate 
 enough to possess, bound with care, in his great musical library, 
 to the envy and to the great benefit also of his young fellow- 
 labourers. So untiring was his industry that, for weeks together, 
 he would never leave his room or put off his dressing gown, when 
 fascinated by some new branch of musical study. His four-part 
 “ Sacred Songs of Klopstock ” had already been published, and 
 had entitled him to respect as a composer. Such was the in¬ 
 significant looking boy-artist, Mayerbeer, at this period. His 
 amiable and friendly disposition soon attracted him to the young, 
 joyous, animated, high-spirited, “sucking” maestro, who had 
 dashed over from Mannheim, although his colder and miore 
 reserved North German nature was never able to express that 
 warmth and more demonstrative affection which had bound Carl 
 Maria’s expansive heart to such friends as Gansbacher. 
 
 The musician just named—the dear and life-long friend of 
 the composer of ‘‘ Der Freischiitz”—was also studying under 
 Vogler at this time, so that young Meyerbeer had com¬ 
 panions of his own age in his new home, which seems, 
 indeed, to have been a happy one. Vogler’s system of 
 teaching was highly stimulative in character, its main 
 features being severe critical attacks upon every exercise, the 
 author of which had to defend it as best he could, and was, 
 therefore, most unlikely to put anything down without 
 thought as to how he would meet the demand for a reason. 
 Regularly, after morning mass, the Abbe met his pupils to 
 give them an oral lesson in counterpoint; and then he 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 7 
 
 announced a theme or themes for development in one or 
 other of the musical forms. Later in the day these exercises 
 were taken one by one and severely analysed by the master, 
 who also required the pupils to do the same. Then, perhaps, 
 Vogler and the boys would sally forth to the cathedral, 
 where were two organs, at each of which a pupil was placed 
 with orders to improvise in turn against the other on some 
 given theme, the old Abbe, who was accounted the best 
 organist in Germany, winding up with an effusion of his 
 own. Weber used to say in after years that— 
 
 Never did the Abbe pour forth such wondrous angel-tones or 
 thunder peals on the instrument, in such rich beauties of fancy, 
 as when he thus sat and played alone for his “ three dear boys.” 
 
 Life at Darmstadt was not all hard work, though the lads 
 had to make play for themselves. The Grand Ducal capital 
 was a very severe and formal place at that time, and terribly 
 dull. “ I only take up my goose-quill,” writes Weber in 
 one of his letters, ‘‘ to tell you in the dullest words, how dull 
 I feel in this dull Darmstadt.” Nevertheless, Vogler’s boys 
 contrived a good deal of fun, for, thank heaven, youth will 
 be served.” Sometimes they would enter a beer garden, 
 where Weber, standing on a table and twanging his guitar, 
 would sing “ roguish songs,” to the huge delight of the 
 public. Anon they would go out “ melody hunting ”— 
 picking up snatches of popular tunes for the purpose of ex¬ 
 panding and beautifying them. To this, it is said, we owe 
 the theme of Weber’s “ Invitation a la Valse.” Or they 
 would sit on a public bench and eat cherries for a wager, or 
 take Mam’selle, Weber’s dog, with them, and call the 
 creature’s name whenever a young lady passed, to enjoy 
 seeing her look enquiringly round. Occasionally the lads 
 would go to Heidelberg or Mannheim and drink more wine 
 than was good for them. Merry parties they had in the two 
 old towns, a special feature always being the improvisation 
 of Meyerbeer and Weber on two pianofortes, one taking up 
 the other in the middle of a passge or interrupting his 
 cadences with incongruous matter. This fun over, the 
 entire company would fall upon Meyerbeer’s Berlin delicacies 
 (Father Beer kept his son well supplied with hampers of 
 good things) and often young Jacob found it difficult to get a 
 scrap for himself. 
 
 In such manner young Jacob passed two happy years, for, 
 
8 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 with all his faults of taste and temper, the old Abbe secured 
 the love of his pupils, by whom he was invariably called 
 Papa. On one occasion the lads resolved to do their 
 master’s birthday special honour by jointly composing an 
 ode. Weber acted as poet, a distinction for which lots were 
 drawn, and also wrote a part of the music, the rest being 
 done by Meyerbeer and Gansbacher—the share of the former 
 being a terzet and chorus, of which we read, ‘‘ Nothing, 
 even at that time, could exceed the glow and simple fervour 
 of the boy Meyerbeer’s birthday composition.” Amateur 
 performers, among them Jacob’s sister, Theresa, were easily 
 obtained in the town, and on the morning of the day, Vogler 
 being busy at the Opera rehearsing his Samori,” his 
 apartments were decorated by the three pupils, and a 
 banquet prepared. By and by the old Abbe returned home 
 to be astonished at the aspect of things—at the music and 
 the feasting, the lights and the flowers. Unhappily he was 
 out of temper. The Grand Duke had taken no notice of the 
 event, and the old man’s vanity, deeply wounded, would not 
 permit him to be gracious even to the loving attentions of 
 his “ dear boys.” 
 
 The Grand Duke’s slight upon Vogler may have -had 
 something to do with reviving the master’s wandering spirit, 
 but from whatever cause his restlessness increased. He 
 desired once more to roam from city to city, and have the 
 fire of his vanity fed by new admirers. But he would take 
 his boys with him, and enlarge their experience of men and 
 things, while continuing to watch over their musical 
 development. The boys were naturally charmed with the 
 idea, and in due time the little party left dull old Darmstadt 
 for the comparatively reckless gaiety of Leipsic and Munich. 
 But before quitting the Grand Ducal capital, young Meyer¬ 
 beer produced a work and gained a distinction, the one being 
 an oratorio entitled “God and Nature” (the manuscript 
 score may be seen in the Conservatoire Library, Prague), 
 the other the title of Court Composer. “ God and Nature,” 
 let it be added here, was performed in Berlin, May 8, i8ii, 
 “ at a concert given by Weber,” says Fetis, but this Weber 
 could not have been Carl Maria, who was then living in 
 Munich. Carl Maria, however, had something to do with 
 the oratorio, since he wrote a detailed criticism, or rather 
 eulogy, afterwards pronounced by his son, Baron Max, to 
 be “ a sacrifice of truth to friendship.” 
 
HIS LIFE, 
 
 9 
 
 Meyerbeer appears to have left Vogler at the close of their 
 tour, and we next find him in Munich, where, at the age of 
 eighteen, he produced a Biblical lyric drama, “ The 
 Daughter of Jephtha.” The work was a failure, for reasons 
 perfectly intelligible. Vogler’s teaching had aimed at 
 nothing more than scholastic perfection. It sought to make 
 the pupil conversant with all the technical devices and 
 operations of the art, but there was little culture of the 
 imagination or of the power of dramatic expression. Hence 
 “The Daughter of Jephtha” more resembled a series of 
 exercises than an exposition of human feeling. It was, 
 therefore, rejected by the public, and Meyerbeer received his 
 first check. Authorities differ about his next work. Accord¬ 
 ing to the writer of the article “ Meyerbeer ” in Grove’s 
 Dictionary, our young master composed and produced at 
 Munich a comic opera, “ Alimelek, or the Caliphs,” which 
 made no success in the Bavarian capital, but was bespoken 
 and put in rehearsal by the manager of the Karnthnerthor 
 Theatre, Vienna, a circumstance which drew Meyerbeer to 
 the Kaiserstadt. This statement seems scarcely probable, 
 or else the Vienna manager was an exception to the general 
 run of his kind. Indeed, the writer observes in his next 
 sentence that Meyerbeer went to Vienna “with the intention 
 of making his appearance there as a pianist.” Fetis says 
 nothing about “Alimelek” at Munich, nor does Blaze de 
 Piury, while in Max von Weber’s memoir of his father, the 
 opera is spoken of as “ given in Vienna under the title 
 of ‘ The Two Caliphs.’ ” When Fetis does mention 
 “ Alimelek”—by the way, he calls it “ Abimelek ”—it is to 
 tell us that the work was written to order in Vienna, con¬ 
 sequent upon the success of a monodrame, entitled “ The 
 Loves of Theclinda,” sung by Mdlle. Harlas. The truth, 
 no doubt, is that Meyerbeer went to Vienna as a pianist, 
 and not as a composer. At that time (1813) the Austrian 
 capital was the headquarters of music. There alone could 
 supreme distinction be gained, and all who were ambitious 
 of it had to challenge the judgment of a public educated up 
 to the highest point. Meyerbeer soon saw that, able player 
 as he was, no immediate hope existed for him. On the very 
 evening of his arrival in the city he heard Hummel play 
 with the facility, exquisite finesse, and subtle charm that dis¬ 
 tinguished him. At once Meyerbeer formed a resolution. 
 He would go into strict training and not show himself in 
 
lO 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 public till he could meet Hummel on his own ground. For 
 ten months the young man persevered in carrying out this 
 resolve, and then he challenged public judgment with strik¬ 
 ing success. Among those who heard him was Moscheles, 
 who told Fetis that had Meyerbeer chosen to rely upon his 
 talents as a virtuoso, few pianists would have stood a chance 
 of successful rivalry. At this time the lad, for he was little 
 more, composed a great many pianoforte pieces, some of 
 which he committed to paper, but kept most of them in his 
 memory only. Among his works at the early period under 
 notice was also a symphony concertante for violin, piano, 
 and orchestra. 
 
 Meyerbeer left Vienna under circumstances not unlike 
 those which caused his departure from Munich. His 
 “ Abimelek ” or “ Alimelek,” or “The Two Caliphs,” was 
 too old-fashioned and German for a public that had tasted 
 the Italian music of Rossini, and it failed completely. 
 The composer took his second check much to heart, but 
 found a friend and comforter in Salieri, who had quite 
 a fancy for the young Jew. Salieri’s advice was the 
 best possible for one who desired to succeed, and had 
 no rigid musical principles as a preventive of elasticity 
 in action. “ You have learning enough,” said Meyerbeer’s 
 counsellor; “ Go to Italy and study how to write melodies 
 for the voice. You possess the gift of tune, but do not 
 know the instrument through which the theme finds ex¬ 
 pression. Learn it ! ” “I will,” answered Meyerbeer, and 
 he did. 
 
 It was in 1815 that Meyerbeer, acting on the advice of. 
 Salieri, went to Italy for the purpose of learning how to 
 write for the voice. But before entering upon this second 
 phase of his career, it may be well to cite the opinion of Carl 
 Maria von Weber with regard to some of the work done in 
 his first. We have already stated that Weber, who handled 
 the pen of a critic as well as of a composer, wrote in assertion 
 of his old fellow-student’s claims. He did this especially as 
 regards “ Alimelek,” and an article on that opera bearing his 
 signature may be found in the Musikalische Zeitung, of Leipsic, 
 for November 3, 1815. The Musikalische Zeitung, at that 
 time edited by Rochlitx, had not, in Weber’s opinion, done 
 justice to Meyerbeer, and against this fact the future com¬ 
 poser of “ Der Freischtitz ” lifted up his testimony. After 
 some sharp invective against his countrymen, who, with all 
 
their pretended patriotism, neglected native talent, Weber 
 said:— 
 
 Mr. Meyerbeer has hitherto acquired fame only as a great 
 pianoforte player, while but little justice has been done to him as 
 a composer. The great works by which he has proved his genius 
 —the operas “Jephtha,” performed in Munich, and “ Alimelek,” 
 produced at Stuttgard and often at Prague, and his grand oratorio 
 “ God and Nature ” have either been passed over in silence, or 
 mentioned in terms of doubtful praise. ... It is truly melancholy 
 that a composer should be so often at the mercy of individuals 
 whom either mere .chance or the vanity of seeing themselves in 
 print, or even hunger, has made the heralds and proclaimers of 
 public opinion. How often is their judgment influenced by 
 illiberal selfish motives. . . . The unity and keeping of the whole 
 opera (“ Alimelek ”) is an advantage that few compositions like 
 this possess. In addition to which, how many proofs of a devoted 
 study of the art—what a beautiful combination of original 
 melodies, in various forms, each preserving a character peculiar 
 to itself! No prolixity in the work, all dramatically true, all full 
 of lively imagination, of lovely and frequently luxurious airs. 
 The declamatory part always correct, with an abundance of rich 
 and new harmonies. A judicious use of the orchestra, often so 
 combined as to produce the most striking effects. Such is this 
 opera, from which I could easily select specimens to prove all 
 that I have said if experience had not taught me that such 
 passages when detached cease to be what they are in union, and 
 therefore incapable of producing conviction. 
 
 Meyerbeer may have felt that he deserved these high 
 encomiums, but, as we have seen, he willingly lent an ear 
 to those who counselled a step certain to revolutionise his 
 method. Already the composer had no artistic principle. 
 Dazzled by the splendour of Rossini’s fame, he would become 
 an Italian likewise, drink from the same fountain of tune, 
 and set ail the heads in Europe nodding to the measure of 
 his rhythms. It was the end he regarded, not the means; 
 and the adaptability of his race, so fiercely inveighed against 
 by Wagner, made him not only willing to take any course, 
 but able to take it with success. The situation becomes 
 more accentuated when we recollect that, up to this time, 
 Meyerbeer had been a strong opponent of Italian music, as 
 represented by Nicolini, Pavesi, and others. Like most 
 German musicians, he fretted against the preference shown 
 to Italians at the multitudinous German courts, and had, 
 therefore, a personal grievance wherewith to strengthen his 
 
12 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 artistic dislike. Yet, spite of all, he went to Italy resolved 
 to start along the flowery path of Italian opera towards the 
 goal of fame. He could not have done so at a more pro¬ 
 pitious moment. On reaching Venice, he found the public 
 wild with delight over Rossini’s “ II Tancredi,” which had 
 just appeared to assert the existence of a new and brilliant 
 genius, whose music was living music, not dry and soulless 
 strains. “ II Tancredi ” at once converted Meyerbeer, if 
 indeed there could be involved in the case any such thing as 
 real conversion. He saw his course marked out, and, just 
 as at Vienna, he shut himself up to work hard and rival 
 Hummel at the pianoforte, so now, with German patience 
 and Jewish pliability he laboured unceasingly to follow, and, 
 if haply he may, catch up Rossini. Meyerbeer was in no 
 hurry to make an Italian dehut. Calculating, rather than 
 enthusiastic, he could resist the promptings of impulse and 
 eagerness. All the chances of success and failure were de¬ 
 liberately counted and weighed with the closest reference to 
 his own judgment of himself, and hence it came to pass that 
 his first Italian opera, “'Romilda e Costanza,” was not 
 played till i8i8. The Paduans, in whose city this event 
 took place, gave the work a cordial reception, “ not only,” 
 remarks Fetis, “ because of the music and the talent of the 
 prima donna (Pisaroni), but because Meyerbeer was con¬ 
 sidered by them as belonging to their own school, in his 
 quality as a pupil of Vogler, himself the pupil of Valotti.” 
 “ Semiramide riconosciuta,” produced at Turin in 1819, 
 followed, and after it came (Venice, 1820) “Emma di 
 Resburgo,” which at once established the master’s reputa¬ 
 tion.* This opera soon travelled to Germany, where it pro¬ 
 claimed the composer’s apostacy, and excited a storm of 
 angry criticism. No wonder! German opera, thanks to 
 Weber, whose strong nationality kept him intensely German, 
 was lifting its head, and stirring up expectation. Every 
 young composer had upon him the eyes of the people, look¬ 
 ing to see that he did his duty, and loud was the outcry when 
 
 * The writer of the article “ Meyerbeer ” in Grove’s Dictionary of Music 
 has made a curious mistake here. He seems to have consulted Fetis, and 
 there read: “ En 1820, ‘ Emma di Resburgo,’ autre partition de Meyerbeer, fut 
 jouee a Venise et y obtint un succes d’enthousiasme, peu de mois apres que 
 Rossini y eut donne ‘Eduardo e Cristina.’” But he read it so carelessly as 
 himself to write: “‘Eduardo e Cristina’ and ‘Emma di Resburgo’ (Venice, 
 1820) were all received with enthusiasm by the Italian people,” &c., as though 
 Meyerbeer had composed both. 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 13 
 
 “Emma di Resburgo” showed on every page that Meyerbeer, 
 whose German virtues Weber so loudly proclaimed, had 
 gone over to the enemy. Weber himself shared this feeling 
 to the fullest extent. He had failed to comprehend Rossini, 
 just as, by the way, he failed to comprehend Beethoven, and 
 waged against him and his school a bitter war which was, 
 perhaps, as much national as artistic. One can easily 
 imagine, therefore, his disgust at seeing a Rossinian in the 
 German composer of whose talents he had warmly expressed 
 a profound admiration. To such a heat did the feeling of 
 resentment rise that it boiled over on to the pages of the 
 Dresden Gazette, where we find an angry and protesting 
 article. But the personal friendship of the two men remained 
 unaffected, and evidence of this may be discovered in Weber’s 
 letters, from which we make a single extract:— 
 
 On Friday last I had a great pleasure—Meyerbeer came and 
 passed a whole day with me. ... It was really a day of happi¬ 
 ness—a souvenir of the happy time we spent together at Mann¬ 
 heim. We did not separate till far into the night. Meyerbeer 
 goes to Trieste to produce his “ II Crociato,” and means to return 
 to Berlin in a year to write a real German opera. Heaven grant 
 that he keeps his word. As for me, I have talked to him con¬ 
 scientiously. 
 
 Weber did more than talk. As a practical protest against 
 his friend’s desertion to the enemy, he put Meyerbeer’s opera, 
 the “ Two Caliphs,” on the Dresden stage, under the name 
 of “ Wirth und Gast,” intending thus to show that he had 
 not praised his friend without cause, as well as to declare 
 the road in which that friend should walk. 
 
 It would serve little purpose to dwell minutely upon 
 Meyerbeer in Italy. This was not the true Meyerbeer, any 
 more than the grub is the butterfly. Let us, therefore, 
 simply record that “ Emma di Resburgo ” was followed by 
 “Margarita d’Anjou,” that by “L’Esule di Granata” (1822), 
 and that by “ Almansar.” In 1823, Meyerbeer’s health not 
 being good, he went to Berlin for a change, and there wrote 
 a German opera, “The Brandenburg Gate,” intended, it is 
 said, for the theatre at Koenigstadt, but never performed. 
 It was this visit to his native city which brought about the 
 pleasant intercourse with Weber, spoken of in the extract 
 already given from the master’s letters. At this time, also, 
 he completed his “II Crociato”—a work produced, not at 
 Trieste, but at Venice (1824), where it was received with 
 
GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 
 acclamation, the composer being presented with a laurel 
 crown on the stage. So ended, with all honour, the master’s 
 Italian career, for he composed no more operas in the 
 language of Rossini. 
 
 The works produced during this phase of Meyerbeer’s 
 career were not successes merely on the spot, though even 
 such a limited result would have been creditable when 
 Rossini was everywhere worshipped as a god. It says much 
 that, against so powerful a rival, the young Berliner obtained 
 a hearing at all. He did far more than obtain a hearing. 
 For example, “ Emma di Resburgo ” was played at Venice, 
 Milan, Genoa, Florence, and Padua, while, as “ Emma von 
 Leicester,” it appeared in Vienna, Munich, and Dresden, 
 and, as “ Emma di Roxburg,” at Berlin and Stuttgart. 
 “ Margarita d’Anjou ” was performed in Italian at Milan, 
 Venice, Bologna, Turin, Florence, and Trieste ; in German, 
 at Munich and Dresden; in French, at Paris and several 
 provincial towns of France ; and, in English and Italian, at 
 London. Triumphs of this kind were surely enough for 
 satisfaction, and Meyerbeer could not have been led by 
 failure to abandon Italian opera. How then came he to 
 abandon it ? Probably through artistic dissatisfaction with 
 results, which, if brilliant, were superficial; through the 
 force of early training and dread of the opinion formed of 
 him in Germany. Be this as it may, his last Italian work, 
 
 II Crociato,” shows a marked disposition to return to the 
 German manner. On this subject Fetis observes :—■ 
 
 If one examines the score of “ II Crociato ” with care, unequi¬ 
 vocal signs appear of a reaction in the method of the composer 
 and of an attempt to fuse his primitive tendencies with the Italian 
 method of “ Emma di Resburgo ” and “ Margarita d’Anjou.” 
 
 The fact was noticed immediately on the production of 
 the opera. Thus a correspondent of the Harmonicon (VoL L, 
 p. i6o) wrote, after referring to the success of the piece :— 
 
 Yet envy and many a mortified maestro did their utmost to rob 
 the German composer of his triumph. Such is the order of the 
 day, but letters of impartial connoisseurs received from Venice 
 and other quarters cannot sufficiently praise the music of this 
 opera, which is of that profound and solid kind which at present 
 seems confined almost exclusively to Germany. 
 
 Another correspondent of the same journal (Vol. HI., p. 2), 
 writing from Florence after “II Crociato ” had been produced 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 15 
 
 there, enters fully into the merits of the work, pronouncing 
 it a “ happy amalgamation of the music of the German and 
 Italian schools, full of well-digested and profound harmonies, 
 blended with a spirited and expressive melody.” But more 
 is gathered from this contemporary writer. We learn, for 
 instance, that Meyerbeer’s peculiar individuality so asserted 
 itself as to obtain notice and excite comment:— 
 
 It is true that in Meyerbeer’s music we sometimes meet with 
 uncommon phrases, which will not at once be either relished or 
 understood, but when heard often they enchant by their novelty 
 and beauty, and strongly rivet the attention. It must be acknow¬ 
 ledged by all that the compositions of this master not only please 
 the ear, but also express a language that speaks directly to the 
 heart. His music may be compared to some of those grave¬ 
 looking persons who alarm us on a first introduction, but upon 
 closer acquaintance charm us by the suavity of their manners, 
 and the elegance of their conversation. One fault we may be 
 permitted to find with this composer, but it is a “ happy one,” 
 as Quintillian calls it, and this is a redundancy of genius. If he 
 possessed self-denial enough to retrench these exuberances, if he 
 would bear constantly in mind that great law, ne quid nimis, his 
 music might approach rapidly to perfection. 
 
 These extracts amply suffice to show the significance of 
 ‘‘ II Crociato,” as the first work which gave a definite intima¬ 
 tion of what its composer was destined to become. 
 
 “ II Crociato ” not only foreshadowed Meyerbeer’s ripened 
 method, but had a remarkable influence upon his future 
 career. The work was played in Paris in 1826, and the 
 composer travelled to the French capital for the purpose of 
 supervising the production. He little suspected, perhaps, 
 the importance of that journey. It determined him as a 
 writer for the French stage. 
 
 On reaching Paris Meyerbeer installed himself at the 
 Hotel Bristol, and at once entered into the full enjoyment of 
 Lutetian life. M. Blaze de Bury says:— 
 
 One saw him everywhere, at the theatre, in society, at the 
 quartet evenings given in the Pillet-Will mansion, where Baillot 
 had so much trouble then in gathering thirty people to hear the 
 masterpieces of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. . . . Meyerbeer 
 was soon on terms with all that music, the fine arts, letters, and 
 society had of notabilities. He was full of respectful deference 
 for the famous veterans of the Conservatoire; simple and cordial 
 , towards the celebrated men of his own generation; affable and 
 encouraging towards talent still obscure. 
 
i6 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 With Rossini he soon established close relations. The 
 composer of “ II Barbiere ” recognised all the talent of the 
 German master, and had no jealousy. To his honour be it 
 said that Rossini kept free from that very professional 
 meanness, as he did from ill-natured resentment. Who can 
 forget his remark to Weber when the master approached 
 him “ delicately ” (as Agag approached Samuel), with an 
 uncomfortable recollection of how he had lampooned and 
 burlesqued him. “ Not a word more,” exclaimed Rossini, 
 replying to Weber’s muttered excuses, “ the polisson who 
 wrote ‘ Tancredi ’ ought to think himself too happy that 
 such a man as you made him the subject of your pen.” 
 There was Rossinian sarcasm here, undoubtedly, but so 
 happily veiled that Weber, who saw no more in it than he 
 wished to see, was put quite at his ease. 
 
 “ II Crociato” was set before the Parisians in due course, 
 and in the best manner, with the aid of Pasta, Mombelli, 
 Donzelli, and Levasseur, but it had no special success, and 
 was no more than well received. Here, in parenthesis, let 
 us show out of what conflicting elements the historian has 
 to evolve truth. M. Fetis writes in his ‘‘ Biographic 
 Universelle ”:— 
 
 “ II Crociato” did not obtain in Paris the enthusiastic success 
 it gained at Venice, Rome, Milan, Turin, and all over Italy, nor 
 even such as it won later in Spain, at Lisbon, and at London, as 
 well as in Germany. Circumstances were unfavourable. Paris 
 does not divide its crowns, which fall upon a single head. In 
 1826 the frequenters of the Theatre Italien did not believe that 
 any other composer than Rossini was possible. 
 
 On the other hand, M. Blaze de Bury, after a panegyric 
 on Paris as the supreme arbiter of fame, says :— 
 
 “ II Crociato ” was produced under the most powerful auspices 
 . . . its success bore the aspect of a triumph. At that time 
 there was enthusiasm for all masterpieces, and laurels for all glory. 
 
 We elect to believe Fetis, who wrote as a contemporary 
 of the event, and whose testimony accords with the estab¬ 
 lished fact that when “ II Crociato ” was produced in Paris, 
 Rossini had the ear of the public to an extraordinary degree 
 —had, in fact, a virtual monopoly of that organ. 
 
 After his French dehut, Meyerbeer kept silence for four 
 years. Endowed with ample fortune, no need existed to 
 work for bread, and he now seems to have bethought him of 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 17 
 
 social duties, and intimate family pleasures. In 1827 he 
 took to himself a wife, and two children were quickly born 
 to him—born only to die in babyhood. Meyerbeer keenly 
 felt the loss of these infants, so brooding over the heavy 
 affliction as to bring on a serious illness, from which he 
 recovered with difficulty. Much of the artistic interregnum, 
 we have good reason to suppose, was really spent in maturing 
 the method and style that astonished the world in his next 
 work. In the quietness of his home, when home was not 
 the abode of overwhelming grief, the master worked out the 
 manner and direction of a new departure, which, whatever 
 its merits, gave him, for all time, a distinct and striking 
 individuality among composers of opera. The work just 
 referred to was “Robert le Diable ”—first of the great series 
 which ended with “ L’Africaine.” Written by Scribe and 
 Delavigne, the book of this opera has often been praised, on 
 the strength, perhaps, of its authors’ names; but more often 
 abused, as monstrous in conception, vulgarly sensational in 
 working out. As far as the detractors are right, Meyerbeer 
 should bear his meed of blame, since it is known that he 
 reigned supreme over his poets, never accepting in deference 
 to them what his judgment disapproved. In this very opera, 
 for example. Scribe wished to bring on a lot of sea-nymphs, 
 bearing golden oars, as the seductors of Robert. Meyerbeer 
 rejected the idea and proposed, with characteristic boldness, 
 the famous scene of the nuns. How bitterly this was 
 attacked no student of musical literature needs to be told, 
 while readers of Mendelssohn’s letters easily call to mind 
 his amusing description of the entire plot. Mendelssohn 
 was in Paris during the early run of “ Robert,” and refers to 
 the work as “ played every night with great success,” adding, 
 after a sketch of the story :— 
 
 I cannot imagine how any music could be composed on such 
 a cold, formal extravaganza as this, and .so the opera does not 
 satisfy me. It is throughout frigid and heartless, and where this 
 is the case no effect is produced on me. The people extol the 
 music, but where warmth and truth are wanting I have no test 
 to apply. 
 
 No considerations of the sort affected the Parisians, who 
 revelled in the spectacular effects without question as to 
 their reasonableness or propriety, and accepted all that 
 seemed doubtful for the sake of music which spoke a new 
 dialect of the universal language. 
 
 c 
 
i 8 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 It will be of interest to reproduce here that which Fetis 
 has said regarding Meyerbeer’s second transformation, as 
 revealed in “ Robert le Diable ” :— 
 
 A new man is shown in this work. It is no longer the German 
 Meyerbeer, the pupil of Vogler ; it is no longer he of Italy, 
 throwing violently off his scholastic habits in order to learn, by 
 imitation of Rossini, the art of using the voice and instrumental 
 colouring ; it is not even the fusion of the two styles in order to 
 attain varied effects; it is altogether a creation in which there 
 remains to the artist, of his earlier periods, only the experience 
 acquired by his labours. Six years of rest, or rather of study; 
 six years of meditation, observation, and analysis, had at last 
 co-ordinated and made into an original and powerful whole all 
 the energetic feeling that nature had infused into his soul, all 
 the novelty of idea born of audacity, all the elevation that the 
 philosophy of the art lent to his style, and all the certainty that 
 a practised mechanism gave to the effects which he desired to 
 produce. 
 
 A French critic (Felix Clement) adds to the foregoing 
 general and, in the main, correct remarks some more 
 definite observations of an instructive character. He says 
 (“ Dictionnaire Lyrique ”):— 
 
 Meyerbeer demonstrated in this work a powerful individuality 
 and indicated a new horizon. He has dramatised the harmonic 
 methods of the German school by a process which we can 
 indicate but briefly. The expression of personal character and 
 dramatic situation is in agreement. Its impression is more 
 concise, more immediate than in the melodic phrase, which can 
 only exert its influence after some bars. Enharmonic modulation 
 is the master’s most frequent resource in order to enter, without 
 preparation, into the moral sense of his subject. From this 
 manner of shaping the composition it follows that, wanting a 
 text, a title, a canvas, a definite situation, the music of Meyerbeer 
 does not interest, does not hold the attention so much as that of 
 composers who strive less to paint with energy, precision, and 
 all possible force the sentiments of humanity than to move the 
 soul by constantly charming the ear and by the feeling of rhythm. 
 For this reason the instrumental pieces of Meyerbeer are generally 
 short. The aestheticism of his art did not invite him to precede 
 his operas with developed overtures. His orchestration is admir¬ 
 able for science, resource, and dramatic intention, but it never 
 unbends. Sonority, variety of timbres, all incessantly contribute 
 to the effect. Let imitators of the master take care lest in 
 pushing his system too far without the support of eminent quali- 
 
HIS LIFE 
 
 19 
 
 ties, they act upon their audience in a manner more acoustical 
 than musical. 
 
 Whatever opinion may be expressed for and against the 
 new method of Meyerbeer, assuredly it pleased the taste of 
 a time when romanticism in art was asserting itself against 
 bondage to classicism, and that in Meyerbeer’s novel rhythms, 
 bewildering variety of effects, and highly coloured orches¬ 
 tration, they recognised an assertion of liberty which few 
 valued the less because here and there it bordered upon 
 license. 
 
 “ Robert le Diable ” was ready for representation in 1830, 
 but the confusion brought about by the Revolution of July 
 affected even the Grand Opera, which was no longer under 
 royal direction. The manager, left to himself, had to take 
 care of himself, and he stipulated for terms so hard upon the 
 composer that Meyerbeer declined to entertain them. By 
 November of the following year affairs had settled down, 
 and an arrangement to produce the work took effect without 
 further trouble. With it the most splendid period in the 
 history of the Academie Royale de Musique distinctly began, 
 much to the surprise of the manager, who had listened to 
 the sneers of the critics admitted to rehearsal. Fetis, who 
 was present, tells us :— 
 
 A multitude of the professional critics, without sufficient 
 knowledge of art, who abound in Paris more than anywhere else 
 . . . cut up the musician’s work in the gayest manner possible. 
 It was who should say the most jocular word, or make the most 
 grotesque and witty funeral oration over the score. They summed 
 up by declaring that the piece would not run ten nights. 
 
 The poor manager (Dr. Veron) hearing all this went to 
 Fetis and confided to him his doubts and fears. 
 
 “ Don’t trouble yourself,” said his friend, “ I have listened 
 attentively and feel sure I am not deceived. There are here 
 many more beauties than imperfections. The spectacle is taking, 
 the impression will be lively and profound. The work will rise 
 to the clouds and make the round of the world.” 
 
 The manager may have found some comfort in these 
 words, but yet more consoling were the ten thousand francs 
 which “ Robert ” brought to the treasury night after night. 
 The first performiance took place on November 21, 1831, 
 with the following cast: Alice, Mdlle. Dorus; Isabelle, 
 Madame Cinti-Damoreau; Raimbaut, M. Lafont; Robert, 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER : 
 
 M. Nourrit; Bertram, M. Levasseur. Success came, as we 
 have seen, promptly and in abundance, and without a day’s 
 delay. Meyerbeer’s first French opera began the march 
 round the world predicted for it by Fetis. 
 
 The splendid result of the new operatic mixture invented 
 by our master naturally led to an engagement for the pro¬ 
 duction of another work. He accepted from Scribe and 
 Emile Deschamps the book of ‘‘ Les Huguenots,” and 
 bound himself under a penalty of 30,000 francs to present 
 the score by a specified time. Already his fondness for 
 altering and re-altering, and for taking the minute precau¬ 
 tions which long kept “ L’Africaine ” from the public, had 
 become so far known that it was deemed wise to bind him 
 down. In this case, however, nothing availed against delay; 
 but the fault was not Meyerbeer’s. The composer’s wife, 
 suffering from an affection of the lungs, was ordered to 
 reside in Italy, and thither the master accompanied her in a 
 state of great anxiety. He begged for six months’ grace 
 under the painful circumstances, but the favour was refused, 
 upon which Meyerbeer paid the fine, and said to the manager, 
 “ Good-bye.” This at once brought the operatic potentate 
 to his knees. He approached Meyerbeer as a suppliant; 
 begging him to take the money back and let him have the 
 score as soon as possible. To this the composer agreed, 
 nothing loth to re-pocket his 30,000 francs, and “ Les 
 Huguenots” was first performed at the Academie Royale on 
 February 21, 1836. 
 
 In view of the splendid triumph which “ Les Huguenots” 
 secured for the composer of “ Robert le Diable,” attention 
 may fitly be drawn to some passages in a letter written by 
 Meyerbeer as far back as 1823. At that time the master 
 was following up his Italian successes, and, after his shrewd 
 manner, looking out for artists best able to further the end 
 he had in view. Thus he crossed the path of Levasseur, 
 who was himself “preluding” in Italy. Meyerbeer at once 
 discerned the French singer’s capacity, and the letter now in 
 question is chiefly taken up with remarks concerning a 
 prospective engagement. This disposed of, Meyerbeer goes 
 on to say :— 
 
 I am much flattered by that passage of your letter in which you 
 speak of the favourable opinion the Director of the French Opera 
 is good enough to entertain regarding my feeble talents. You 
 ask if writing for the French stage would have, for me, no 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 21 
 
 attractions. I assure you that I should more glory in the power 
 and honour of composing for the French Opera than for all the 
 Italian theatres—to the chief of which I have already given works. 
 Where, save in Paris, shall one find the immense resources which 
 the French Opera offers to an artist who desires to write really 
 dramatic music ? Here, one absolutely lacks operatic poems, 
 and the public care for only one kind of music. At Paris, there 
 are excellent poems, and I know that your public receive all kinds 
 of music without distinction, so long as genius presents them. 
 Hence, a field for the composer much vaster than in Italy. 
 Perhaps you ask why, if I think thus, I have not sought to write 
 for Paris. The fact is that I am told French opera is a difficult 
 field ; that one has usually to wait many years before a hearing 
 comes, and hence I am afraid. I must say, also, that I have 
 been drawn away from this point in Italy, where I am at present 
 much sought after ; although, I confess, this is more owing to the 
 excessive indulgence of the public than to my small talent. 
 
 These remarks are of interest, not only because they show 
 at what an early period Meyerbeer had in view the scene of 
 his greatest triumphs, but because they were addressed to 
 one of the artists who became closely identified with his 
 successes, and were written under circumstances pointing to 
 the careful way in which the master took precautions against 
 failure. His dread of fiasco was almost a monomania, and 
 we shall see by and by how many years he kept “ L’Africaine ” 
 in his desk because no artist satisfied the conditions of 
 executive efficiency imposed by great, if not exaggerated, 
 prudence. Meyerbeer was certainly most fortunate at the 
 Grand Opera in the matter of his interpreters. He could not 
 have been better suited had he bribed Nature and Art to do 
 their very best on his behalf. Habeneck presided in the 
 orchestra — Habeneck, the fortunate chief who produced 
 “ Le Comte Ory ” and ‘‘ Guillaume Tell ” for Rossini, 
 “ Masaniello ” for Auber, “ Robert ” and ‘‘ Les Huguenots ” 
 for Meyerbeer, and “ La Juive ” for Halevy. Upon the stage 
 were Mdlle. Falcon, Nourrit, and Levasseur; the trio of 
 whom Meyerbeer was wont to say, ‘‘we shall never see the 
 like again”; while in the Director the master found one 
 who appreciated his vast designs and spared neither cost 
 nor trouble to work them out. Never did an opera appear 
 under better auspices than “ Les Huguenots.” It was 
 “born in the purple,” and fate and circumstances stood 
 around its cradle wreathed in smiles. We need not refute 
 the idea that happy conditions alone explain its success. 
 
22 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 % 
 
 “ Les Huguenots” lives now, fifty years, or nearly, after its 
 production, but we who, with English eyes, witness it as 
 given on an Italian stage can form no notion of the charm it 
 had for Frenchmen in 1836. It satisfied their conception of 
 what an opera should be. Thoroughly eclectic, it combined 
 the variety of forms and effects which a German pur sang 
 would never seek, with the largeness of style and close 
 attention to detail such as an Italian would never give. 
 Then its grandiose character, its originality, pomp, and 
 passion, all shown with, so to speak, the limelight on them, 
 charmed a people whose genius for the theatre finds expres¬ 
 sion in all they do. 
 
 Naturally, the severer school of musicians objected to 
 Meyerbeer’s gorgeous, or, as they preferred to call them, 
 meretricious, creations, and some of its members carried 
 resentment to absurd lengths. We already know what 
 ^lendelssohn thought of his fellow Hebrew, but here comes 
 in an amusing anecdote narrated by Ferdinand Hiller—also 
 a Jew — 
 
 Mendelssohn was often told that he was very like the 
 composer of “ Robert,” and at first sight his figure and general 
 appearance did perhaps give some ground for the idea, especially 
 as they wore their hair in the same style. I sometimes teased 
 Mendelssohn about it, to his great annoyance, and at last one 
 morning he appeared with his hair absolutely cropt. The affair 
 excited much amusement in our set, especially when Meyerbeer 
 heard of it, but he took it with his usual invincible good nature 
 and in the nicest way. 
 
 Looking at Meyerbeer’s French development from a point 
 of view diametrically opposed to that taken up by the 
 classicists, Wagner professed to feel even a greater repulsion. 
 He attacked Meyerbeer, as everybody knows, with exceeding 
 bitterness—intensified, no doubt, by the fact of having 
 received favours at his hands—and it may be fitting to give 
 the substance of Wagner’s argument at this point. In 
 “ Operf^ und Drama,” the Bayreuth master declares the 
 secret of Meyerbeer’s music to be “effect”—using the 
 English word, not the German “ Wirkung,” because he takes 
 “effect” to mean “result without motive.” He distinctly 
 asserts that “ Meyerbeer’s music does, in fact, produce on 
 those who are able to enjoy it a result without a motive.” 
 The writer then continues, in language so involved that even 
 
 * Mendelssohn, Letters and Recollections, pp. 23-4. 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 23 
 
 an accomplished German scholar like Mr. J. V. Bridgeman 
 can hardly make it intelligible :— 
 
 This miracle was only possible for the most external kind of 
 music, that is to say, for a power of expression which (in opera) 
 has, from the earliest period, being endeavouring to render itself 
 more and more unworthy of expression, and proved that it had 
 fully attained this independence by debasing the subject of the 
 expression—which subject alone imparted to the latter being, 
 proportion, and justification—to such a depth of moral as well as 
 artistic nothingness that the subject itself could only obtain being, 
 proportion, and justification from an act of musical caprice, which 
 act had thus itself become denuded of all real expression. 
 
 The reader will hardly expect us to try and reduce to com¬ 
 prehensible terms this peculiarly Teutonic language. We 
 leave it, therefore, as a nut for him to crack at leisure, and 
 pass on to something more definite. In argument Wagner 
 is always wordy and obscure, but in invective and vitupera¬ 
 tion he can be clear enough. Thus, there is no mistaking 
 what he means below :— 
 
 Had I especially to characterise Meyerbeer’s capability and 
 vocation for dramatic composition, I should, out of regard for 
 truth, which I exert myself completely to discover, bring forward 
 most prominently a remarkable circumstance in his works. 
 There is such frightful hollowness, shallowness, and nullity dis¬ 
 played in Meyerbeer’s music that we feel inclined to set down his 
 specifically musical competency at zero—especially in comparison 
 with that of far the greater majority of contemporary composers. 
 The fact that, in spite of this, he has achieved such great success 
 with the operatic public of Europe must not fill us with astonish¬ 
 ment, for this marvel is very easily explained by a glance at the 
 said public, but purely artistic observation shall enchain and 
 teach us. 
 
 Wagner goes on to admit that in some places Meyerbeer 
 rises to “ the pinnacle of the most undeniable and greatest 
 artistic power.” Those moments depend upon the poet and 
 they come whenever— 
 
 the poet forgets his constrained consideration for the musician ; 
 wherever, in his course of dramatic compilation, he involuntarily 
 comes upon a moment when he can breathe in and again send 
 forth the free refreshing human air of life, he suddenl}/ wafts it as 
 a source of inspiration to the musician as well, and the latter, 
 who, after exhausting all the musical riches of his predecessors, 
 cannot give a single gasp more of real invention, is now enabled. 
 
24 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 all at once, to discover the richest, most noble, and most soul- 
 moving musical expression. 
 
 Here Wagner attacks Meyerbeer’s “ poetical private 
 secretary,” Scribe, rather than Meyerbeer himself, because, 
 it seems, Meyerbeer was capable of great things when the 
 poet gave him a chance. Wagner goes on to cite an example 
 which has, no doubt, already occurred to the reader’s 
 mind:— 
 
 I would especially call attention to several detached passages 
 in the well-known and painful love scene in the fourth act of the 
 “ Huguenots,” and, above all, to the invention of the wonderful 
 and moving melody in G flat major, with which, springing as it 
 does like a fragrant blossom from a situation that seizes on every 
 fibre of the human heart with delicious pain, only very few, and 
 only the most perfect portions of, musical works can be compared. 
 
 These words seem a handsome tribute to a brilliant and 
 moving masterpiece, and Wagner professes to offer it with 
 “ most sincere joy and real enthusiasm.” But he soon 
 dissipates all the grace of his expressions by pointing out 
 that Meyerbeer’s success in the “ Huguenots ” duet simply 
 proves that the ‘‘ most corrupt maker of music ” can, under 
 the circumstances detailed above, be capable of real artistic 
 creation. The author of “ Oper^ und Drama ” then goes on 
 to say that, through an unnatural anxiety to represent his 
 capability in the light of boundless power, Meyerbeer 
 “ reduced the said power, which is in truth most rich, to the 
 most beggarly poverty, in which Meyerbeer’s operatic music 
 now appears to us.” It would be interesting, but beyond 
 our province now, to enquire how far these remarks recoil 
 upon Wagner himself, as we have him in his latest mani¬ 
 festations. In some respects they are unjust to Meyerbeer, 
 whose restless striving after effect sprang from no artistic 
 vanity. Meyerbeer, we again point out, had the suppleness 
 of his race. His artistic conscience was not “ seared as 
 with a hot iron,” because there was not enough of it to lay 
 an iron upon, and thus, unhampered by principles like those 
 that made his fellow-Hebrew, Mendelssohn, so fastidious, 
 he simply shaped the exercise of his genius to circumstances. 
 French opera demanded sensational effects of the most 
 gorgeous and variegated character, both musical and scenic, 
 and that demand Scribe and Meyerbeer supplied in a measure 
 only possible to the highest talents. Had the taste of Paris 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 25 
 
 declared itself for archaism on the lyric stage Meyerbeer 
 would just as readily have gratified it, and, no doubt, with 
 equal success. 
 
 Between the production of “ Les Huguenots” (February 
 21, 1836) and that of “ Le Prophete ” (April 16, 1849), 
 Meyerbeer composed nothing for the French stage. Several 
 causes brought about this result. Fetis declares one to 
 have been the progressive decline of singing power at the 
 Grand Opera, but others are obviously more important. 
 Thus, the King of Prussia—he who was afterwards known 
 by the irreverent as “ Clicquot ”—invited Meyerbeer to 
 become his Chapelmaster. It is scarcely necessary to add 
 that the offer found ready acceptance, and it must be 
 admitted that Meyerbeer of “ Les Huguenots ” was a fit 
 successor to Spontini of “ La Vestale.” Frederic William 
 IV., though an indifferent king, had the tastes of an 
 admirable dilettante. He was a literary and musical 
 gormandiser, and never so happy as when sitting down to 
 a table well loaded with artistic dainties. Almost as a 
 matter of course, therefore, the King, struck by the Parisian 
 success of his Hebrew subject, sought to attach him to his 
 Court. He found Meyerbeer much more tractable than 
 Mendelssohn, who had not the suppleness requisite for a 
 courtier. Meyerbeer loved to be noticed by anybody—he 
 would take pains to conciliate the smallest and most in¬ 
 significant journalist—but especially did he value the smiles 
 of the great. There was in his character something of the 
 Orientalism that distinguished another famous Hebrew— 
 Disraeli. He could “boo” as well as Pertinax McSycophant 
 himself, and he regarded a bit of riband in his buttonhole 
 more than a jewel of price. So Meyerbeer flourished at the 
 Berlin Court, becoming a prominent figure at the King’s 
 artistic and intimate reunions. “The King,” says M. Blaze 
 de Bury, “sitting at a table, amused himself by sketching 
 architectural designs with a crayon, Tieck or Humboldt 
 read, the ladies embroidered or picked out threads, and if 
 the Countess Rossi (formerly Mdlle. Sontag), then wife of 
 the Sardinian Minister at Berlin, was in the humour to sing, 
 Meyerbeer accompanied on the pianoforte.” The master’s 
 life, however, was not all “cakes and ale” of this kind. A 
 good deal of hard work entered into it, and to the period 
 now in review especially belong a number of compositions 
 for church use. Among them are the 91st Psalm (published 
 
GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 26 
 
 with English words hy Messrs. Novello & Co.), twelve 
 Psalms for double choir, a “ Stabat Mater,” Miserere, and 
 Te Deum, all of which are marked by Fetis as not printed. 
 But Meyerbeer was *in his true vocation when writing an 
 opera for the opening of the new Royal Theatre (Decem¬ 
 ber 7, 1844). 
 
 A former edifice on the site of this structure had been 
 built by Frederic the Great, and Rauch’s equestrian statue 
 of that monarch stood near it. Associations with the 
 redoubtable warrior were therefore strong, and may have 
 determined the subject of the book provided for Meyerbeer 
 by Rellstab. In any case, the great Frederic was the hero 
 of the new opera, ‘‘Fin Feldlager in Schlesien ” (“A Camp 
 in Silesia”). The composer had great hopes of success 
 with his work. The theme appealed to national hero-worship, 
 and Jenny Lind, then fresh from her native North, took the 
 part of the heroine, Vielka. But the result did not bear out 
 expectation. “ Fin Feldlager” was, in fact, nothing but an 
 opera de circonstance, intended mainly to bring Frederic on 
 the scene, and to display a military spectacle. The plot, 
 therefore, was as simple as possible, and may be sketched in 
 a few lines :— 
 
 The King, at war with Austria for the possession of 
 Silesia, is pursued by the enemy, and takes refuge in the 
 house of an old captain named Saldorf. Searched for on 
 all sides, Frederic is saved by Saldorf, who makes his son 
 exchange clothes with the royal fugitive. Once beyond 
 reach of danger, the King makes liberal recompense to the 
 devoted family. 
 
 Such is the story in outline, and we cannot be surprised 
 that an opera of limited interest and purpose served its 
 immediate object and no more. Meyerbeer, however, by no 
 means allowed his music to run to waste. Much of it he 
 afterwards introduced into ‘‘ L’Etoile du Nord,” notably the 
 great military ensemble and the trio for voice and two flutes. 
 By the way, Frederic, whom all the world knows to have 
 been a flute-player in real life, had to perform a solo (behind 
 the scenes) in the Berlin opera, and it was perhaps out of 
 compliment to the instrument of his choice that Meyerbeer 
 wrote the trio just named, oblivious of Cherubini’s reply to 
 the question, “What is worse than one flute? ” It should 
 be mentioned here that “ Fin Feldlager in Schlesien ” was 
 produced, with alterations and additions, at Vienna, in 1847, 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 27 
 
 Jenny Lind again acting the part of Vielka. This version 
 took its name from the heroine, and, strange to say, obtained 
 more success among the whilom enemies of Frederic than 
 the original form of the opera enjoyed amongst his friends. 
 
 Meyerbeer’s next important work of a dramatic character 
 was the overture and incidental music to his brother Michel’s 
 five-act play, “ Stxugns ee^” Michel had written this piece 
 as far back as 1826, but it had never been performed, for 
 reasons to be found in the nature of the subject. Struensee, 
 as historical students know, was an ambitious and un¬ 
 fortunate minister of the King of Denmark, who suffered 
 death in 1772 for his share in a palace conspiracy, the 
 circumstances of which the royal family of Denmark did not 
 wish to have brought under public notice. Frederic VI., 
 the reigning monarch at Copenhagen in 1826, used all his 
 influence, therefore, to keep the play unacted, and succeeded 
 so well that Michel Beer died in 1831 without witnessing it 
 on the stage. In 1846 the same powerful objection did not 
 arise, and “ Struensee ” was performed in the Royal Theatre 
 of Berlin, by command of the King of Prussia, with the 
 addition of the music specially written for it by the author’s 
 brother. This music consisted of an overture—which every 
 amateur knows as a grand example of the master—nine 
 pieces to accompany the drama, and four entr'actes. The 
 last are never heard in public, for reasons assuredly not 
 found in themselves, since they are of high interest and 
 fully developed. 
 
 To the year 1846 belongs also a “ Fackeltanz ” (Torch 
 Dance), written for the marriage of the King of Bavaria 
 with Princess Wilhelmine of Prussia. We hardly need say 
 that this piece is really a Marche aux flamheanx rather than 
 a dance; or that Meyerbeer subsequently composed two 
 other works of the same character—the second for the 
 marriage of Princess Charlotte of Prussia in 1853 ; the third 
 for that of Princess Anne. 
 
 In 1847, after directing the performance of his revised 
 “Feldlager in Schlesien” at Vienna, with Jenny Lind as the 
 heroine, Meyerbeer visited this country. So, at any rate, 
 we are told by the writer of the article “Meyerbeer” in 
 Grove’s “Dictionary of Music.” No confirmation of the 
 statement can be found in the journals of the time. Had 
 Meyerbeer come to England at all, he would have done so, 
 no doubt, for the production of “ Robert le Diable,” and the 
 
28 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 dehut of Jenny Lind, at Her Majesty’s Theatre (May 4), but 
 he certainly was not present on that occasion, preferring to 
 remain in Berlin. It is true, however, that his coming was 
 announced—in Mr. ’ Lumley’s prospectus of the season, 
 which proved to be no more trustworthy than other documents 
 of the same character. Mr. Chorley says — 
 
 It was announced that M. Meyerbeer was to bring his “ Camp 
 de Silesie ” to London—that opera which he has never allowed 
 to travel beyond the barriers of Berlin—aware, it may be fancied, 
 of its weakness. It was undertaken that Mendelssohn should, 
 in the same season, produce his opera of “ The Tempest.’' 
 There was, thirdly, to be a new opera by Signor Verdi. Of 
 these three promises the last alone was performed. It may 
 be doubted whether anything beyond the merest preliminary 
 negotiations had been entered into with the two great German 
 masters. 
 
 Meyerbeer continued to discharge his duties in Berlin 
 during the rest of the year 1847. 
 
 The master, who had done Wagner some service in Paris, 
 was of use to him in Berlin also ; for there he produced 
 “ Rienzi ” (1847), after long and careful preparation,” and 
 used all his influence in favour of “ Der Fliegende Hollander.” 
 We have seen how he was requited by a man who, with all 
 his great qualities, had some which were very small indeed. 
 A natural curiosity here prompts the question, How did 
 Meyerbeer feel towards Wagner in face of such ingratitude? ” 
 The materials for framing an answer are scanty. Meyerbeer 
 was an extremely cautious man where he discerned a 
 possibility of making enemies, and, though he might feel 
 deeply, he took good care to hide his sentiments behind a 
 smile. M. Blaze de Bury, who enjoyed the master’s 
 intimacy, declares that he could never hear the name of 
 Wagner without a disagreeable sensation, ‘‘which he took 
 no pains to conceal.” Elsewhere we are told, on the same 
 authority, that Wagner’s name “had the effect of a dis¬ 
 sonance,” and that Meyerbeer cherished too much respect 
 for the authority of the masters “ not to detest those 
 blustering theories invented to serve instead of learning; 
 those absurdities deliberately put forward to attract the 
 notice of the public, like the helmet on the head of a vendor 
 of pencils.” M. de Bury adds the terms of a conversation 
 with Meyerbeer on this subject, but, unfortunately, he 
 
 * Thirty Years’ Musical Recollections. Vol. I., p. 294. 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 29 
 
 himself did nearly all the talking, Meyerbeer saying as little 
 as possible and making that little indefinite. On the whole, 
 there is no reason to believe that he personally resented 
 Wagner’s outrageous onslaught upon his artistic character. 
 He possessed an invincible good nature, and hated quarrelling 
 for its own sake as well as because it signifies bad policy; 
 while, himself satiated with public applause, he could afford 
 to let personal attacks pass him by like the idle wind. 
 
 We now approach the time when Meyerbeer, with 
 “ L’Africaine ” partially completed, suspended labour on 
 that work and brought out “ Le Prophete.” 
 
 Although “ L’Africaine ” was not produced till after the 
 master’s death, its composition began as far back as 1845— 
 that is to say, it followed hard upon the production of “ Les 
 Huguenots.” The idea was to write a great part for 
 Madame Rosine Stoltz, then in the prime of her powers. 
 Meyerbeer, as we have seen, always had a sharp eye for the 
 advantages which come to a composer through eminent 
 interpreters, and he greatly desired to utilise, for that end, 
 the personal and artistic qualities of Stoltz. M. Blaze 
 de Bury says :— 
 
 An incorrect, unequal, but essentially gifted singer, with a 
 voice of gold, and a nature of fire, Rosine Stoltz could hardly 
 fail, by her merits and even her defects, to attract the curiosity 
 of the master, if only for a time. One can imagine her the ideal 
 of such a heroine (as the Africame), and, while calculating the 
 profit to his music from such a fine dramatic organisation, 
 Meyerbeer, who never lost sight of the picturesque, naturally 
 regarded the physical attraction of the woman, and the very 
 special effect which a slender and beautiful person, her skin 
 tinted to copper-colour, could not fail to produce upon the 
 operatic public. 
 
 The master, it is said, had actually finished his score, and 
 was about to put it in hand for representation, when he 
 determined upon altering certain parts of the libretto. This 
 caused delay, and finally shelved the work for many a long 
 year. Scribe refused to make the changes required ; Meyer¬ 
 beer insisted; Scribe waxed obstinate, and, though he at 
 length became more tractable, the composer then found that 
 his music had grown old-fashioned. Forthwith “ L’Africaine ” 
 entered upon the era of patching and mending, which endured 
 till shortly before Meyerbeer’s death, and resulted in the 
 rejection of sufficient music to make another opera. The 
 
30 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER 
 
 master was naturally glad to put this troublous “ L’Africaine ” 
 aside when Scribe sent him the book of “ Le Prophete.” 
 
 The production of “ Le Prophete” took place, as usual 
 with Meyerbeer’s works, only after many delays. Fetis 
 tells us that the opera was several times announced under 
 different names, and the fact is characteristic of Meyerbeer’s 
 fastidiousness—a quality which, as it seems to us, sprang 
 from excessive timidity. The master had a perfect horror 
 of adverse criticism, and trembled before the most insig¬ 
 nificant scribbler in a public print. Hence the extreme 
 precautions under which his works were brought out. The 
 whole situation had to be surveyed with “ anxious poly- 
 scopity” lest an open joint somewhere should let in the 
 arrow of censure. It is only right to add that the final 
 cause of delay as regards Le Prophete” was independent 
 of Meyerbeer, and had more to do with the Paris mob, who, 
 in February, 1848, transformed King Louis Philippe into 
 plain Mr. John Smith and sent him post haste to England. 
 This amounted to an artistic as well as political upset. It 
 disorganised the Opera especially, and only after a year had 
 passed did the director and composer think it wise or find it 
 convenient to produce the new work at the Theatre de la 
 Nation, as the erstwhile Academie Royale was then called. 
 
 It is interesting, at this distance of time, to read the 
 criticisms which the French and other journals poured forth 
 anent ‘‘ Le Prophete,” and to gather from them, not so much 
 definite impressions concerning the work, as an idea of the 
 light in which Meyerbeer was generally regarded. We are 
 able to see, through a perfect blaze of eulogy, that the com¬ 
 poser’s method was accepted with a certain amount of 
 reservation, sometimes of openly qualifying remark. The 
 impression made by Meyerbeer’s elaborate musical structures 
 and grandiose effects seems to have been much like that of 
 the charge of the Light Brigade upon the French general 
 who exclaimed, looking at the wild ride, “ C’est magnifique, 
 mais ce n’est pas la guerre.” Thus, a writer in a journal 
 devoted to Meyerbeer, said :— 
 
 Greatly as the productions of this composer must be admired, 
 his followers not possessing his genius will, it is to be feared, 
 rather injure than forward the advancement of pure musical 
 taste. The peculiarities of his style, indeed, are such as will 
 readily be resorted to for reasons far different from those by which 
 he was actuated ; for, in finding the possibility of substituting 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 31 
 
 noise for melody, and startling contrast and effect for merely 
 scientific combinations, many a composer who would otherwise 
 have lived unerring may be induced to offer his meagre and 
 trashy productions to the world. 
 
 The veiled indictment to be detected in the foregoing 
 words may be seen also in the recondite observations of 
 Fetis, who describes “ Le Prophete ” as the fruit of an 
 alliance between imagination and reason, not imagination 
 and sensibility, from which union sprang the great duet in 
 “ Les Huguenots.” M. Scudo witnesses to a similar pur¬ 
 port in a passage which the reader will thank us for 
 translating :— 
 
 Of a penetrating spirit, full of sagacity and depth, M. Meyer¬ 
 beer shares neither the advantages nor the infirmities of those 
 spontaneous natures which shine like the light, lavishing, without 
 restriction or thought of the morrow, the perfume of their youth 
 and inheritance. A philosopher and thinker, he elaborates ideas 
 slowly, and under the eye of reason, and when he opens to him¬ 
 self the doors of life he is almost sure of making glorious progress. 
 M. Meyerbeer leaves nothing to chance ; he foresees all that it is 
 possible to foresee ; he learnedly combines all his effects, deter¬ 
 mining the faintest shades. His scores are full of explanatory 
 remarks and ingenious observations, which show the pre-occu¬ 
 pation of his spirit and his profound knowledge of dramatic 
 strategy. . . . One might, doubtless, desire a little more variety 
 and spontaneousness in the music of “ Le Prophete”; the 
 changelessly sombre character of the subject sometimes wearying 
 the attention. We find there piquant and ingenious combinations, 
 and mixtures of tone-colours the effect of which appears to us 
 more curious than dramatic. It is a dangerous slope which 
 leads to research for strange harmonies and multiplied modu¬ 
 lations ; and, when one does not possess the science and pro¬ 
 fundity of M. Meyerbeer, the method of instrumentation which 
 his example authorises produces the music of M. Verdi, and 
 worse still. 
 
 The evidence we have quoted above is that of Meyerbeer’s 
 enthusiastic friends. They could neither help seeing, nor 
 refrain from stating, that the master was a kind of musical 
 strategist and tactician, who, like Carnot or Von Moltke, 
 “ organised victory” with infinite care and forethought, and 
 by means of the most daring and dazzling combinations. 
 “ Le Prophete,” more, perhaps, than “Robert” or “Les 
 Huguenots,” illustrated this view of Meyerbeer’s musical 
 character. Hence the expression of a feeling in critical 
 
32 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 circles that admiration was not untempered by reservation 
 of entire approval. 
 
 M. Scudo tells us that the first performance of “ Le Pro- 
 phete” left a good deal to desire, although Viardot, Castellan, 
 Roger, Levasseur, and Gueymard took part in it. Madame 
 Viardot, however, seems to have satisfied the composer by 
 her Fides, which drew from Meyerbeer the subjoined eloquent 
 letter:— 
 
 My dear Pauline,—Forgive me if 1 do not come to-day to 
 express my admiration and gratitude. But I am indisposed, and 
 feel the want of a few hours’ rest; besides, what could I say in 
 comparison to that which the tears and the enthusiasm of two 
 thousand persons yesterday proclaimed of your admirable crea¬ 
 tion. I ceased for an instant to remember that I was the author 
 of the work; you had transformed me into a breathless and 
 excited auditor of your impassioned and truthful accents. Adieu. 
 
 Meyerbeer. 
 
 With the public the success of Le Prophete” was com¬ 
 plete. According to the Debats, the average nightly receipts 
 for the first twenty-five performances were 10,000 francs. 
 Yet even so great good fortune could not keep the Opera 
 open, although its subsidy, under a decree of the National 
 Assembly, was 170,000 francs. The establishment lay under 
 a load of debt, which crushed the life out of it, and on the 
 15th of July, three months after the production of Meyer¬ 
 beer’s work, its doors were closed. The house opened again 
 in the autumn, but may be said only to have lingered on till 
 June, 1853, when the Emperor Napoleon decreed: “From 
 July I next, the Opera will be under the Imperial Civil List, 
 and placed to that end within the functions of the Minister 
 of our House.” Then the great establishment had peace. 
 
 Before passing altogether from “ Le Prophete,” let us 
 quote an anecdote told of Meyerbeer in M. Charles de 
 Boigne’s “ Petits Memoires de I’Opera.” The composer 
 being slow to write the ballet music, one of the two directors 
 then reigning hit upon a shrewd method of spurring him 
 on :— 
 
 D. Master, have you written the music for the divertissement ? 
 
 M. Not yet. 
 
 D. So much the better. 
 
 M. Why so much the better ? 
 
 D. Because I want you to let me get it from a certain composer. 
 
 M, Sir! Sir!! 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 33 
 
 D. Don’t be angry, master. You know I have faith in your 
 genius. At the Opera I know only “ Robert” and “ Les Hugue¬ 
 nots”; success is yours alone ; “ La Juive” is an accident, but— 
 but— 
 
 M. I can’t write ballet music ! be frank. 
 
 D. You have never taken the trouble. 
 
 M. And the act of the Nuns ? 
 
 D. Admirable ; but the dance airs in “ Les Huguenots?” 
 
 M. I don’t like them any more than you do ; as for the diver¬ 
 tissement of “ Le Prophete,” I will try to satisfy you ; let me see 
 what I can do; if L succeed, you shall ask me for the music of 
 your first ballet. 
 
 The composer straightway went home to work, and the 
 director’s end was gained. 
 
 Meyerbeer- returned to his post in Berlin after the pro¬ 
 duction of this third French opera, and resumed what may 
 be called his official labours. Amongst other things he 
 wrote the ‘‘ Bayerischer Schiifgen Marsch,” a cantata for 
 four male voices and chorus, accompanied by brass instru¬ 
 ments, words by King Louis of Bavaria. An ode to the 
 sculptor, Rauch, suggested by the unveiling of Frederick 
 the Great’s monument, also belongs to this period. It is a 
 work of considerable dimensions, for solo, chorus, and 
 orchestra, and was first performed at the Royal Academy 
 of Fine Arts, June 4, 1851. In this year, moreover, Meyer¬ 
 beer produced a Festival Hymn, alia capella, for four voices 
 and chorus, in celebration of the King of Prussia’s silver 
 wedding. Meanwhile, he was pestered by attacks of a 
 peculiarly irritating nature. An organ of “ sweetness and 
 light,” combined with Christian zeal, the Preussiche Zeitung, 
 issued a series of articles in which the master was accused 
 of bringing Christianity into contempt by acts of malice 
 aforethought. A correspondent of the Musical World, writing 
 from Berlin at the time, described the nature of this on¬ 
 slaught as follows:— 
 
 The basis of the argument is that Meyerbeer is a Jew, and, in 
 his operas, has frequently employed church music as a means of 
 effect, such as the organ passage in “ Robert” and the Lutheran 
 hymn of Marcel in the “ Huguenots.” But all his previous 
 offences sink into insignificance compared with the still more 
 extensive employment of similar means in “ Le Prophete.” 
 There a solemn rite of the church, a coronation, is desecrated 
 by the consecration of an imposter with all the pomp of priestly 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 processions, incense, and anthems. In this spirit the whole of 
 the composer’s last opera is criticised; no merit as a work of art 
 redeems it; it is an insidious design against the Christian faith 
 for the purpose, it must be inferred, of propagating Judaism. 
 The public must, therefore, beware how they listen to music ; 
 the most inspiring and glorious strains of harmony are snares 
 for the soul if the composer is a Jew. This is a new principle 
 in criticism and deserves to be noticed, because finding readers 
 and approvers among a people who represent themselves as the 
 sole possessors of the gift of clear and philosophical appreciation 
 of art in all its manifestations and a universality of knowledge 
 that makes prejudice in them impossible. 
 
 It does not appear that Meyerbeer took any public notice 
 of these scandalous attacks ; but one is tempted to ask now 
 whether Richard Wagner, who borrowed so mugh, read these 
 articles and then conceived the idea which came forth in the 
 savage form of “ Judaism in Music.” 
 
 In 1851 Meyerbeer’s health began to give way under the 
 strain which his extremely anxious, not to say “ worriting,” 
 nature imposed upon it. A constitution of iron was required 
 to carry him safely through the crisis of producing a grand 
 opera. The mere labour of composition, according to his 
 method of writing and re-writing, then rejecting and writing 
 again, must have been sufficiently severe; but this was ease 
 compared to the agony which set in with rehearsal. Fetis 
 says :— 
 
 The rehearsals, which he superintended with a care unknown 
 to other composers, and the new pieces which he wrote rapidly 
 while the work was under study, caused him great fatigue. To 
 see his exquisite politeness towards the artists on the stage and 
 in the orchestra one could not imagine the pain and impatience 
 in his soul when faults of execution missed the effect he intended 
 and had resolved at any price to obtain. This acted in a painful 
 manner upon his nervous system. 
 
 Not less hard to bear were the assaults of criticism, to 
 which, as we have before pointed out, the master was pecu¬ 
 liarly susceptible. Meyerbeer never had sufficient confidence 
 in himself to disregard the opinions of others, and he suffered 
 torments in questioning whether he might not have done 
 better and avoided the censure that gave him pain. Ex¬ 
 periences of this kind eventually tell upon a sensitive 
 organisation, and at the date above-named the master ceased 
 work and went to Spa, which became afterwards his favourite 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 35 
 
 resort. There he would avoid all company, taking long and 
 solitary walks, or riding on an ass, or shutting himself up in 
 his apartments, and following implicitly the advice of his 
 physicians. Spa has been described as a— 
 
 Pretty miniature of a watering-place, embosomed among gentle 
 heights whose tops are capped with the sun as a shining head¬ 
 dress, whose sides are robed with wealthy trees, and at whose 
 feet are tiny rivulets sparkling and singing as they flow, and 
 bearing tribute from the treasury of springs and fountains in the 
 hills that are their birth-place to feed the larger streams in which 
 they live but to be lost. 
 
 In 1851 the demon of gambling disfigured this Eden, but 
 Meyerbeer, though in Spa, was not of it from a societ}^ point 
 of view. He went there to gain health, and found, we may 
 well believe, many a happy inspiration during his lonely 
 rambles about the pretty hills and valleys. It is needless to 
 say that the eyes of the world followed him whithersoever 
 he went, eagerly watching for some sign of the production 
 of “ L’Africaine,” an opera long since completed. But no 
 sign was forthcoming. The master had set his heart upon 
 Sophie Cruvelli as Selika, and the Director of the Opera, it 
 is said, would then have nothing to do with that somewhat 
 erratic artist. Other obstacles stood in the way, and so the 
 desk containing “ L’Africaine” was steadfastly kept locked. 
 All this time the world did not dream that the Meyerbeer of 
 the grand stage and mighty ensembles was preparing to invade 
 the smaller domain of Auber and Adolphe Adam. This, how¬ 
 ever, turned out to be the case, and in due time “L’Etoile du 
 Nord” was announced at the Opera Comique. 
 
 Meyerbeer, in this case, “ fluttered the Volscians ” to 
 some tune, and there was dire commotion among French 
 musicians, who naturally looked upon the Opera Comique 
 as their own peculiar inheritance. They had grown 
 accustomed to the cosmopolitanism of the Grand Opera, 
 where the genius that is above geography, physical or 
 political, was always welcome. But the Opera Comique— 
 the home of Gretry and Mehul, of Boieldieu and Herold— 
 what did the Berlin Capellmeister in such a place ! Ex¬ 
 traordinary heart-burnings followed, and it was suddenly 
 discovered that Meyerbeer stood in the way of native talent. 
 He was accused of intrigue all round. If an opera was re¬ 
 jected, Meyerbeer influenced the director ; if it was delayed, 
 Meyerbeer had a hand in it; if it failed, Meyerbeer had 
 
 D 2 
 
36 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 conspired to bring about the result. But the poor Frenchmen 
 had one source of consolation. They knew perfectly well 
 that Meyerbeer would fail on the limited stage in the Rue 
 Favart. They said:— 
 
 To obtain success there it is necessary to have qualities more 
 refined, elegant, and spirituelle than passionate—qualities which 
 do not appear to belong to Meyerbeer’s talent, the proper 
 domain of which is dramatic expression. 
 
 With such words as these the French composers comforted 
 one another, and awaited the realisation of their hopes. 
 But they waited in vain. “ L’Etoile du Nord ”—into which 
 was incorporated some half-dozen numbers from the Berlin 
 opera “ Ein Feldlager”—saw the light on February i6, 
 1854, and found instant acceptance at the hands of a public 
 who really did not much care about the traditions so prized 
 by critics and connoisseurs. In this case the public broke 
 right away from the guidance of the press. “ ‘ L’Etoile du 
 Nord’ is not an opera at all,” said some critics; while 
 others apostrophised the composer thus :— 
 
 Yes, dear and glorious master, one must admire you, but 
 ought not to imitate you. You are a great dramatic composer, 
 a powerful individuality, but the way to which you have com¬ 
 mitted yourself is not a road that leads to Paradise. Do you 
 know who will be your artistic children, if you leave any ? The 
 Richard Wagners and their emulators . . . Let us re-assure 
 
 ourselves about the future. Monsigny, Gretry, Dalayrac, 
 Mehul, Boieldieu, Herold, Auber—O you charming masters, 
 facile and moving musicians, who have made France illustrious, 
 do not fear the great magician who has just suddenly invaded 
 your modest domain. He will not make us forget you. This 
 powerful constructor of ensembles, who piles Pelion upon Ossa in 
 order to scale heaven, resembles you more than you believe in 
 that of his work which will live ... As for “ L’Etoile du 
 Nord,” posterity will not place it in the same rank with your 
 beautiful masterpieces, because, in the hierarchy of the creations 
 of the human spirit, the Last Judgment is below the 
 Transfiguration. 
 
 Jules Janin, not being a musical critic, took a different 
 view of Meyerbeer’s comic opera. Having witnessed the 
 first performance, he rushed home and wrote :— 
 
 We have come from the Opera Comique, where M. Meyerbeer 
 has just brought out his new chef dloeuvre “ L’Etoile du Nord ” 
 (drama by M. Scribe), and without fear of being contradicted by 
 
HIS LIFE, 
 
 37 
 
 the learned and competent critic who will render an account of it 
 in these columns, we venture to assert that the illustrious master 
 has deserved and obtained universal praise. In the new style of 
 music which M. Meyerbeer has created by his genius and sub¬ 
 dued by his talent, “L’Etoile duNord” is a puissant work, 
 superior and charming in every respect. Never, perhaps, in so 
 short a space (a comic opera in three acts) has M. Meyerbeer 
 scattered airs, duets, and morceaux d'ensemble with so prodigal 
 a hand. 
 
 M. Janin wrote this with impunity, and might have 
 written a great deal more in the same strain without abating 
 the soreness of his musical compatriots, who would not 
 allow that any good could come to the Salle Favart from the 
 universal Nazareth outside France. 
 
 “L’Etoile du Nord” soon- travelled to Germany, being 
 produced in Dresden in 1855, where it had an immense 
 success, and brought to the composer the ribbon of the 
 Royal Albert Order. It was also played at Liege about the 
 same time. In 1855, also, “ L’Etoile du Nord ” appeared in 
 an Italian dress at the Covent Garden Theatre, the 
 prospectus of the season having stated that— 
 
 M. Meyerbeer has composed, expressly for the Royal Italian 
 Opera, on poetry written e!xpressly by M. Scribe, entirely new 
 recitatives, and has added three pieces to the original score. 
 
 Meyerbeer undertook to supervise the London performance 
 of his work, and reached town on purpose at the end of 
 June, after an absence of twenty-three years. He came to 
 be “ lionised ” in true English fashion, as to which let 
 us quote from a contemporary journal {Musical Worlds 
 July 7) :— 
 
 Judging from the manner in which he is feted and received in 
 all quarters, the composer of “ The Huguenots ” will not find 
 cause to regret his visit to the metropolis of Great Britain. In 
 all places, high and low, where music is loved, Meyerbeer is 
 honoured. From the palaces of princes, ministers, and ambas¬ 
 sadors to the concert-rooms of Exeter and St. Martin’s Halls 
 there is a general demand for his society. He must eat every 
 one’s dinner and attend every one’s concert; so that, what with 
 his daily occupations at the theatre during rehearsals and his 
 numerous engagements, morning and evening, Meyerbeer must 
 have his hands full and very few minutes to spare. Neverthe¬ 
 less, at 7 a.m., day after day, those who get up soon enough, 
 and have the wish, may see the celebrated musician taking his 
 “ constitutional ” walk in Hyde Park some hours before break- 
 
38 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 fast. It is at this early period of the day that he composes, like 
 Auber on horseback in the Champs Elysees, and Spohr in his 
 garden at Hesse-Cassel. 
 
 Among the dinners Meyerbeer had to eat was a Royal one 
 at Buckingham Palace, and among the concerts.he had to 
 attend was one given under the auspices of the Musical 
 Union, at which what Mr. Ella rather infelicitously 
 described as his “ imposing presence ” unsettled the per¬ 
 formers. But no honours turned the master from his work, 
 and in due course the Italian “ Stella del Nord ’’ was 
 produced, with Bosio, Rudersdorff, Gardoni, Lablache, 
 Tagliafico, and Formes in the cast. It achieved an immense 
 success, and then Meyerbeer, perfectly content, rushed away 
 to Spa for the purpose of recruiting his exhausted energies. 
 
 Delighted with his success in comic opera, Meyerbeer 
 resolved to follow it up. Hence the production, in 1859, 
 of ‘‘ Le Pardon de Ploermel,'’ known in England as 
 “ Dinorah.” Meanwhile, however, other subjects had a 
 share in his thoughts, particularly one about which such 
 biographies of the master as are available to English readers 
 say but little. 
 
 It has often been remarked that Meyerbeer had no very 
 exalted notions of an operatic subject; preferring bustling, 
 blatant, and sometimes vulgar historic scenes, more or less 
 travestied by Scribe, to those of a refined and classic nature. 
 In this respect some injustice has been done to the com¬ 
 poser. As a matter of fact, he was always prospecting for a 
 truly noble subject. “Hero and Leander’" at one time 
 attracted him; so did the “ Orestes ” of ^schylus; while 
 of “ Faust ” he thought seriously, having been designated by 
 Goethe as the musician of that great drama. But all this 
 coquetting came to nothing. The case was somewhat 
 different with another work, the history of which has been 
 told by M. Blaze de Bury at great length. M. de Bury had 
 written a drama for the Odeon, entitled “ La Jeunesse de 
 Goethe ”—a fantastic affair, apparently, in which the poet 
 was represented as “ vivant ses oeuvres,” however that may 
 be. While engaged in distributing the parts and so forth, 
 the manager, Rounat, called M. de Bury's attention to a 
 night scene in the third act, where he thought a mHodrame, 
 or orchestral symphony, would be effective. The following 
 conversation ensued :— 
 
 R. We must have music, that is understood; but who will 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 39 
 
 write it. We cannot think for a moment in such a situation of 
 employing an ordinary chef d'orchestre. 
 
 De B, We have Meyerbeer. 
 
 R. What, Meyerbeer! You think that Meyerbeer would con¬ 
 sent to write for us. 
 
 De B. I know it. He has already composed music to 
 Mignon's song in the second act. 
 
 R. [delighted). You are in the way of obtaining from Meyer¬ 
 beer these two pieces ? 
 
 De B. I answer for it. 
 
 R. Well, then, I cannot imagine why, being sure of that, you 
 do not ask more. 
 
 De B. Do you mean that I ought to make an opera of my 
 piece and sing cavatinas to Goethe. 
 
 R. There is no question of cavatinas; the piece suits me ; and 
 I believe in its success, the best proof of which is that I play it. 
 Only, in your place, instead of demanding from Meyerbeer a 
 mark of complaisance, I would try to interest him musically in 
 the work, and by some means give his genius a large part 
 therein. 
 
 This conversation impressed the dramatist, who went 
 home and spent the night in writing the text of an inter¬ 
 mezzo to be performed between the fourth and fifth acts. 
 The next morning he called on Meyerbeer, who, after some 
 conversation regarding the words of an Ode to Schiller (per¬ 
 formed at the centenary festival of that poet), remarked :— 
 
 M. You know that Mignon's song is composed, and now I am 
 at your service for some bars of mHodrame. 
 
 De B. Something better is possible than Mignon's song and 
 your bars. 
 
 M. What I will not M. de la Rounat have my music ? 
 
 De B. It isn’t that. He takes it, but— 
 
 M. To correct it, perhaps ? 
 
 De B. Not at all. He does you the honour to accept your 
 music, only he claims more. 
 
 M. I understand. He wants too much. 
 
 De B. You are right. 
 
 M. Come, explain yourself seriously. What is required 
 of me ? 
 
 De B. {Taking out manuscript). This, dear master, since you 
 desire to know. 
 
 M. {Having read the manuscript). But this means a score, 
 my dear friend. 
 
 De B. I know it. Do you object to make the effort ? 
 
 M. Not the least; but I must think it over, look up my 
 
40 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 Goethe, and then read your piece again. We will speak about 
 the matter in a few days. 
 
 Eventually Meyerbeer undertook the work, but on his own 
 plan and conditions, expressed in remarkable words. The 
 master said :— 
 
 I have thought much about your piece, about the part that 
 music ought to take in it, and the manner in which, to succeed, 
 it should intervene. Perhaps we are on the track of a discovery. 
 The old forms are used up; operas in five acts are no longer 
 possible. Let us seek in the conditions of modern art the 
 alliance of music and drama which the ancients appear to have 
 established. That tempts me, I vov/; I even say that I have 
 long dreamed of it, and reckon to prove it, if we have a 
 success, by making further proposals to you. Meanwhile, I shall 
 intervene in your work without mixing myself up with it. 
 
 Meyerbeer went on to explain that not even a violin should 
 be heard till the time forthe intermezzo arrived. Then he would 
 “let loose all his forces,” beginning with a grand overture. 
 De Bury was charmed with Meyerbeer’s idea, but nothing 
 came of it till four years later (September, i86i), when the 
 dramatist and composer met at Ems. M. de Bury writes :— 
 
 One morning, as we were breakfasting in his room, he cried, 
 “ Ah ! that ‘ Jeunesse de Goethe,’ now is the time to speak of it. 
 Would you like to see the score?” He opened his desk and took 
 out a voluminous packet, which he put upon the piano. I 
 turned over the leaves hungrily. It was complete! the “ Erl-king,” 
 the Hymn of the Fates in “ Iphigenia,” the scene of Margaret in 
 the church, the immense seraphic Hosanna of the second Faust. 
 I saw it; I touched it. Meyerbeer, all the while, looked at me, 
 happy in my joy, and satisfied with himself. “ Another time,” 
 he said, “ you shall hear it, for to-day it is enough that you have 
 seen. You can now say to our good friends that Meyerbeer 
 keeps his word.” Then, taking the volume, seven times sealed, 
 he placed it in the desk and locked it up. 
 
 According to the evidence of M. Blaze de Bury, there 
 was undoubtedly an intention on the part of Meyerbeer to 
 produce his “Jeunesse de Goethe” at the Odeon, but, 
 unfortunately, the time which suited the composer did not 
 fit in with the manager’s arrangements. The matter is 
 referred to at some length in a letter written by Meyerbeer 
 to his literary colleague on January 28, 1861 :— 
 
 You tell me that as regards the month of April, when it would 
 be convenient to me to give my work, M. de la Rounat has an 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 41 
 
 engagement with Madame Ristori, and that, consequently, he 
 proposes to bring out the piece in the Spring of 1862. At that 
 time I shall certainly be free, musically speaking, and I see no 
 difficulty so far; nevertheless, my dear friend, to take a definite 
 engagement for a time so distant, and that will not be reached 
 for fourteen months, is what, in my position, 1 cannot see my 
 way to do. A head of a family, living out of France, and under 
 the circumstances of these times—who knows, as regards a 
 future so distant, what may happen to keep me at home ? If 
 we wait till October i next to sign an engagement for April, 1862, 
 the date which M. de la Rounat proposes, he will be sure to have 
 the work seven months in advance, while, on our side, the future 
 will not be hampered to such a length of time. Now, let us talk 
 a little about our piece. The scene for which I had most fear 
 (that of the cathedral in “ Faust”) is that which comes out best 
 of all, and I hope you will not be dissatisfied with it. As 
 regards the rest, I shall not ask you to make any further change. 
 Musically speaking, only one number disquiets me, and about it 
 I hesitate, and scarcely know what to do, I mean the “ Erl-King.” 
 Schubert’s music to that ballad has become so popular throughout 
 the entire world that it seems to me impossible to make the 
 public accept any other to the same words, while, for myself, I 
 am so much under its influence that I do not see my way to 
 compose anything which would give me satisfaction. I have an 
 idea, therefore, to preserve Schubert’s melodies, putting them 
 underneath the choruses for the “ Erl-King’s daughters,” and 
 at the same time, as I need not say, scoring for orchestra what 
 Schubert has written for the pianoforte only. However, there 
 are two courses before me. One is to make the father and son 
 speak in melodrame, accompanied by Schubert’s melodies in the 
 orchestra, and allow only the Erl-King and his daughters to sing. 
 The other is to make the parts of father and son singing parts. 
 Be good enough to let me know which of these two plans you 
 prefer. From a purely musical point of view it is advisable 
 that all three should sing; but I will act according to your 
 decision. Send me also, and at once, the “Chorus of Students,” 
 for I should better like to write it just now, when the impression 
 of the rest of the music is warm in my imagination, than later, 
 when other work has driven the matter from my mind. 
 
 Unhappily, “ La Jeunesse de Goethe ” was never produced, 
 and M. Blaze de Bury tells us why. He says:— 
 
 Kept at Berlin as much by his court duties as by the state of 
 his health, Meyerbeer seemed to the public as though he had 
 forgotten the road to Paris. Nevertheless, the desire to possess 
 the masterpiece increased in proportion to the obstacles. . . Each 
 
42 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER: 
 
 year a place was kept for it—the best that could be secured in 
 the arrangements of the repertory. At length, in the autumn 
 of 1863, Meyerbeer arrived in Paris, settled down there, and 
 deliberations were immediately resumed. This time the affair 
 was complicated by the question of the “ Africaine,” which, just 
 then on the cards, had possession of the public mind. Hence 
 the production of the work “La Jeunesse de Goethe” that 
 winter could not be thought of, and another year’s delay took 
 place. . . . Meyerbeer’s score exists complete, finished, authentic, 
 and others beside myself have had it in their hands. 
 
 A natural question is: What has become of “La Jeunesse 
 de Goethe? ” We can find no trace of it in musical record 
 since the composer’s death, and are bound to infer that it 
 still remains in manuscript, kept thus from a world which 
 would be very glad to receive it. 
 
 During his stay in Paris Meyerbeer was constantly en¬ 
 gaged, above all, with the “Africaine,” which he had at last 
 firmly resolved to bring out. He showed his usual excessive 
 care for details in making the preparations, but these by no 
 means monopolised his thoughts. He had time to spare for 
 “La Jeunesse de Goethe,” with the mise-en-scene of which 
 he concerned himself greatly, while his mind ran much upon 
 the composition of another opera comique, and to this end he 
 looked through scores of romances, hoping for a suitable 
 story. M. Blaze de Bury tells us that at this period he was 
 composing everywhere—in the streets, when driving and 
 when taking a walk outside the walls. Often he would stop, 
 take out his pocket-book, and fix an idea that had occurred 
 to his brooding mind. On such occasions thoughtless ac¬ 
 quaintances would sometimes intrude their conversation upon 
 him, to his great discomfiture and annoyance. “Is that you, 
 dear master? How glad I am to see you. What about 
 the ‘ Africaine ’ ? What are you doing at this moment ? ” 
 So pestered, the poor man often forgot his usual courtesy, 
 and would sharply answer: “What am I doing at this 
 moment! Can’t you see? I am walking down the Champs 
 Elysees.” The same authority sketches for us the routine 
 of Meyerbeer’s daily life :— 
 
 Like Lamartine, he began work every day at six o’clock; 
 towards noon, after breakfast, he dressed, received or paid visits, 
 always according to his programme of the week, for, in that 
 regularly laborious existence, nothing was left to chance. About 
 two o’clock he took a walk, returned at three, and resumed his 
 
HIS LIFE. 
 
 43 
 
 work, continuing at it till nearly midnight, scarcely giving himself 
 the time necessary for dinner. 
 
 Meyerbeer continued this life of hard work to the end, 
 for even till within a few weeks of his death his mind 
 plunged into the future, big with projects of further achieve¬ 
 ment and more glory. He often talked of the great masters 
 with half-sad reflections upon his own shortcomings. Mozart 
 appears to have been his idol, and Blaze de Bury tells apropos 
 a characteristic anecdote. Coming away from the Italiens 
 after a performance of “ Don Giovanni,” which the public 
 had coldly received, De Bury asked Meyerbeer whether, in 
 his opinion, the execution of the work was the cause of its 
 non-success, adding that, for himself, he thought the chef 
 d’oeuvre did not satisfy the wants of the time. “Ah!” 
 exclaimed the master, “ and why does ‘ Don Giovanni ’ no 
 longer satisfy ? ” “I don’t know,” replied his friend; 
 “ perhaps because I heard yesterday the fourth act of the 
 ‘Huguenots.’” “In that case,” observed Meyerbeer, “allow 
 me to say: So much the worse for the fourth act of the 
 ‘ Huguenots.’ ” This story, as it seems to us, is capable 
 of very wide application at the time now present. 
 
 Dreams of future achievement by a man seventy-two years 
 old are of doubtful realisation, and Meyerbeer’s visions were 
 soon ended by death. All through the winter of 1863-4 he 
 busied himself with preparing the “ Africaine ” for a per¬ 
 formance he was never to see. In October, 1863, that opera 
 was supposed to be finished, but the exacting, never satisfied 
 composer went on cutting and polishing, taking out a bit 
 here, putting in a bit there, altering this page, re-writing 
 that, and so on. Indeed, so much matter was finally rejected 
 that it fills a volume containing twenty-two complete numbers, 
 or fragments of numbers. Doubtless the anxiety and worry 
 connected with the “ Africaine ” broke down the composer’s 
 always feeble hbalth. The end came almost suddenly. 
 Seized with mortal illness on April 23, 1864, Meyerbeer 
 passed, on May 22, from the scene of his busy labours and 
 great success. A year later (April 28, 1865) his cherished 
 opera, which lay on his heart in the very article of death, 
 had a triumphant reception on the illustrious stage to which 
 he contributed his finest works. The coffin of the master 
 was laden with tokens of honour. He was a Member of the 
 Institute of France, of the Royal Academy of Belgium, of 
 the Prussian Academy of Fine Arts, and of several other 
 
44 
 
 GIACOMO MEYERBEER. 
 
 kindred institutions. Among his decorations were the Prus¬ 
 sian Order of Merit, the Legion of Honour, the Leopold 
 Order of Belgium, the Crown of Oak of Holland, the Sun 
 of Brazil, and the Polar Star of Sweden. But better than 
 all these was the universal sorrow that paid a noble tribute 
 to departed genius. 
 
INDEX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 “ Africaine, L’”.. . .. .. 29,35,42,43 
 
 “Alimelek” .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 
 
 “Almansar” .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13 
 
 Anecdotes of Meyerbeer .. .. .. .. .. ..4,32,39,43 
 
 Bavarian March .. .. .. . .. .. 33 
 
 Beer, Herr .. .. •.. .. .. .. .. .. .. i 
 
 „ Amalie .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. i 
 
 ,, Michel .. . .. .. .. .. .. 27 
 
 “ Brandenburg Gate, The ” .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13 
 
 Bury, M. de .38 
 
 “ Crociato, II ” .. . .. .. .. .. 13—16 
 
 Cruvelli, Sophie .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 35 
 
 “ Daughter OF Jephtha, The ” .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 
 
 Delavigne .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17 
 
 Deschamps . .. .. .. .. .. .. 20 
 
 “ Emma Di Resburgo ” .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12,14 
 
 “ Esule Di Granata, L’” .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 13 
 
 “ Etoile DU Nord, L’” .. .. .. .. .. .. 35—38 
 
 “Fackeltanz” .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 
 
 “ FeLDLAGER IN SCHLESIEN, EiN ” .. .. .. .. .. .. 26 
 
 Festival Hymn .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 33 
 
 Frederic William IV . 25 
 
 Gansbacher . .. .. 8 
 
 “ God AND Nature ”. 8 
 
 Habeneck.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21 
 
 Harlas, Mdlle. .. .. .. .. .. o. .. .. .. 9 
 
 “ Huguenots, Les ” .. ,. .. .. .. .. .. 20—25 
 
 Hummel . .. .. g 
 
 “ Jeunesse de Goethe, La”. 38—42 
 
46 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Lauska . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . 2 
 
 Levasseur . .. .. .. .. .. 20,32 
 
 Lind, Jenny .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 26—28 
 
 “ Loves OF Theclinda, The ” .. .. . . .. .. .. g 
 
 Ludwig, Grand Duke .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 
 
 “ Margarita d’Anjou . .. .. .. .. .. .. 13,14 
 
 Mendelssohn .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17,22 
 
 Meyer .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 
 
 Meyerbeer’s birth .. .. . .. .. i 
 
 ,, parents .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. i 
 
 ,, first appearance .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 
 
 ,, youthful precocity .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 
 
 „ first master .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 
 
 ,, studies under VoGLER .. .. .. .. .. .. 4—8 
 
 ,, life at Darmstadt .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 
 
 ,, failure at Munich .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 
 
 ,, visit to Vienna .. .. .. .. .. .. g 
 
 ,, piano studies .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 
 
 ,, stay in Italy .. .. .. .. .. 12 
 
 n critics.13’ 33’ 36 
 
 „ Italian opera phase .. .. .. .. .. 13, 14 
 
 „ visit to Paris .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15 
 
 ,, marriage .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17 
 
 „ success with “ Robert ” .. .. .. .. .. rg 
 
 ,, “Huguenots” .. .. .. .. .. .. 20—25 
 
 „ connection with the Prussian court .. .. .. .. 25 
 
 ,, visit to England. .. 27 
 
 ,, return to Berlin .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 33 
 
 ,, illness and retirement .. .. .. .. .. .. 34 
 
 ,, “ Etoile du Nord L’” .. .. .. .. .. 35—38 
 
 „ reception in London .. ,. .. .. .. .. 37 
 
 ,, daily habits in Paris .. .. .. .. .. .. 42 
 
 „ death .43 
 
 Moscheles . .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 
 
 Ninety-First Psalm, The .. .. . .. .. 25 
 
 “ Pardon DE Ploermel, Le . .. .. .. .. .. .. 38 
 
 PiSARONI. .. .. . .. 12 
 
 “ Prophete, Le ” .. .. . 30—33 
 
 Rellstab .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 26 
 
 “ Robert LE Dibble ” .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17—20 
 
 Rochlitz .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 
 
 “ Romilda E Costanza’’ .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 
 
 Rossini. . .. .. .. .. 16 
 
 Rounat .. .. . .. .. .. .. 38 
 
INDEX. 
 
 47 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 Salieri .. .. . • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. lo 
 
 Scribe .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17,20,29 
 
 “ Semiramide ” .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 
 
 Stoltz, Madame. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 29 
 
 Struensee .. .. .. .. .. .. .27 
 
 Veron, Dr. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 19 
 
 VOGLER, ABBfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—5 
 
 Wagner AND Meyerbeer .. .. .. .. .. 22—24,28 
 
 Weber, Bernard .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 
 
 „ Carl Maria VON . .. .. ..5,8,10,13 
 
 Zelter. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 
 
 Novello, Ev\er & Co., Printeis, 69 & 70, Dean Street, Soho, London, W. 
 

LIFE OF MOZART 
 
 BY 
 
 OTTO JAHN 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN 
 BY 
 
 PAULINE D. TOWNSEND 
 
 Three Volumes^ Clothe 
 
 With Five Portraits, and Preface by George Grove, D.C.L. 
 
 Price £i us. 6 d. 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 disi 
 
 THE TIMES. 
 
 “ Mr. Grove, in his brief and able preface, calls the publication in an 
 dress of Otto Jahn’s famous biography of Mozart ‘an event in our musical his 
 and his statement cannot be considered an exaggeration. . . . The English 
 is to be congratulated upon a translation of his monumental effort whici 
 without exaggeration be called excellent. Miss Townsend has done her wor! 
 skill and conscientiousness, and we doubt whether a much more careful comp 
 with the original than we have thought it necessary to undertake would 
 many, or any, serious blunders.” 
 
 DAILY NEWS. 
 
 “ He (Jahn) has made admirable use of Nissen, with his laborious compil 
 and of all other authorities, and he has succeeded in producing a work w' 
 complete without being confusing through excess of detail, and in wh 
 interest of the narrative is not broken by undue reference to other write 
 treating of the same points, have treated them differently and often incorrec 
 The work has been well translated, and it is prefaced by a brief but i^ 
 introduction from the pen of Mr. George Grove.” 
 
 THE ATHENiEUM. 
 
 “ It is with great pleasure that we are able to speak in terms of th 
 praise of the manner in which Miss Townsend has acquitted herself of 
 means easy task of translation. In so voluminous a work as the presen 
 almost inevitable that a few slips should be found; but those that we have 
 are not only extremely rare, but mostly of slight importance. . . . We have 
 inadequate justice in this review to one of the most important works in the 
 domain of musical literature; our excuse must be the absolute impossibility 
 dealing fully with it within reasonable bounds. We conclude by most cordially 
 recommending it to all who are interested in music, and need only add that the 
 printing and general appearance of the volumes are worthy alike of their contents 
 j«nd of the reputation of the firm which publishes them.” 
 
 JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH 
 
 HIS WORK AND INFLUENCE 
 ON THE MUSIC OF GERMANY, 1685-1750 
 
 BY 
 
 PHILIPP SPITTA 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY 
 
 CLARA BELL AND J. A. FULLER-MAITLAND 
 
 three VOLUMES. PRICE £2 23. 
 
 who! 
 
 of 
 
 LONDON & NEW YORK: NOVELLO, EWER & CO. 
 
NOVELLO'S PRIMERS OF MUSICAL RIOGRAPHY 
 
 BY 
 
 JOSEPH BENNETT. 
 
 Price One Shilling ; Cloth Gilt, Two Shillings each, 
 
 NOW READY. 
 
 ""ECTOR BERLIOZ 
 DERIC CHOPIN ; 
 ROSSINI 
 
 xERUBINI MEYERBEER 
 
 PROSPECTUS. 
 
 ^years have passed since Mr. Joseph Bennett began, in the Musical ■ 
 a series of biographical notices which are still far from ended. 
 ^Jginal purpose was a limited one—namely, to throw light upon 
 ;nality of famous musicians by means of extracts selected and 
 .from their letters and other writings. Hence the series had 
 .itle “ The Great Composers, sketched by themselves.” 
 
 ^quent upon the remarkable favour with which the notices were 
 fed, it was determined to extend their scope, and while making 
 ^linent the Masters’ own testimony, to deal with each subject in a 
 ^mplete biographical form, as far as allowed by the limits necessarily 
 imposed. The words “ sketched by themselves ” were therefore dronned 
 from the title. 
 
 It was further resolved to make additions in the case of the cumpusw-i 
 dealt with under the original idea, and to issue the notices separately 
 as “ Primers of Musical Biography.” 
 
 The intention of “ Novello’s Primers of Musical Biography” is to 
 convey, as clearly as the limits of an elementary work will allow, a just 
 idea of each composer’s personality, and to record the principal events 
 of his life. Knowledge of what a man is helps the understanding oL 
 what he does. These little books may serve, therefore, as a first step^ 
 towards acquaintance with the genius and composition of the masters, 
 to whom they are devoted. 
 
 For the copious extracts made from letters, &c., throughout the series, 
 no apology is offered. They are the best material upon which to base 
 an estimate of character. 
 
 LONDON & NEW YORK 
 
 NOVELLO, EWER AND CO.