5. Reception and research.

The frequent attacks on Meyerbeer in his native land of Germany always distressed him. The nationalistic and sometimes anti-Semitic background to these attacks, however, is usually obvious. Robert Schumann descended to the level of such criticism in his review of Les Huguenots, which left the famous Viennese music critic Hanslick uttterly baffled. Hanslick – usually a champion of pure instrumental music – could explain Schumann’s condemnation only through Schumann’s own obvious lack of talent for opera: ‘A composer who, after close and honest study of Les Huguenots, is unable to discover even a single merit in its music, who has not a good word to say for it, may safely be assumed to be no composer of opera himself’ (Hanslick, 1875). Schumann’s criticism, he added, therefore represented only ‘a memorable contribution to our knowledge of Schumann, but not of Meyerbeer’. Other reviewers had clearer motives: Heine, for instance, did not hesitate to use his pen to blackmail the vulnerable but wealthy composer.

The ambiguous relationship of Richard Wagner to Meyerbeer, however, cannot be explained in any such way; it can be accounted for only as a case of psychological patricide. Wagner took the opportunity to approach Meyerbeer on 20 August 1839, in Boulogne, to ask for financial support and help in promoting his plans for French operas. Meyerbeer was always ready to help his fellow countrymen, and was moreover convinced of the young composer’s gifts. He therefore not only gave Wagner money but recommended his work in Paris, Berlin and Dresden. Without his active support neither Rienzi nor Der fliegende Holländer would have been performed so soon. In Paris, Wagner reacted with some remarkable and excitable letters, signing off with such phrases as ‘your property’, ‘your most humble slave’, somewhat to Meyerbeer’s surprise (Briefwechsel, iii, 262, 285), but he continued his support for Wagner. However, in November 1846 he refused a request for another 1200 thalers (Briefwechsel, iv, 147). At this time Wagner was well provided for by his appointment as Hofkapellmeister to the King of Saxony.

After the failure of the 1848 revolution, Wagner saw his own career greatly endangered. Meyerbeer’s latest work sent him into a state of enthusiastic euphoria: ‘At this time I also saw the “Prophet” for the first time – the prophet of the new world: I felt happy and exalted’ (letter of 13 March 1850). A few months later, he wrote an anti-Semitic pamphlet attacking Meyerbeer (‘Das Judenthum in der Musik’, NZM, 6 September 1850). It is as extravagant in tone as were his earlier articles in Meyerbeer’s praise. At the time of the Tannhäuser scandal in Paris, Wagner believed that Meyerbeer was his secret enemy, a wholly mistaken idea. Even after Wagner’s anti-Semitic pamphlet, Meyerbeer had followed his development with interest, and on hearing of the fiasco of the production of Wagner’s opera, wrote in his diary: ‘It seems to me that to find fault in so unusual a way with what is, after all, a very noteworthy and talented opera must be the work of cabals, not of genuine judgment, and in my view it may even be useful to the opera in subsequent performances’ (Becker, 1980. p.128). The experienced composer was right in his assessment, for leading men of letters such as Baudelaire now began to speak up for Wagner. However, Wagner withdrew the opera of his own accord.

Wagner’s behaviour cannot really be explained by the anti-Semitism endemic to his time. He could not admit to himself that – like all other operatic composers – he owed much to Meyerbeer’s ideas. His early works are very close, even in their details, to Meyerbeer’s style of grand opera. Hanslick himself noticed the connection: ‘Richard Wagner, whose Rienzi, Tannhäuser and Holländer cannot be imagined without the example of Meyerbeer, judges Meyerbeer not as an artist but as a criminal is judged’ (1875). Even the Wagnerian idea of a Gesamtkunstwerk is unimaginable without the synaesthetic and conceptual features of grand opera.

Such attacks wounded Meyerbeer deeply, since they came almost exclusively from his native land. For the same reason, however, they could not affect the international dissemination of his works. Even the growing nationalism of the late 19th century did no serious damage to the reception of Meyerbeer’s operas: only the eventual international trend towards a return to the simplicity and classicism of the 17th and 18th centuries could significantly affect his popularity. That trend began in the 1920s, under the influence of the Neue Sachlichkeit (‘new objectivity’) opposed to Meyerbeer’s metaphysically based and theatrically demanding concept of opera. In Germany, the National Socialist ban on performances of Meyerbeer was disastrous.

After World War II, the great singers of the century were responsible for the revival of his works, including Sutherland, Horne, Price, Gedda, Domingo and others. At the same time unprejudiced musicologists began studying the available sources. The great pioneer of German operatic research, Heinz Becker, and his wife Gudrun, edited the letters and diaries. This edition set standards for scholarship of the 20th century, and the Beckers’ work is being continued by Sabine Henze-Döhring. A new interpretation of Meyerbeer’s historical role was also necessary. Becker’s arguments in his many studies were predominantly defensive, designed to prove the injustice of nationalistic prejudice. Since then, there has been a wide measure of agreement among younger specialists that Meyerbeer should be ranked among the great composers. It is impossible to imagine the musical history of Europe without him. The most important task that still remains is to produce a critical edition of the works, and this has been made possible, in particular, by the rediscovery of the autograph scores in Kraków, and the examination of important items in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and large quantities of material relating to the premières of the operas, now at the Bibliothèque de l’Opéra.

WORKS

Edition: Meyerbeer Werkausgabe, ed. R. Didion, S. Döhring, P. Kaiser and W. Kühnhold (Feldkirchen, forthcoming) [MWA]

operas

Title	Genre, acts	Libretto	First performance	Sources and remarks	MWA
Jephtas Gelübde	3	A. Schraeber	Munich, Hof, 23 Dec 1812	GB-Lbl, duet (Munich, ?1812)
Wirth und Gast, oder Aus Scherz Ernst	Lustspiel, 2	J.G. Wohlbrück	Stuttgart, 6 Jan 1813	as Die beiden Kalifen, 1814; as Alimelek, 1820, arr. pf 4 hands (Milan, n.d.)
Das Brandenburger Tor	Spl	E. Veith	unperf.	comp. for Berlin, 1814
Romilda e Costanza	melodramma semiserio, 2	G. Rossi	Padua, Nuovo, 19 July 1817	I-Bc, Fc, Mr, excerpts (Milan, n.d.)
Semiramide riconosciuta	dramma per musica, 2	Rossi, after P. Metastasio	Turin, Regio, March 1819	excerpts pubd
Emma di Resburgo	melodramma eroico, 2	Rossi	Venice, S Benedetto, 26 June 1819	as Emma di Leicester, 1820; Fc, Mr, vs (Berlin, ?1820)
Margherita d’Anjou	melodramma semiserio, 2	F. Romani, after R.C.G. de Pixérécourt	Milan, Scala, 14 Nov 1820	rev. Paris, 1826; Mr, vs (Paris, 1826)
L’Almanzore		Rossi	unperf.	intended for Rome, Argentina, carn. 1821, probably unfinished
L’esule di Granata	melodramma serio, 2	Romani	Milan, Scala, 12 March 1821	Mr, excerpts (Milan, n.d.)
Il crociato in Egitto	melodramma eroico, 2	Rossi	Venice, Fenice, 7 March 1824	rev. Paris, 1825; GB-Lbl, I-Bc, Mr, (Vt/R 1979: ERO, xviii), US-Bp, Cu, Wc, vs (Milan, 1824; Bonn and Cologne, 1824; Paris, 1826)	i
Robert le diable	grand opéra, 5	E. Scribe and G. Delavigne	Paris, Opéra, 21 Nov 1831	PL-Kj*; (Paris, 1831/R: ERO, xix); scene and prayer added for Mario’s début, 1839; rondo for Mme Alboni added to It. version	i/1
Les Huguenots	grand opéra, 5	Scribe and E. Deschamps	Paris, Opéra, 29 Feb 1836	Kj*; (Paris, 1836/R: ERO, xx)	i
Ein Feldlager in Schlesien	Spl, 3	Scribe, trans. L. Rellstab and C. Birch-Pfeiffer	Berlin, Hof, 7 Dec 1844	as Vielka, 1847
Le prophète	grand opéra, 5	Scribe	Paris, Opéra, 16 April 1849	begun 1836; Kj*; (Paris, 1849/R: ERO, xxi); ov., Berthe’s cavatina and barcarolle added c1850	i/2
L’étoile du nord	oc, 3	Scribe, partly after his ballet La cantinière	Paris, OC (Favart), 16 Feb 1854	based on the music of Ein Feldlager in Schlesien (Paris, ?1854/R: ERO, xxii)	i
Le pardon de Ploërmel	oc, 3	J. Barbier and M. Carré, after Carré: Les chercheurs de trésor	Paris, OC (Favart), 4 April 1859	also known as Le chercheur du trésor and as Dinorah, oder Die Wallfahrt nach Ploërmel (Paris, ?1859/R: ERO, xxiii)	i
L’Africaine	grand opéra, 5	Scribe, F.J. Fétis and others	Paris Opéra, 28 April 1865	also known as Vasco da Gama; begun 1837, final revisions by Fétis; Kj*; (Paris, 1865/R: ERO, xxiv); 22 pieces and frags. not used in final version, ed. Fétis in vs (Paris, 1865)	i
Opera frags.: Abu Hassan, comp. 1810 Darmstadt, unperf.; Der Admiral, oder Der verlorene Prozess, comp. 1811, Darmstadt, unperf.; Le bachelier de Salamanque, ?1815, inc.; Ines de Castro 1824 (Rossi), inc.; Malek Adel 1824 (Rossi), inc.; La nymphe de Danube, 1826 (T. Sauvage), inc.; Die drei Pintos, Oper, after Weber’s sketches, frags, Berlin/Paris, 1826–52; Le portefaix, 1831 (Scribe), inc.; Les brigands (A. Dumas père), planned 1832, not begun; Cinq mars, Dec 1837 (J.-H. Vernoy de Saint-Georges and E. de Planard, after A. de Vigny), inc.; Noëma, ou Le repentir [L’ange au exil] (Scribe and Saint-Georges), contract signed 15 Jan 1846, inc.; Judith, 1854 (Scribe), inc.