Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2008 Mary Garden: An Operatic Muse for Debussy and Massenet Kristen P. Johnson
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF MUSIC
MARY GARDEN: AN OPERATIC MUSE FOR
DEBUSSY AND MASSENET
By
KRISTEN P. JOHNSON
A Treatise submitted to the Department of Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Musical Arts
Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2008
The members of the Committee approve the treatise of Kristen P. Johnson defended on March 27, 2008.
______Douglas Fisher Professor Directing Treatise
______Dr. Jeffery Kite-Powell Outside Committee Member
______Stanford Olsen Committee Member
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii
I would like to dedicate this treatise to my father and mother, Ed and Sally Johnson. It is because of my parents’ guidance and financial support that I am able to achieve this level of educational accomplishment. I will always be indebted to them for their constant encouragement and unwavering belief in my abilities. Thank you Mom and Dad!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge Douglas Fisher for his mentorship and encouragement throughout my doctoral studies, and throughout the process of writing this treatise. I would also like to thank Stanford Olsen and Dr. Jeffery Kite-Powell for their willingness to serve on my doctoral committee. Finally, I would like to thank the Chicago Historical Society for providing photos of Mary Garden to be used in this treatise.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures…………………………………………………...vi Abstract………………………………………………………….vii
1. BIOGRAPHY………………………………………………..1
2. MÉLISANDE AND DEBUSSY…………………………….16
3. CHÉRUBIN AND MASSENET……..……………………...29
CONCLUSION………………………………………………….37
APPENDIX A…………………………………………………...39 Photos of Mary Garden
APPENDIX B…………………………………………………...48 Synopsis of Pelléas et Mélisande
APPENDIX C…………………………………………………...53 Synopsis of Chérubin
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………….56
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………59
v
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Fig. 1.1 Mary Garden as Charpentier’s Louise……………………..6
2. Fig. 1.2 Mary Garden as director of the Chicago Opera Association (1921-1922)……………………………………………………..13
3. Fig. 2.1 mm. 91-113 of Act II, scene i: Pelléas et Mélisande……...20
4. Fig. 2.2 Mary Garden as Mélisande………………………………...24
5. Fig. 3.1 Mary Garden as Massenet’s Chérubin……………………..32
6. Fig. 3.2 mm. 9-21 of Act I, scene v: Chérubin……………………..34
7. Fig. 3.3 Portrait photo of Mary Garden……………………………..38
8. Fig. A.1 Mary Garden as Bizet’s Carmen…………………………..40
9. Fig. A.2 Mary Garden as Massenet’s Cléopâtre……………………41
10. Fig. A.3 Mary Garden as Fanny Legrand in Massenet’s Sapho..….42
11. Fig. A.4 Mary Garden as Massenet’s Le Jongleur de Notre Dame..43
12. Fig. A.5 Mary Garden as Strauss’ Salome…………………………44
13. Fig. A.6 Mary Garden as Massenet’s Thaïs………………………..45
14. Fig. A.7 Mary Garden as Puccini’s Tosca………………………….46
15. Fig. A.8 Mary Garden………………………………………………47
DISCLAIMER: All photos in this treatise have been approved for use by kind permission of the Chicago Historical Society and/or the rules of public domain.2
2 It is a general rule that any work published in the United States before 1923 is considered to be in the public domain. The photos in this treatise of Miss Garden were all taken prior to 1923, or were permitted by the Chicago Historical Society to be photo-copied and used for academic purposes. vi
ABSTRACT
Soprano Mary Garden (1874-1967) was a powerful influence on French operatic style and performance practice in the early twentieth century through her association with composers Claude Debussy (1862-1918) and Jules Massenet (1842-1912). Scottish-born Garden created the leading roles in both Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande and Massenet’s Chérubin, established a successful operatic career in both France and America, and was largely responsible for the introduction of contemporary French opera to American audiences. To support these statements, I have examined the two operatic roles with which Mary Garden was chiefly associated—Debussy’s Mélisande and Massenet’s Chérubin. In spite of the different circumstances in which Miss Garden was chosen to premiere the title roles of these two operas (Debussy having personally chosen her to create the role after the score to Pelléas et Mélisande had already been composed and Massenet choosing to create Chérubin specifically for her), one may confidently assume that her portrayals of these characters were closest to the original intentions of the composers. In support of this argument, the dramatic and musical demands of the two roles were analyzed, specific quotes from Debussy, Massenet and pertinent critical reviews of Garden’s performances were considered, and the breadth of Miss Garden’s influence and artistry were explored to demonstrate why Garden was the ideal choice for both roles. This treatise explores her strengths and attributes both as a singer and as an actress.
vii
CHAPTER ONE
BIOGRAPHY Mary Garden was born on February 20, 1874 in Aberdeen, Scotland to Robert Davidson Garden and Mary Joss. The first of four daughters, Mary never revealed any interest in being a singer, but was undoubtedly born a natural dramatist. She would often create imaginary scenes with her sisters and pretend to faint or initiate some other outrageous gesture to urge a reaction from her audience.3 The instincts Garden had as an actress would later prove to be the basis of her successful career, as she was one of the greatest dramatic interpreters in opera at the turn of the twentieth century. When the Garden family moved to America in 1889, they initially came to Chicopee, Massachusetts, but later settled in the Hyde Park area of Chicago, Illinois. At this time there was a large Scottish population living in Hyde Park, which made the move an easy transition for the Gardens.4 Chicago would provide a significant beginning to Mary’s musical career, because it was in Chicago that she had her first voice lesson, experienced her first public performance as a singer, and witnessed her first operatic performance. Mrs. Sarah Robinson-Duff, former student of renowned singer and pedagogue Mathilde Marchesi, was Mary Garden’s first vocal instructor. Mrs. Duff was introduced to Mary through Robert Garden’s employer and immediately committed to mentor young Mary to reach her potential as a singer. Michael Turnbull, author of the biography Mary Garden (1997), quotes Mrs. Duff’s memories of her first lesson with Garden: “Her voice at that time was small but very lovely and pure in quality. It is no exaggeration to say that she sang then with the same astounding musical understanding and remarkable phrasing which has colored her entire career.”5 Mrs. Duff continued to nurture Mary’s vocal progress, and finally, on October 28, 1891, Mary made her recital debut singing the aria Bel raggio lusinghier from Rossini’s Semiramide. A critic who was present at the recital said of Garden’s performance: “One of the most brilliant
3 Michael T.R.B. Turnbull, Mary Garden (Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press, 1997), 3. 4 Turnbull, 4. Richard D. Fletcher, “‘Our Own’ Mary Garden,” Chicago History 2 (Spring 1972-Fall 1973) : 34-46. 5 Turnbull, 5. 1
successes of the evening was Miss Garden’s singing a very difficult and exacting aria not often attempted by so young a vocalist and rarely better executed than by Miss Garden.”6 A few years after Mary began studying with Mrs. Duff, Mr. and Mrs. Mayer, a wealthy couple in Chicago, were introduced to Mary through Mrs. Duff. After hearing Mary sing, the Mayers were so impressed by her that they agreed to finance the remainder of her education in America, and eventually in Paris. The Garden family was suffering financially at this time and was preparing to move to Hartford, Connecticut in response to an employment opportunity for Robert Garden. The Mayers agreed to house Mary in Chicago, if she wished to stay and continue her musical education. Mary accepted the Mayers’s offer and was separated from her family in order to continue her vocal studies. During her stay at the Mayers’s home, she often accompanied them to the Chicago Auditorium, the theater where Mary would give many operatic performances during the 1920s and 1930s. It was at the famous Auditorium where Mary witnessed her first opera, Gounod’s Roméo et Juliette. The singers that night were soprano Nellie Melba and tenor Jean de Reszke, two people with whom Mary would eventually become closely acquainted during her career.7 In May 1896, Mary sailed with Mrs. Duff to Europe to further her education in Paris. In Garden’s autobiography (which one should read with caution, as it was mostly a personal memoir and not an accurate account of her life)8 she stated: “I never saw America again until I came back as an established artist.”9 This statement was based on the fact that Mary did not return again to America until 1907, when she would premiere Thaïs at the Manhattan Opera House under the administration of Oscar Hammerstein.10 Upon her arrival in Paris, Mrs. Duff’s first and most important task was to secure a voice teacher for Mary. Initially, Mrs. Duff sent Mary to her former teacher, Madame Marchesi, who had also taught successful singers such as Emma Eames, Emma Calvé,
6 Turnbull, 5. 7 Turnbull, 7. 8 Turnbull explains in his biography why Mary Garden’s autobiography was often exaggerated: “Mary’s distortion of the facts stemmed from an innate tendency to exaggerate which, in combination with her failure to keep accurate records, her later highly developed skill in managing the media, and the onset of senile dementia around 1945 [her autobiography was published in 1952], led to the confusion or transposition of dates, events, feelings and even people.” (Turnbull, 1.) 9 Mary Garden and Louis Biancolli, Mary Garden’s Story (London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 1952), 21. 10 Turnbull, 56. 2
Nellie Melba, and Sibyl Sanderson. Unfortunately, Mary did not approve of Marchesi’s teaching, because she forced her to train as a coloratura singer. Mary decided she did not want to be restricted to only coloratura repertoire, discontinued her study with Mme. Marchesi, and proceeded to look for someone she considered to be a suitable replacement. Finally, Garden settled on a Spanish teacher named Señor Trabadelo, who did not place focus on vocal registration, but rather taught students to sing in a manner that was comparable to their natural speech.11 After accomplishing her first task to find a teacher for Mary, Mrs. Duff’s second task was to find an environment where Mary could learn the French language. Duff placed her with a French family in Clichy named Chaigneau. The Chaigneau family had three daughters, all of whom were musicians. One played the piano, another studied the violin, and the third played the cello.12 This musical atmosphere in the home provided Mary with a better knowledge of the French culture, and of course, a wonderful command of the French language. After approximately one year in the Chaigneau home, Garden decided to move closer to the area where she studied and trained: the Avenue Marceau, near the Arc de Triomphe on the Place de l’Étoile. Some of Mary’s roommates in her new home on the Avenue Marceau were American opera students trying to make a career in Paris, including one named Neal McCay. McCay recalled Mary’s work ethic: Every morning she was the first to prepare for lessons later in the day. Her studies included every possible thing that would help her to become an opera singer. Mary’s efforts were all the more praiseworthy, McCay felt, for the fact that she was working with little encouragement, and even less praise, for there were few who believed that she would ever succeed.13 Despite these observations by her colleagues of her commitment to her studies, there were rumors delivered in anonymous letters to the Mayer family in Chicago of Garden’s carelessness and scandalous social life in Paris. Although they were falsehoods, they would eventually prevent Mary from receiving any more funds from the Mayers, leaving her without any money to pay for her lessons and her housing. At the time, Mary was studying with Trabadelo and Lucien Fugère, a French bass-baritone who sang at the Opéra-Comique in Paris. Although she could not afford to pay for her lessons, her
11 Garden, 24-25; Turnbull, 11-12. 12 Turnbull, 12. 13 Turnbull, 14. 3
teachers dismissed the situation and continued to teach her for a short time until she could find the money to pay them. Ultimately, Mary had to move from her dwelling on the Avenue Marceau, because she could not pay her landlady, and soon after, her voice lessons also came to an end.14 At her wit’s end, and with no penny to her name, Mary Garden happened to meet a woman who would change her life and prove to be the main catalyst for her operatic career. Sibyl Sanderson, an American-born soprano, was at the end of her career and completely available to be a mentor for young Garden. After Mary informed Sanderson of her financial situation, Sanderson immediately had Mary’s belongings brought to her own home and agreed to provide her with a place to live as long as she wanted. Because of Sanderson’s successful operatic career, her close relationship to Albert Carré, director of the Opéra-Comique, and her strong rapport with composer Jules Massenet (1842-1912), she provided an immense influence on Garden as a young artist. As a result of Sanderson’s guidance, certain opportunities paved the way for Garden to establish herself as one of the champions of the French operatic repertoire. Mary Garden’s new-found relationship with Sanderson provided her with the opportunity to audition for Monsieur Carré and to attend the rehearsals of Gustave Charpentier’s opera Louise, the piece in which she would make her operatic debut in 1900. In addition to this audition, Garden was also allowed to coach privately with Massenet. Sanderson’s close association with Massenet resulted from her debut as his Manon in 1888, with which Massenet was so impressed that he created the operas Esclarmonde and Thaïs for her.15 During these meetings with Massenet, Mary Garden was privileged to have the experience of learning the entire roles of Manon and Sapho from the composer himself, a rare opportunity for such a young singer on the brink of her career. After her first audition at the Opéra-Comique for Albert Carré, Garden was offered the role of Micaela in Bizet’s Carmen, and officially registered as a full-time employee of the Opéra-Comique as of January 30, 1900. In April of the same year, the Opéra-Comique was presenting Charpentier’s Louise with Marthe Rioton singing the title role. Although Garden was not assigned as the understudy to Mme. Rioton, she still
14 Garden, 26-29; Turnbull, 15-16. 15 Elizabeth Forbes: “Sanderson, Sibyl,” Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed [10 October, 2007] ),
committed to learning the role because she dearly loved the music. Fortunately for Mary Garden, Marthe Rioton fell ill and Carré warned Mary to be ready to go on regardless of her not being the official understudy. On April 10, 1900, Mary Garden was finally given the chance to prove her talents on the stage in her operatic debut in the title role in Louise.16 André Messager, the conductor, was very skeptical of a novice performer like Garden, but the overwhelming applause from the audience after her rendition of Louise’s aria, “Depuis le jour,” persuaded him to pay Garden one of the highest compliments by bringing the orchestra to their feet for a standing ovation.17 After her unplanned performance of Louise, Mary Garden’s career began to grow rapidly, as well as her popularity with the French public. Albert Carré immediately renewed her contract for an additional two years for double the rate he had initially offered. At a time in French history when the la vie de bohème was at its height, Garden was an emerging artist who represented the art and music inspired by this lifestyle. Mary Garden was evolving into the type of musical artist expected by the French at this time. Michael Turnbull further explained this French standard that Garden was achieving when he quoted Grace Moore, author of You’re Only Human Once (1947): The French have never demanded virtuoso voices from their prima donnas. What they insisted on having was a perfection of acting artistry ingrained in the music. They also were partial to good looks. They demanded chic and beauty and the credible illusion of enchantment.18 In acknowledging these characteristics that the French required of their performers, one could reasonably conclude when observing Garden’s career during the fin de siècle in Paris that she adhered closely to these requirements, and became the forerunner of the modern French performance style. Because of her successes with what was considered at the time to be modern French opera, Mary Garden could be greatly credited for adding to the standard repertoire in America in the 1920s by promoting this avant-garde, operatic performance style.
16 After Garden’s debut as Louise, the initial contract for the role of Micaela in Bizet’s Carmen was overlooked in lieu of the many performances Garden sang of Louise. There is no record in Turnbull’s appendix, which lists all of the operatic roles Garden performed during her career, of Garden singing the role of Micaela. 17 Turnbull, 19-21. 18 Turnbull, 22. 5
Figure 1.1 Mary Garden as Charpentier’s Louise
6
The year following her debut in the title role of Charpentier’s Louise, Garden performed three major roles including Jules Massenet’s Thaïs (Summer 1901; Aix-les- Bains) and Manon (September 1901; Paris), and the title role in André Messager’s opera, Madame Chrysanthème (December 1901; Monte Carlo). Although this year held many successes for Mary Garden, the most important opportunity during this time, and of her entire career, would also present itself. During the summer of 1901 in Aix-les-Bains, Mary Garden’s summer vacation site, she discovered Claude Debussy’s (1862-1918) song, “C’est l’extase” (1887) from his song cycle Ariette oubliées (1888), in the magazine l’Ilustration, and sang through the piece with Messager at the piano.19 In her autobiography, she remembered her first reaction to the French composer: “I came over to look at it, and it was the song, Extase, and the more I examined it the more it seemed to be mine, so near were its mood and idiom to me.”20 It is important to note Mary Garden’s innate comprehension of the music of Claude Debussy. This initial encounter with Debussy’s mélodie was significant because it foreshadowed Garden’s instinctive capability to accurately interpret Debussy’s intent in both song and opera. After her performance of Messager’s Madame Chrysanthème, Albert Carré and Messager had decided to accept a new project for the Opéra-Comique, the premiere of Debussy’s new opera Pelléas et Mélisande. Mary Garden was invited by Carré and Messager to audition for the leading role of Mélisande. The opera, which was Debussy’s only operatic composition, was written six years prior and based on the play by the Belgian symbolist poet Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1949). Debussy had been playing a vocal/piano reduction of the score for friends in order to convince someone to fund the project and mount the production. On December 29, 1901, the announcement was made in Paris that Mary Garden would premiere the role of Mélisande in Debussy’s opera at the Opéra-Comique.21 This opportunity for Garden quickly boosted her career as an opera star, but more importantly, established her as an artist who would rarely be equaled in the dramatic interpretation of French operatic repertoire. Rehearsals began for Debussy’s opera on January 13, 1902, and the production premiered approximately three months later on April 30, 1902. Due to the success of
19 Turnbull, 28-29. 20 Garden, 49. 21 Turnbull, 30. 7
Garden’s performance as Mélisande, her contract was once again renewed with the Opéra-Comique for 2,000 francs per month, eventually rising to 5,000.22 After the renewal of her contract, Mary Garden was officially supporting herself solely by her singing. This rise in the level of her artistry yielded many other successful performances at the Opéra-Comique and elsewhere. On February 14, 1905 in Monte Carlo, Garden premiered the title role of Massenet’s opera Chérubin, an opera that the composer specifically wrote to display the young soprano’s voice.23 Gabriel Fauré was covering the premiere as a reporter for the journal entitled Le Figaro. He commented on Garden’s performance and wrote: “It would be impossible to conjure up more bravery, gaiety and spirit.”24 Another music critic, Fernand Platy from Le Journal de Monaco, wrote (February 21, 1905): Miss Mary Garden, who lends her delicious voice to the role of Chérubin, performed the role with charming mischievousness and astonishing verve. And how jaunty she is dressed as a man – she carries it off with suggestive ease. She seems to be at one and the same time an adorable child and possessed by a demon. Her acting is pure art. The audience could hardly stop applauding her throughout the whole opera.25 Although Pelléas et Mélisande and Chérubin were not of the same vein musically or dramatically, Garden’s attempts at both styles were equally successful. This versatility as a musician and as an actress furthered her career tremendously, and where she admittedly lacked vocally, she abounded dramatically which ultimately solidified her place in the operatic world. In his biography of Garden, Michael Turnbull documented
22 Turnbull, 34; An article written in the New York Times on February 14, 1909 presents a salary comparison that would enlighten the reader as to how much Garden’s salary of 2,000 francs per month was actually worth in 1902. The article, “Who’s Who In The World of Grand Opera,” gives the famous tenor Enrico Caruso’s salary from Covent Garden in 1901. An opera star like Caruso was making approximately 1,000 UK pounds per performance for forty contracted performances with Covent Garden. The website entitled “The Current Value of Old Money” shows that 1 franc in 1900 was equal to approximately 2,37 euros in 2006. With this value, using the conversion rate from euro to USD in 2006, Mary Garden would be making approximately $7,438 per month which would equal approximately $89,000 per year in 2006. Also, according to this information, Caruso’s payment per performance in 1901 would approximately be worth $148,023 in 2006. Author Unknown, “Who’s Who In the World of Grand Opera,” New York Times, 14 February 1909, Sec: Magazine, page SM9. 23 Rodney Milnes: “Chérubin,” Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed [15 October 2007] ),
America’s opinion of Garden’s voice by quoting Merle Armitage, the assistant to Mary Garden’s American manager Charles Wagner: It was not a voice in the true operatic sense, he suggested; it was an instrument of interpretation and projection. It was a metallic instrument, whose most striking characteristic was its intensity. It was the vehicle for the projection of an intense conviction – the ideal equipment for the complex new opera of which she was the pioneer exponent. It was also a chameleon-like instrument, capable of taking on the character of its environment.26 After Garden performed at the Opéra-Comique as the soprano star, newcomers such as Maggie Teyte and Marguerite Carré, wife to Albert Carré, presented Garden with competition for roles that would have likely been given to her. In response, Mary Garden signed a contract in 1907 with the Manhattan Opera House in America under the administration of Oscar Hammerstein. Hammerstein engaged Mary Garden because he wanted to rival the mainly Italian and German repertoire of the Metropolitan Opera House by bringing French modern opera to America. To ensure Garden’s agreement to sign the contract, Hammerstein acquired the American rights to both Charpentier’s Louise and Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande. He also had a replica of the original sets of these operas made for the American performances, as well as engaging the original singers who premiered Debussy’s opera alongside Garden.27 On October 18, 1907, Mary Garden left Paris and arrived in America the night of October 26, 1907. Garden made her American debut as Massenet’s Thaïs with Cleofonte Campanini conducting. The reactions from the American public were split into two opposing camps: “….those who hailed Garden as an operatic genius of unparalleled talents, and those who insisted that she was something of a fraud, substituting an exaggerated emphasis on theatricalism for a lack of vocal endowment and the gifts of profound musicianship.”28 Although Mary Garden was surprised by such unforgiving remarks, she responded by accentuating her strengths to overpower her faults. The New York Herald quoted Garden on December 1, 1907: My art is one quite separate from that of other operatic singers, and the success I have won is not the success of vocal cords. It is by an art quite different and I
26 Turnbull, 52-53. 27 Turnbull, 51. 28 Fletcher, 39. 9
want to be judged not alone by my singing or my acting or my stage appearance, but by these combined into one art.29 Because Garden countered such adverse critique from America by changing the perspective to view her not only as a singer, but as a singing actress, she utilized the power of being unique to her advantage. Mary Garden presented the new idea of the combination of singing, acting, and stage presence to America, and as a result, founded a new operatic standard for the upcoming generation. Musical America wrote of Mary Garden (1908): “It is hardly too much to say that the engagement of Mary Garden marks the beginning of a new operatic era in America.”30 America began to embrace and accept this new notion of French opera and the drama as an entity rather than the focus being entirely on the voice. Mary Garden continued to introduce French opera roles to the American public, and they responded by receiving her with open minds and an appreciation of her art. She premiered Charpentier’s Louise at the Manhattan on January 3, 1908, and in her autobiography, recalled the enthusiasm of the audience. “That was a brilliant audience we had at the Manhattan! And thanks to Mr. Hammerstein, they all began to understand French opera, and they came to know what a ‘singing actress’ was when I sang Louise….”31 In February of that same year, Garden sang Mélisande for the first time in America. Maurice Maeterlinck, librettist of Pelléas et Mélisande, attended the opera, and later wrote a letter giving his approval of Garden’s performance. I had sworn to myself never to see the lyric drama, Pelléas et Mélisande [it read]. Yesterday I violated my vow and I am a happy man. For the first time I have entirely understood my own play, and because of you. I saw there many things which I had never perceived or which I had forgotten. Like every great artist, more than any other perhaps, you have the genius to add to a work or to vivify in it those things which I omitted or had left in a state of sleep. With all my heart’s thanks for the beautiful revelation of last night’s performance, in the most cordial homage of your devoted admirer.32 During this time in her career, Mary Garden was regularly traveling back and forth from America to Paris giving performances at the Manhattan and at the Opéra in Paris. On
29 Turnbull, 58; The New York Herald, December 01, 1907. 30 Turnbull, 59; Musical America, 25 January 1908. 31 Garden, 110. 32 Garden, 111. 10
January 28, 1909, she presented Richard Strauss’s Salomé in French at the Manhattan opera house. In this very controversial opera, Garden performed the role of Salomé, and in addition danced the Dance of the Seven Veils herself.33 Another opera that Mary Garden introduced to America was Massenet’s Le jongleur de Notre Dame (November 1908). Originally, the role of the Jongleur was written for a tenor, but Mary Garden was the first woman to sing the role. In her autobiography, she recalled the process of creating this character. Now, this was one of my strangest and most problematic creations. Here was a little boy of fifteen, a sexless child, with a voice that wasn’t yet broken, and there was Salomé, with a voice of passion and colour, and I had to take my voice and make it that other thing. I couldn’t put into that boy passion of any kind. The voice had to be pure and high, like a choir boy’s before it changes, and how it tired me! It wasn’t easy, but what a part, the Jongleur! The critics and the public all loved it. They never even thought about the fact that it was a woman doing it.34 While Garden was in Paris, she received notice that Hammerstein had sold the Manhattan Opera Company to the Metropolitan Opera due to financial instability. Because of Mary Garden’s popularity in America, she was immediately approached by Andreas Dippel to join the new Chicago Grand Opera Company. Soon after the Metropolitan bought the Manhattan Opera Company, they sold it to Chicago. Therefore, the Chicago Grand Opera Company was established and would prove to be the American opera company with which Mary Garden was most closely associated. On June 23, 1910, Garden cabled Dippel to notify him of her acceptance of the ten-week contract with Chicago.35 While employed in Chicago, Mary Garden brought many French operatic roles, as well as roles in other languages, to America. Some of her signature performances included: the title role in Strauss’s Salomé (November 1910), Marguerite in Gounod’s Faust (December 1910), the title role in Bizet’s Carmen (January 1911), the title role in the premiere of Victor Herbert’s American opera Natoma (February 1911), the Prince in Massenet’s Cendrillon (November 1911), the title role in Puccini’s Tosca (January 1913), the title role in Massenet’s Cléopâtre (January 1919), Fiora in Montemezzi’s L’amore dei tre re (January 1920), Charlotte in Massenet’s Werther
33 Garden, 120. 34 Garden, 125-126. 35 Turnbull, 80. 11
(November 1924), and Katuisha in Franco Alfano’s Résurrection ( January 1926). Although there were not always positive reactions from the American audiences, the public undoubtedly observed Garden exercise her versatility as an artist. Mary Garden could entirely commit to being exactly what the character demanded from her in voice, in gesture, and in dramatic intent. In her autobiography, Garden discussed how she viewed each specific character she played: Every one of these women I sang had a special quality of her own, and in every one of them I had a different singing voice. In Fiora [Montemezzi’s L’amore dei tre re] the quality was passion and terror, and I put these things in my voice. I should like to say again and again that I used my voice the same way a painter uses his brush. He throws the colours he wants on to his canvas. I threw colour into my roles in the different tones that I sang. Fiora was full of the red passion of Italy. Salomé was vice personified; the Jongleur was sexless; Louise was l’amour libre; Mélisande was mystery, secrecy; Sapho was the cocotte of Paris, common, and I made my voice that. Aphrodite was what she couldn’t get. There was no love in her at all, just longing for the unattainable. She wanted the pearls from the statue in the temple, and she had to have them before she would go to that man’s studio and give herself to him. And when she got them she faced him in a gesture of surrender. But he turned to her and said: ‘I don’t want you.’ And suddenly she was like a tigress. There my voice turned wild and dark with anger, the same voice that had been cold as a diamond.36 Although Mary Garden had a highly successful career as a “singing actress,” in America, she also pursued other work as the first female director of the Chicago Grand Opera Company, a public lecturer/recitalist, and a film actress. On January 14, 1921, Garden’s promotion to director of the Chicago Opera Association was made public after Gino Marinuzzi, the former director, unexpectedly resigned.37 Her appointment as director was a very important opportunity because other than Emma Carelli, wife of Walter Mocchi and director of Il Teatro Costanzi in Rome, Italy, for a number of years, no woman had ever been given the position of director.38 Furthermore, Garden was, in addition to acting as director for the 1921-22 season, singing as a principal artist for the same season. There were many positive results from Mary Garden’s being director, such as the premiere of Prokofiev’s L’amour des trois oranges, the first American performances of Wagner (Tristan und Isolde) in German after World War I, the revival of
36 Garden, 156. 37 Turnbull, 143-145. 38 Turnbull, 146; Musical Courier, 20 January 1921. 12
Puccini’s La Fanciulla del West for Rosa Raisa, her importation of many new singers, and the number of record-breaking crowds in attendance to the operas. However, at the time of her resignation as director, April 23, 1922, the company’s losses were near $1,000,000.39
Figure 1.2 Mary Garden as director of the Chicago Opera Association (1921-1922) After a lengthy and successful career, Mary Garden made her final operatic performance in Chicago on January 24, 1931, singing the title role in Le jongleur de Notre Dame.40 Garden remembered her decision to retire very vividly: I was doing the Jongleur on that particular night. While the others were singing and doing other things in the opera, I sat by myself on a bench in one corner of the stage. Before I knew what I was doing, I was talking to myself, or rather to the little boy whose part I was playing. ‘Dear little Jongleur,’ I said. ‘You’ve performed all your little stunts. Everything you had you’ve given to the Virgin. Now your work is done.’ Then I turned to myself.
39 Turnbull, 153; Fletcher, 44. 40 Turnbull, 173-174. 13
‘I, Mary Garden, have given twenty of the best years of my life to my work here in Chicago, and I’ve given everything to the people as well as I could, and now I think I’ll go.’ When the final curtain came down, I went into my dressing-room, dressed myself to go home, and without saying good-bye to anybody I left, and I never went back. I walked out of that vast hall without seeing a soul. I told nobody of my decision, and when I was back in Paris they cabled me to return the following season. ‘My career in America is done,’ I cabled back.41 After Mary Garden returned to Paris in 1931, she never returned to America again as an operatic artist, but only as a lecturer, recitalist, and teacher. During World War II she spent most of her time helping wounded soldiers and doing charity work in her birthplace, Aberdeen, Scotland. Also, at this time her mother’s health was failing, so Garden stayed by her side in Scotland until her death in 1948. Mary Garden spent the rest of her life mentoring young singers, educating audiences about music and the arts, and documenting her memoirs into an autobiography which she co-authored with Louis Biancolli in 1952. Because of her battle with dementia and the effects of the disease over her body, Mary Garden was admitted to Aberdeen hospital in 1962 to recover from an accidental fall which had broken both of her arms.42 By the time of Garden’s 91st birthday in February 1965, she had been admitted to a Scottish hospital near Inverurie which specialized in psycho-geriatric care. By this time, her mind had completely left her, and she was so difficult to manage that she had to be strapped to her hospital bed. 43 On January 3, 1967, Mary Garden passed away in her hospital bed. Mary Garden left a legacy that significantly influenced the operatic world. Although she died alone, and was alone most of her life, Garden claimed to never regret her choice to dedicate herself solely to her craft. She discussed her commitment to career in the last paragraphs of her autobiography: Early in life I taught myself a very simple lesson—don’t lean on anyone but yourself. I have always been independent in my work and in my life. I could never belong to anyone. I never needed anyone, and that was why I could give so much to my art. When I chose my career I resolved to crowd everything else out, and when I was in the theatre I was aware of nothing but my role. I never let people interfere with my work or influence me. I had very few close friends during the thirty years of my career, for I wanted myself for myself
41 Garden, 228-29. 42 Turnbull, 199. 43 Turnbull, 200. 14
and my work. Two months a year I had to be alone with nature, away from people. But that was solitude rather than loneliness. And from nature I drank in peace and health. I believed in myself, and I never permitted anything or anybody to destroy that belief. My eye never wavered from the goal, and my whole life went into the operas I sang. I wanted liberty and I went my own way. Some called it a lonely way, but that wasn’t true. I had myself and my music, and I was and am a happy person. I owe nothing to anyone but Mary Garden, and for that I paid the price of hard work. My help always came from myself, never from outside. ….My passion was opera, and that was the only real ‘romance’ of my life.44
44 Garden, 271-272. 15
CHAPTER 2 MÉLISANDE AND DEBUSSY After her debut at the Opéra-Comique in Charpentier’s Louise, Mary Garden’s operatic career took flight. Among other performances at the Opéra-Comique such as Lucien Lambert’s La Marseillaise and Gabriel Pierné’s La fille de Tabarin, Garden was also offered a contract from the director of the casino at Aix-les-Bains, a summer resort town often frequented by European royalty.45 The first summer that Mary Garden sang at Aix-les-Bains, she made her debut in the title role of Massenet’s Thaïs, a role that her mentor Sybil Sanderson created. Around the same time as her performance of Thaïs, Garden and André Messager retreated to Mont Revard for a weekend rendezvous.46 It was during this particular weekend vacation that Mary Garden was first exposed to the music of Claude Debussy. As she was reading through a French magazine entitled l’Ilustration, she found the song Extase, which was the first song from what we now recognize as Debussy’s song cycle Ariette oublieés.47 After reading through the excerpt with Maestro Messager at the piano, Garden was overcome by her initial response to the music’s sensuality and mood.48 As stated in the previous chapter, Mary Garden’s instinctive bond to Debussy’s composition foreshadowed her success in the performance of his symbolist opera, Pelléas et Mélisande, and also proved to be the reason why Debussy believed Garden to be “the woman and artist he hardly dared hoped for.”49 Soon after Garden’s return to the Opéra-Comique in the fall of 1901, she sang performances of Massenet’s opera Manon, and also performed the title role of Messager’s opera Madame Chrysanthème in Monte Carlo. In late December of the same year, after her return from singing Chrysanthème, Mary Garden was summoned by both Carré and Messager to audition for the female lead in Debussy’s opera. Although Debussy had completed the work in 1895, he had been playing the vocal score for friends and colleagues in hopes that someone would agree to mount the production. On
45 Turnbull, 28-29. 46 Mary Garden recounted her love affair with Messager in her autobiography. However, since Mary Garden insisted that romantic love interfered with her career, there was never any relationship between her and any man that was significant enough to document. One can only assume that Garden’s recollection of her relationship to Messager was accurate. 47 Turnbull, 29. 48 Garden, 49. 49 Turnbull, 34. 16
December 29, 1901, the Paris newspapers publicly announced that the Opéra-Comique would be debuting Debussy’s opera the following year, and the role of Mélisande was to be sung by Mary Garden.50 After this announcement was made, Maurice Maeterlinck, librettist of Debussy’s opera, was infuriated with Debussy for choosing Garden over Maeterlinck’s mistress, soprano Georgette Leblanc. Maeterlinck argued that he was the creator of the character, and that gave him the right to choose his Mélisande. However, Debussy argued that he was the composer, and that gave him the right to choose who sang his Mélisande. According to Garden in her autobiography, Debussy arranged for Leblanc to sing an act of the opera for the composer and several other reputable musicians. Their vote against the soprano singing the role of Mélisande was unanimous, and Debussy continued with his plan to use Mary Garden without the support of Maeterlinck.51 Finally, the cast for Pelléas et Mélisande was determined, with Jean Périer as Pelléas and Garden as Mélisande.52 In Roger Nichols’s biography The life of Debussy, the author chronicled the story of Debussy playing through the entire opera at Messager’s home before any rehearsals had begun. Nichols also noted the importance of Mary Garden’s initial reaction to hearing the opera in its entirety (see Appendix B for the synopsis of Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande).53 Garden recalled that she experienced the most poignant emotions while Debussy played through the score. “Listening to that music I seemed to become someone else, someone inside of me whose language and soul were akin to mine.”54 When Debussy had reached the Mélisande’s death scene, Mary Garden had to excuse herself from the crowd, as she could not physically control her weeping. Once again, Debussy had immensely affected Garden with his music, and it would ultimately be this innate responsiveness to Debussy’s opera that would guide Mary Garden in successfully preparing and portraying this role. The role of Mélisande was equally challenging dramatically and musically. It did not demand a singer with a large vocal range, but a singer who could inform the music
50 Turnbull, 30. 51 Garden, 70. 52 Richard L. Smith: “Pelléas et Mélisande,” Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed [29 November 2007] ),
18
MÉLISANDE: Oh! Oh! I saw something pass at the bottom of the water…. PELLÉAS: Take care! Take care!—You will fall! What are you playing with? MÉLISANDE: With the ring he gave me…. PELLÉAS: Take care; you will lose it…. MÉLISANDE: No, no; I am sure of my hands…. PELLÉAS: Do not play so, over so deep a water…. MÉLISANDE: My hands do not tremble. PELLÉAS: How it shines in the sunlight!—Do not throw it so high in the air…. MÉLISANDE: Oh!.... PELLÉAS: It has fallen? MÉLISANDE: It has fallen into the water!.... PELLÉAS: Where is it? Where is it?.... MÉLISANDE: I do not see it sink?.... PELLÉAS: I think I see it shine…. MÉLISANDE: My ring? PELLÉAS: Yes, yes; down yonder…. MÉLISANDE: Oh! Oh! It is so far away from us!....no, no, that is not it….that is not it….It is lost….lost….There is nothing any more but a great circle on the water….What shall we do? What shall we do now?....55 Mélisande carelessness in dropping her wedding ring in the fountain symbolized her lack of commitment to her marriage to Golaud. The coincidence of Pelléas being with Mélisande in this scene suggests their future relationship as lovers. In the context of the entire play, an assumption could be made that this specific scene contained an even deeper meaning which defined Pelléas as the primary obstacle which ultimately prevented Golaud from gaining access to the depths of Mélisande’s heart. Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande is a through-composed work, which inherently presents challenges for singers’ memorization skills. The vocal lines were also void of any melodic contour, posing a problem for singers to learn the score in a timely fashion. Debussy composed the vocal lines in a recitative-like style, by often setting the text to repeated pitches and/or coordinating the interval leaps to respond to the natural rise and fall of the language. For example, in measures 91-113 of Act II, scene i, Mélisande sings mostly syllabic, sixteenth-note patterns and eighth-note triplets that often show little
55 Maurice Maeterlinck and Richard Hovey, trans., Pelléas et Mélisande ( New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1913), 36-39.
19 variation in pitch. Although the accompaniment underneath is precisely measured and Debussy gives specific tempo markings, the combination of the vocal line and accompaniment produces a sense of spontaneous conversation between Pelléas and Mélisande.
Figure 2.1 mm. 91-113 of Act II, scene i: Pelléas et Mélisande (piano/vocal) by Claude Debussy
20
Figure 2.1--continued This particular musical example is taken from the previously-quoted scene during which Mélisande has dropped her wedding ring into the water. The excerpt is representative of most of Mélisande’s music. Garden vocally commanded this style of singing not only
21
because of her ability to deliver the French text rapidly, but also because of her capability to look past the monotony of the vocal line and infuse it with the drama and emotion of Mélisande’s text. In examining Mélisande’s vocal line in mm. 91-113, one observes the frequent occurrence of phrases consisting of repeated pitches in the middle voice and also the lack of wide interval leaps. Perhaps Debussy composed these somewhat static vocal lines to symbolize Mélisande’s indifferent reaction to losing the symbol of her and Golaud’s marriage. Debussy wrote the vocal lines in a quasi-recitative style, but contrastingly composed the accompaniment to provide a backdrop that colored the scene or displayed the hidden emotions in Maeterlinck’s text. For example, the accompaniment of Mélisande’s vocal line when her ring falls consists of descending arpeggios (m. 93) and alternating sixteenth notes that create a water figure in the bass (mm. 110-113). The accompaniment describes the sound of the ring falling into the water, but one could also imagine that it actually symbolizes the deterioration of Mélisande and Golaud’s relationship, or in the grand scheme of things, the beginning of the events which ultimately lead to Mélisande’s death. In choosing to compose in this fashion, Debussy forced the audience to always listen to the text and consequently to contemplate its underlying meaning. The absence of melody was shocking at first, but was actually necessary to highlight the text. Mary Garden was able to enter immediately into Mélisande’s world of ambiguity and symbolism, while still presenting an emotionally charged vocal line that was pitch-perfect and rhythmically exact. Her ability to access each layer of Mélisande’s character and to display the vulnerability to the audience through her singing was, according to Debussy, what ultimately created this music. A few days after the gathering at Messager’s home, Garden was called to the Opéra-Comique to sing for Debussy. The composer refrained from commenting as she sang through Act One and Two of the opera. When she finished the balcony scene in Act Three, Debussy unexpectedly reacted by burying his face in his hands and sitting in complete silence. Not knowing how to interpret the composer’s behavior, Garden was even more surprised when Debussy arose from the piano and exited the rehearsal room. Mary would discover later that day when called to Albert Carré’s office that Debussy was overwhelmed by her creation of Mélisande. Turnbull documented the conversation between Garden and Debussy in his biography: “He came towards her, took both her
22 hands in his and asked (in an echo of the text of Pelléas et Mélisande): ‘Where do you come from?’ She told him and he stared at her with his deep mysterious eyes: ‘Scotland! You have come all the way from the cold North to create my music.’”56 Such a strong statement from the composer himself indicated that although he did not originally write the role of Mélisande specifically for Mary Garden, he had personally chosen her to create the role for the opera’s debut. Debussy felt that Garden embodied the character and his music in a way that he had never imagined possible. He communicated his thoughts in an inscription inside Mary Garden’s score: “In the future, others may sing Mélisande, but you alone will remain the woman and the artist I had hardly dared hope for.”57 Such high praise from Debussy was perhaps the higher compliment in comparison to him actually composing the opera for her. He had found the woman who could bring his music to life. The first rehearsal for Pelléas et Mélisande took place on January 13, 1902, and the rehearsals for Debussy’s opera continued for approximately three months.58 Three months was an unusually long rehearsal period to prepare any production at the Opéra- Comique, but the level of difficulty in Debussy’s opera required detailed attention not only to the musical preparation, but also to other aspects such as scenery and lighting. In addition to music and the production details, Mary Garden was so intent on producing an accurate costume for the role of Mélisande that she actually began a search to find a young girl with hair as long as Debussy described Mélisande to have. Finally, she discovered a Breton girl who had 5’ 4” of reddish-blonde hair, and persuaded the Opéra- Comique to pay 1,500 francs in exchange for the girl’s hair.59
56 Turnbull, 31. 57 Turnbull, 34. 58 Turnbull, 31. 59 Turnbull; New York World, 16 February 1908. 23
Figure 2.2 Mary Garden as Mélisande in Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande
24
Beginning in mid-April, complete rehearsals with scenery, lighting, costumes, and orchestra took place, and the opera premiered on April 30, 1902.60 The audience’s reaction to Debussy’s opera was divided into two camps: ‘The many musicians present,’ observed Le Figaro, ‘were divided into two schools—the avant-garde and the bearded reactionaries. There was heated criticism from the enthusiasts, the lukewarm, the fanatics, the indifferent. Some said it was a musical event of the greatest importance; others said disrespectfully that it was just a practical joke. Among one group of people I heard the phrase “The power of orchestral sonorities”; in another, “monotonous psalm-singing”.’61 After a few weeks of performances of Debussy’s opera, the initial fury decreased as box-office ticket sales increased. Debussy’s opera was such a departure from the operas being produced at that time that it was unlikely that critics and audience members could comprehend the opera at first hearing. However, one assistant organist from St. Sulpice named Gustave Bret wrote in La presse: This music takes you over, it penetrates into you by the strength of an art which I admire more than I understand. From one end to the other, the word-setting is extremely sober, but one does not lose a word of it. The orchestra is infinitely discreet, producing the strangest and most exquisite sonorities. No outbreaks of violence, no éclat. Nothing but materials of utter probity.62 Because of the rising interest in and financial support of Debussy’s masterpiece, Mary Garden was officially stamped for approval as a credible artist and opera singer. After Garden’s success in the opera, Carré responded by re-negotiating a three-year contract to begin at 2000 francs per month and eventually rise to 5000 francs per month.63 The year 1902 would be the year of Debussy for Mary Garden, and would ultimately be the year that solidified her status as a prima donna of the opera world. After Pelléas et Mélisande had premiered, the relationship between Mary Garden and Claude Debussy continued outside of the theater. It was rumored that Garden and Debussy had a romantic relationship, but Garden repeatedly denied any accusation regarding Debussy being anything more than a dear friend. In her autobiography, Garden described several occasions when Debussy, his first wife Lily, and she would gather for dinner at her apartment in Paris. Garden also recalled two trips with Debussy to London,
60 Turnbull, 33. 61 Turnbull, 33; Le Figaro, 1 May 1902. 62 Nichols, 106-107. 63 Turnbull, 34. 25
one of which was to see the actress Sarah Bernhardt portray Pelléas and Mrs. Patrick Campbell portray the role of Mélisande in Maeterlinck’s play.64 Shortly after these trips to London, Garden was confronted by Debussy about their relationship. Garden documented her memory of their conversation in her autobiography: Debussy looked as if he were under a strain of some kind, nervous with me for the first time since we had met. ‘I am obsessed with love of you, Mary,’ he said finally. ‘That’s a pity, Claude,’ I said. ‘But I’m very serious,’ he went on. ‘I can’t live without you, and I must know if you have any feeling for me.’ ‘Not that kind, Claude,’ I replied. ‘I love and adore your genius, I like you as a friend, but Debussy the man means nothing to me.’ He took it as he took everything, without another word. But it bothered me very much, because, you see, it had never shown itself to me in any way before, and as we walked back to my villa I began to think of why he would say that to me, and suddenly it came to me. ‘Claude,’ I said, turning to look at him, ‘it isn’t me you love, much as you believe it.’ He made no comment. ‘It is Mélisande you love. You’ve loved her for ten years, and you still do, and it is Mélisande that you love in me, not myself.’65 Mary Garden consistently denied ever having a romantic relationship with Debussy, and no evidence could ever be produced to the contrary. Garden’s sister, Hélène, burned all of the letters from Debussy after the death of her sister.66 Therefore, no physical documentation could ever oppose Garden’s recollection of the previously-quoted conversation between Debussy and herself. Pelléas et Mélisande proved successful not only in France, but also in America. In 1907, Mary Garden was contracted by Oscar Hammerstein, the director of the Manhattan Opera House. The Manhattan was a newly developed opera house which became the rival of the famous Metropolitan Opera of New York. Hammerstein planned to use Garden as a vehicle to promote French opera in America, and went as far as buying the rights to both Charpentier’s Louise and Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande. He also
64 Garden, 76. 65 Garden, 78. 66 Turnbull, 200. 26
engaged the French singers who had created the operas with Garden, and in addition, replicated the scenery that was originally used in the operas’ debuts.67 When Garden first performed Massenet’s Thaïs at the Manhattan Opera House in November 1907, the reaction from the American audience was quite different than that of the French audience to which Garden was accustomed. American audiences were used to the Italianate style of singing which encompassed the bel canto repertoire that was usually produced at the Metropolitan Opera during this time. The French style of opera and/or singing was an entirely new concept to an American’s eyes and ears. Richard Fletcher commented on this French style that was foreign to American audiences: She [Mary Garden] brought to her work all the refinements of the French stage where the rule of perfect ensemble demands that the total coordinated effect must always be greater than any of its parts or the sum of them. Garden’s chief concern was the search for such balance in all productions. Her ambitions were for the performance as a whole.68 Although this motto reigned true for French opera, American critics naturally compared Garden’s performance to that of the Italian bel canto singers, a style that held the voice as its first priority. Turnbull quoted a critique from The New York Globe on Garden’s American debut as Thaïs: Certainly her singing was a hindrance rather than an aid. The voice itself was a pleasant surprise. It was not the close, pinched, metallic voice that Paris so often tolerates, if it does not actually favor. Rather, it was free, rich, and of individual timbre, but it seemed to have been badly trained and sounded somewhat worn. A continual slight tremolo marred its tone. The high notes were forced and shrill. When the singer would use half-voice the tone became pale and lifeless. There was no true ‘legato.’ The phrasing was often a blur. Even the diction, which in singers of French training is traditionally excellent, sounded indistinct and otherwise faulty. In the final scene the redeemed Thaïs shrieked like a lost soul. And yet, through a medium of imperfect singing, the natural beauty of the voice did shine forth.69 This controversy between the French and American audiences made for a rocky start for Mary Garden as she sang her first performances in the United States. However, as Americans began to be exposed to more French opera, their opinions changed as they comprehended the new, modern style of the French composers and performers. John Dizikes, author of Opera in America: A Cultural History (1993), acknowledged that the
67 Turnbull, 51. 68 Fletcher, 38. 69 Turnbull 57; The New York Globe, December 1907. 27
term modernism was assigned to the arts in America during the first two-thirds of the twentieth century.70 Dizikes commented that the new operas being performed in America, such as Charpentier’s Louise, Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande, and especially Strauss’ Salome, promoted a kind of sexual liberation that made Americans uncomfortable because Americans were still very insecure about what they considered as art.71 “The future of the Manhattan Opera Company would be identified with modern opera….He [Oscar Hammerstein] set his sights on the modernist French and German school, and that modernist road lead to Mary Garden.”72 Other authors such as Oscar Thompson recognized Garden’s influence over American operatic standards through her portrayal of Mélisande. Thompson stated: “No other part [Mélisande], not even that of Thaïs, which Miss Garden afterwards made peculiarly her own, became more completely identified with her.”73 Ronald L. Davis documented Hammerstein’s efforts in bringing the French repertoire to America by mentioning Hammerstein’s productions at the Manhattan Opera House such as Charpentier’s Louise, Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande, Massenet’s Le jongleur de Notre Dame, and Strauss’ Elektra.74 All of these roles, with the exception of Strauss’ Elektra, were premiered by Mary Garden. Garden’s portrayal of Mélisande not only brought Debussy’s opera to life, but reached audiences worldwide. Her success with this particular role served as a vehicle to promote French opera in America, but also to create a new conception of opera as an entire art rather than the focus being strictly placed on the voice. These facts provide enough reason for Garden to stand alone as a viable artist. They also prove her significance in the development of opera which continues to affect the concept of operatic performance today.
70 John Dizikes, Opera in America: A Cultural History (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1993), 313. 71 Dizikes, 313. 72 Dizikes, 327. 73 Oscar Thompson, The American Singer: A Hundred Years of Success in Opera (New York, NY: The Dial Press, Inc., 1937), 268. 74 Ronald L. Davis, Opera in Chicago (New York, NY: Appleton-Century, 1966), 80. 28
CHAPTER 3 CHÉRUBIN AND MASSENET In contrast to Debussy choosing Mary Garden to portray a character he had previously created, Jules Massenet composed his opera Chérubin specifically to display Garden’s talents. Garden had been introduced to Massenet at the beginning of her career when she was being mentored by American soprano, Sybil Sanderson. Sanderson was a huge catalyst in launching Garden’s career, but she was especially instrumental in Mary Garden’s success with Massenet. At the time, Garden had been working vocally with Lucien Fugère and was being sponsored financially by Sanderson. Because of Sanderson’s collegial relationship with Massenet and her successes in his operas such as Manon and Thaïs, she was able to personally introduce the composer to Mary Garden during such an important, developmental stage. Fortunately for Garden, Massenet agreed to coach her through his operas Manon and Sapho. Being able to work privately with such a renowned composer polished Garden’s style and diction, but also taught her how to accurately learn an operatic role. Turnbull commented in his biography that Massenet “was determined to bring Mary to complete readiness” before presenting her to Albert Carré.75 Massenet’s investment in Garden’s ability proved to be successful as she was signed to the roster of the Opéra-Comique shortly after their work together.76 Also, Garden’s early introduction to Massenet was extremely important to her career, as the composer later wrote his opera Chérubin for her, and also permitted her to be the first woman to sing the title role of Le jongleur de Notre Dame, which was originally written for a tenor. Mary Garden sang more operas by Massenet during her career than by any other composer. Although Garden personally believed Debussy to be the more innovative and believable musician, she still succeeded in and enjoyed her portrayal of the roles in several of Massenet’s operas. I’m afraid I [Mary Garden] never cared for Massenet [as a composer]. I know how much the French adore him, and the French know how much I adore them.
75 Turnbull, 14. 76 Turnbull, 19. 29
Massenet was the yes-man par excellence. Everything was ‘all right, fine, perfect.’….he [Massenet] hadn’t the genius of Debussy, not by a long shot.77 Among the many performances of Massenet’s operas, Garden’s most notable roles were the title roles in Thaïs, Manon, Chérubin, and Le jongleur de Notre Dame.78 The opera Chérubin was significant to Garden’s operatic career because it was specifically composed by Massenet for her, and it was the first trouser role, or travesti79 part, that Garden attempted. Massenet referred to Chérubin as a comédie chantée because, in his opinion, it was too whimsical and light-hearted to be called an opera.80 One could also classify the opera as an opéra-comique, since there is spoken dialogue contained in the score. The opera premiered on February 14, 1905 in Monte Carlo and was commissioned by Prince Albert of Monaco, who was also the dedicatee of Massenet’s Le jongleur de Notre Dame.81 Mary Garden sang the title role and premiered the opera alongside two singers who often vied for her signature roles, Marguerite Carré in the role of Nina, and Lina Cavalieri as l’Ensoleillad. Norbert Christen documented Massenet’s recollection of the opening night of the opera: It was truly a distinguished interpretation, and the evening grew long thanks to the applause and the constant calls for encores with which the artists were fêted. They literally held the audience captive in a state of giddy enthusiasm.82 Both audience and critics were in agreement with Massenet’s summation of the opera’s debut. Gabriel Fauré wrote in Le Figaro concerning Garden’s performance: “‘It would be impossible to conjure up more bravery, gaiety and spirit,’ adding that her success was swift and complete.”83 Although Garden only performed Chérubin in Monte Carlo and Paris, American audiences also received her in the travesti role of Jean in Massenet’s Le
77 Garden, 131. 78 Turnbull, Appendix 1, 204. 79 Travesti – French term indicating an operatic role being played by the opposite sex. Although the term could apply to both males and females, in the circumstance of Massenet’s Chérubin, it only concerned the female singing the part of a male character. A more specific term for the role of Chérubin was breeches part, a term equivalent to the trouser role or pants role and used to define an operatic or theatrical male role played by a woman. Owen Jander/Ellen T. Harris: “Breeches part”, Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed [14 December 2007]),
jongleur de Notre Dame. In Turnbull’s biography, he quoted one of Garden’s vocal reviews from the Chicago Tribune which proved her successful portrayal of the trouser role in America: ….she was not a prima donna at all, but an ardent, slim-legged boy, with a clear, sexless voice and, though she chose to sacrifice vocal display to the artistic necessities of the part, she triumphed none the less. Only a great singer could exhibit such versatility; could strike all dramatic quality from a voice.84 The libretto to the opera was adapted from a play by Francis de Croisset entitled Le Chérubin and was actually written by Croisset and Henri Cain.85 The opera was set in Spain, and was basically a continuance of the adventures of Chérubin, the lovesick page- boy from Beaumarchais’s Le mariage de Figaro (1772).86 Although no other characters were retained from Beaumarchais’s play, Chérubin’s struggle with his overwhelming love for the opposite sex remained and became the underlying theme of the entire opera. Chérubin juggles his affections between the different female characters in the opera: L’Ensoleillad, the prima ballerina, La Comtesse and La Baronne, both married women, and Nina, the character who is most equivalent to Barberina from Mozart’s Le nozze di Figaro87 (see Appendix C for the synopsis of Massenet’s Chérubin). Unlike Debussy’s opera, which was full of symbolism and ambiguity, Massenet’s Chérubin expressed all thought and emotion outwardly. The melodic music coupled with the use of exaggerated gestures from the characters—a style indicative of French opera— provided Massenet’s audience with immediate entertainment. Massenet was widely known as a composer who wrote to please the French people. He developed a style that presented a more traditional approach by making the melodic line first priority, whereas
84 Glenn Dillard Gunn, “News of Music and Theaters: Miss Garden Returns with Art Undimmed,” Chicago Tribune, 25 December 1912, p. 15. 85 Henri Cain wrote several libretti for Massenet’s operas including: La Navarraise (premiered 1895; Cain wrote libretto in collaboration with J. Claretie, author of the original play), Sapho (premiered 1897; Cain wrote libretto in collaboration with A. Bernède and after the play by A. Daudet), Cendrillon (premiered 1899), Don Quichotte (premiered 1910), and Roma (premiered 1912). Christopher Smith, “Cain, Henri,” Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed [4 April 2008]),
Debussy chose to make any type of melody submissive to the orchestration, which ultimately informed the drama of the piece. Mary Garden successfully adapted to both composers’ styles, although they were extreme contrasts of each other. The introverted character of Mélisande and the comic character of Chérubin differed in gender as well as personality. Garden was a successful actress because she excelled in immersing herself into her roles and exhibited an unwavering commitment to her characters. This ability allowed her to continue to explore a wide spectrum of dramatic possibilities—such as the roles of Mélisande and Chérubin—and continued to develop her interpretive skills as an actress. Massenet’s Chérubin was Mary Garden’s first attempt at a trouser role, but according to critics’ reviews, the role seemed to be very natural for Garden to portray. Fernand Platy, writer for Le Journal de Monaco, wrote on the success of the performance: Miss Mary Garden, who lends her delicious voice to the role of Chérubin, performed the role with charming mischievousness and astonishing verve. And how jaunty she is dressed as a man—she carries it off with suggestive ease. She seems to be at one and the same time an adorable child and possessed by a demon. Her acting is pure art. The audience could hardly stop applauding her throughout the whole opera.88
Figure 3.1 Mary Garden as Massenet’s Chérubin Chérubin was a seventeen year old boy suffering from love; an ailment that he always tends to blow out of proportion in a flamboyant and overly-dramatic way. Massenet knew that to achieve success with his composition, he needed to engage an actress who
88 Turnbull, 45; Le Journal de Monaco, 21 February 1905. 32 was capable of creating an over-exaggerated, yet endearing character. An example of Chérubin’s love-sick nature and his constantly changing emotional state are shown in a scene (scene vii, Act I) between the young boy and his tutor, Le Philosophe. CHÉRUBIN: My gaiety, Philosopher, is all on the surface. PHILOSOPHE: Why, merciful heaven? CHÉRUBIN: I don’t know. PHILOSOPHE: What! They are celebrating your new promotion. You go from success to success… Where is this sudden sadness coming from? CHÉRUBIN: Ah! I feel that I am sick. PHILOSOPHE: Sick? I am astonished! CHÉRUBIN: Yes, I’m afraid of some catastrophe. PHILOSOPHE: From what are you suffering, my dear little boy? CHÉRUBIN: From the heart, my poor Philosopher. Philosopher, tell me why my heart gives way When I hear next to me the rustle of a dress. Tell me why I am troubled and turn so pale, When I see the wind lifting the fringes of a shawl. Tell me why my poor heart, without any good reason for a ribbon, a [woman’s] favor, is stunned or swoons. How can one, by a piece of chiffon, a scrap of cloth be moved by an illness so deep, my dear Philosopher? PHILOSOPHE: My boy, the illness that devours you I’ve known it a long time ago. I would like to suffer again, for one doesn’t suffer unless one is twenty. Love your illness. No one experienced it without blessing it. It is your youth that quivers, It is love, and it is the future! CHÉRUBIN: Ah! Philosopher! What luck… Love! Was that my torment? Was that my madness? What light all of a sudden! To the devil with melancholy! Ah! The joys I foresee! I want to love, love to distraction to love all women at one and the same time!! PHILOSOPHE: Be happy to love one… It’s already a hazardous choice. CHÉRUBIN: But already I love two! PHILOSOPHE: The fact is you don’t love any!89
89 Castel, Nico, French Opera Libretti: In Two Volumes (Vol. I) ( New York: Leyerle Publications, 1999) 33
Massenet composed this opera to display Mary Garden as both an actress and a singer. The tessitura of the role of Chérubin lay mostly in the upper-middle register of the female voice, but the range also extended down into the lower-middle register and frequently accessed the chest register as well. Like the role of Mélisande, this particular area of the voice showcased Garden’s most flattering vocal characteristics. Although the majority of the music in Chérubin was melodically driven, there were also lines that consisted of repeated pitches and rapid, syllabic French that created a measured recitative-style within the melodic framework of the scene. Again, Garden was completely capable of accomplishing the quick delivery of the language, as well as being able to sustain the long, sweeping phrases Massenet composed for the dramatic, love-sick boy. In Act I, scene v, Chérubin sings his entrance aria, “Je suis gris!” (“I am drunk!”), which exhibits all of the composition techniques mentioned above.
Figure 3.2 mm. 9-21 of Act I, scene v, “Je suis gris!” from Chèrubin (piano/vocal) by Jules Massenet
34
Figure 3.2--continued As one compares this excerpt from Chérubin’s aria to the excerpted scene from Pelléas et Mélisande in Chapter Two, one notices some similarity as well as obvious differences between the two compositions. Immediately one observes wider leaps in the vocal line, a more active accompaniment underneath, and a more present sense of melody from the Chérubin excerpt (Fig. 3-2) as opposed to the Pelléas et Mélisande (Fig. 2-1) excerpt. However, in m. 3 of the Chérubin excerpt, Massenet set, like Debussy, syllabic
35
text to a series of repeated pitches that were placed over a stagnant accompaniment. This compositional technique, although strictly measured, created a sense of recitative and commanded special attention be paid to the text. In the Debussy excerpt, the composer consistently used this technique to create a speech-like vocal line, whereas in the Massenet, the composer intermittently used this technique to personify Chérubin’s excitement, resulting in rapid text delivery and absence of legato melody. Mary Garden’s vocal and dramatic versatility allowed her to perform these contrasting styles and ultimately proved to be a major catalyst in launching both operatic premieres. Debussy and Massenet recognized Garden’s talents and abilities, and consequently, achieved much acclaim for their works by casting her in the roles of Mélisande and Chérubin. The opera Chérubin was not one of Massenet’s most famous, like Manon, Thaïs, or Werther, but nonetheless established Mary Garden as a master of the trouser role and presented many opportunities for Garden to display her strengths vocally and dramatically. Mary Garden’s success in the travesti roles ultimately culminated in her portrayal of the title role in Le jongleur de Notre Dame, and it was in this role that Garden chose to end her American operatic career in 1931.
36
CONCLUSION Mary Garden (1874-1967) became an operatic muse for Claude Debussy (1862- 1918) and Jules Massenet (1842-1912), two of the most famous French composers of the early twentieth century. Her commitment to dramatic interpretation and making the voice subservient to that dramatic interpretation changed the conception of operatic performance in America, but ultimately raised the standard of singers’ preparation for the stage. Roles such as Mélisande and Chérubin provided Garden with opportunities to present herself as a singing actress, as she was able to conquer the dramatic and musical demands of each role. Because these specific roles were presented to Garden early in her career, she was able to set a precedent that would rarely be matched in later performances of Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande and Massenet’s Chérubin. Singing Mélisande and Chérubin also allowed Garden to hold a respected reputation in the French repertoire and created a separate category of singer that was not representative of the bel canto traditions, an area where Mary Garden lacked proficiency. This new style of performing was introduced to the American public initially by Garden through her engagement by Oscar Hammerstein at the Manhattan Opera House. Her performances in America would eventually shape the expectations of audiences as they soon demanded the dramatic qualities they saw in Garden’s interpretations of her characters on the stage. Mary Garden was an ambitious and intelligent lady who must be regarded as one of the most notable singers of her time. Garden’s career stimulated the evolution of opera in America from a primarily vocal art form into an art which was equally vocal and dramatic.
37
Figure 3.3 Portrait photo of Mary Garden (1874-1967)
38
APPENDIX A
39
Figure A.1 Signed photo of Mary Garden as Bizet’s Carmen
40
Figure A.2 Mary Garden as Massenet’s Cléopâtre
41
Figure A.3 Mary Garden as Fanny Legrand in Massenet’s Sapho
42
Figure A.4 Mary Garden as Jean in Massenet’s Le Jongleur de Notre Dame
43
Figure A.5 Mary Garden as Strauss’ Salome
44
Figure A.6 Mary Garden as Massenet’s Thaïs
45
Figure A.7 Mary Garden as Puccini’s Tosca
46
Figure A.8 Mary Garden
47
APPENDIX B
48
Pelléas et Mélisande by Claude Debussy Original Cast (Premiere: April 30, 1902; Opéra-Comique, Paris)90
Pelléas………………………………………………………Jean Périer Golaud……………………………………………………...Hector Dufranne Arkel………………………………………………………..Félix Vieuille Le Petit Yniold……………………………………………..Blondin Un Médecin………………………………………………...Vigulé Mélisande…………………………………………………..Mary Garden Geneviève…………………………………………………..Jeanne Gerville-Réache
Synopsis ACT I Scene One Golaud, grandson of King Arkel, is hunting in a forest and discovers he is lost. He meets a girl who is sitting alone by a brook. She acts strangely at first and commands Golaud not to touch her. She eventually reveals her name—Mélisande. Golaud asks Mélisande to leave the woods with him, but she insists that she stay by herself. Finally, Golaud persuades Mélisande to follow him out of the woods.
Scene Two A room in Arkel’s castle. Geneviève, mother to Golaud and Pelléas, reads aloud a letter from Golaud to Pelléas. The letter informs Pelléas that Golaud has been married to Mélisande for six months. The letter also tells of Golaud’s worry that Arkel will be angry because Golaud did not seek his grandfather’s blessing before marrying Mélisande. Golaud requests Pelléas to give a sign by lighting the lamp from the tower which overlooks the sea. If the lamp is lit, it is a sign that Arkel has approved of Golaud’s marriage and has agreed to honor Mélisande as a daughter. If the lamp is not lit, Golaud will keep sailing and never return. After the letter is read, Arkel agrees to accept his grandson’s marriage by saying that he would never stand in the way of fate. Pelléas enters the room grieving over his friend who is about to die. He asks Arkel permission to leave and be with his friend, but Arkel opposes his request and instructs Pelléas to send the awaited sign for Golaud.
90 The original cast list is not entirely complete with full names. For example, Yniold and Un Médecin are listed only by their last names because it was likely that they sang often at the Opéra-Comique, and would be recognized by their last names alone. The full names of the artists that premiered the two previously mentioned characters could not be retrieved. 49
Scene Three Geneviève comforts Mélisande and welcomes her to the castle. Mélisande observes that the castle is dark and surrounded by so much forest. Pelléas enters and says that a storm will come, but also reflects on the calm night. Mélisande sees a ship leaving the port, and recognizes it as the ship that brought her here. Geneviève instructs Pelléas to take Mélisande inside. As Pelléas and Mélisande leave, Pelléas tells her that he might be leaving tomorrow and escorts her by touching her arm. Mélisande asks Pelléas why he is going away.
ACT II Scene One Pelléas and Mélisande enter a park and go to a well. Pelléas tells Mélisande that the well was known to be miraculous, and that it was always said that the water could heal the blind. Pelléas asks Mélisande if she would like to go sit under a lime tree by the well, and Mélisande says that she would rather lie down and see the bottom of the well. Mélisande tries to touch the water, but only her hair can reach the water as her hair is longer than her reach. Pelléas asks Mélisande if Golaud found her by the water. She answers yes and tells Pelléas that Golaud wanted to kiss her, but she did not want him to. Mélisande plays with her wedding ring above the well, and accidentally drops it in the water.
Scene Two Mélisande sits by Golaud’s bedside. Golaud is injured from unexpectedly falling off of his horse at the stroke of noon—the same time that Mélisande dropped her ring in the well. Mélisande weeps suddenly and Golaud asks her what is wrong. She tells him that she is unhappy at the castle, and when Golaud tries to understand why, Mélisande explains that he cannot understand her. She also tells him of her fear that she might not live much longer. Golaud takes her hands and notices that the ring is missing. Mélisande lies to Golaud telling him that the ring slipped off as she was picking sea-shells for little Yniold (Golaud’s son from his first marriage) at a cave by the sea. He tells Mélisande to go look for the ring immediately, but she is scared as it is dark and she has to go alone. Golaud promises that Pelléas will help her find it, but that the ring must be found tonight.
Scene Three Pelléas takes Mélisande to the cave so that she can describe the place where she told Golaud her ring had slipped off. As they go to the cave it is dark and difficult to see around them. They come upon three beggars asleep. Mélisande is frightened and asks Pelléas to leave. Pelléas leaves with her, and assures her they will return another day.
ACT III Scene One Mélisande combs her unbound hair out of her tower window. Pelléas comes by and asks her to lean further out so he can see her hair. Mélisande is hesitant, but Pelléas tells her she is beautiful and asks her to give him her hands. Mélisande cannot reach him, and
50
throws her hair down for him to touch. Mélisande is scared that someone might see them, but Pelléas says that she is his prisoner and he will not let go of her. Pelléas becomes passionate as he holds her hair and kisses it. Golaud approaches, and Mélisande fears that he has overheard her and Pelléas talking. Golaud calls both of them children and reprimands Mélisande for leaning so far out of her tower. He leaves with Pelléas.
Scene Two Golaud takes Pelléas down into the vaults of the castle. There they smell the smell of death. Pelléas complains that he is suffocating, and they leave.
Scene Three When Golaud and Pelléas exit the vault, Golaud instructs Pelléas to stay away from Mélisande.
Scene Four Golaud begins to become jealous and questions his son, Yniold, if Pelléas and Mélisande had kissed. Yniold confirms that they have, and Golaud makes him spy through a window on his wife and brother. Although Yniold cannot prove that Pelléas and Mélisande are unfaithful, Golaud becomes angry and leaves.
ACT IV Scene One A room in the castle. Pelléas tells Mélisande that he has spoken to his father who is regaining his health. His father insists that Pelléas travel, and Pelléas agrees to obey him. Pelléas begs to meet Mélisande that evening at the fountain where she lost her ring. He tells her that she will never see him again, but Mélisande does not understand why this will be their last meeting.
Scene Two King Arkel enters the room and approaches Mélisande. Arkel tells her that sunshine will now enter the castle because of Golaud and Pelléas’ father being saved from death. Arkel expresses to Mélisande his heartfelt sorrow for her unhappiness since she has come to live at the castle. Golaud enters with a wound upon his forehead. Mélisande offers to wipe the blood and comfort her husband, but Golaud rejects her and informs her that he is come only for his sword and will not speak to her. He and Arkel discuss Mélisande’s innocent eyes, and Golaud says that he will never know the secret behind those eyes. Golaud becomes enraged and drags Mélisande across the room by her hair. Arkel pities him.
Scene Three Near the fountain in the park, Yniold is trying to lift a heavy stone. Yniold feels darkness all around him, and watches sheep being herded past him.
51
Scene Four Pelléas waits for Mélisande in the dark, and is torn by the decision to wait for her or leave without ever seeing her again. He concludes that he must see her, and look deep into her heart and say the things he hasn’t said before. Mélisande arrives, and Pelléas brings her close to him. He kisses her suddenly and tells her that he loves her. Mélisande returns his love, and tells him she has loved him since she first saw him. Pelléas thinks that Mélisande is lying to him, but she reassures him that she only lies to Golaud. The castle doors shut, and Mélisande sees Golaud spying on them with his sword in hand. Pelléas kisses her once more and tells her to leave immediately. Mélisande pledges herself to Pelléas just before Golaud strikes and kills his brother.
ACT V Scene One A bedroom in the castle. Mélisande is lying in bed, and a doctor informs Arkel and Golaud that she is not dying from the wound given to her by Golaud. Golaud says that he killed without reason. Mélisande awakes, and requests that the window be opened so she can see the sun setting over the sea. Mélisande asks Golaud to approach her. Golaud asks Mélisande to forgive him, and asks her to reveal the truth about her relationship with Pelléas. Golaud says without the truth, he will never truly rest in death. Mélisande asks who is dying, and Golaud tells her that they will both die—first she, then he. Arkel and the doctor re-enter. Arkel shows Mélisande her daughter, and Mélisande pities her own child because she does not smile. Mélisande dies, and Arkel instructs Golaud to take the child out of the room. It is now her daughter’s turn to live.
52
APPENDIX C
53
Chérubin by Jules Massenet Original Cast (Premiere: February 14, 1905; Opéra de Monte Carlo)
Chérubin…………………………………………………...Mary Garden Nina………………………………………………………...Marguerite Carré L’Ensoleillad……………………………………………….Lina Cavalieri La Comtesse………………………………………………..Mme. Doux La Baronne………………………………………………...Blanche Deschamps-Jéhin Le Philosophe……………………………………………...Maurice Renaud Le Comte…………………………………………………...M. Lequien Le Duc……………………………………………………...M. Nerval Le Baron…………………………………………………...M. Chalmin Le Capitaine Ricardo……………………………………...M. Paz L’Hotelier…………………………………………………..M. Poudrier Un Officier…………………………………………………M. Crupeninck
Synopsis ACT I There is a celebration at Chérubin’s home to honor his 17th birthday, and his first military commission. Nina confesses her love of Chérubin to his tutor, Le Philosophe. Although she is aware of his shortcomings, she has loved him since they were children. Le Duc, Le Comte and the Le Baron have discovered that Chérubin has invited L’Ensoleillad – the famous ballerina – to come and dance that evening. As they mock the charming, young Chérubin, he is overflowing with happiness because L’Ensoleillad has agreed to come. Guests dance and observe the party while Chérubin tells the La Comtesse that he has left a letter for her inside a willow tree. La Baronne is also interested in young Chérubin. After the women leave, Le Philosophe notices that Chérubin is melancholy. When he confronts Chérubin, the young man complains that he is lovesick toward every woman he meets. Le Philosophe comforts him by commenting that his feelings are completely natural. Le Comte has found the letter from Chérubin to La Comtesse, and outraged, challenges Chérubin to a duel. Nina pretends the letter was intended for her and supports her claim by reciting the text of the letter from memory. Le Comte is happy again, but his wife is jealous that Chérubin loves Nina. Le Philosophe is ecstatic that his pupil has chosen Nina to love. Chérubin reveals to his tutor that he is in love with L’Ensoleillad, but not with Nina. L’Ensoleillad arrives to the celebration.
54
ACT II In the hotel courtyard, travelers are trying to reserve rooms for the party. La Baronne and La Comtesse are shown to their rooms and complain that they are not satisfactory for their standards. L’Hotelier announces that the best rooms are only for L’Ensoleillad, the famous dancer. Some military officers rejoice in Chérubin’s first commission, and notice how small the young man really is. Chérubin continues to make advances towards the women, and suddenly kisses a masked woman who reveals herself to be L’Ensoleillad. Le Philosophe apologizes to all for his pupil’s behavior. L’Ensoleillad has fainted during all of the chaos, but quickly recovers and begins the celebration by dancing. Le Philosophe scolds Chérubin, and warns him of his flirtatious behavior. Only thinking about L’Ensoleillad, Chérubin dismisses his tutor, and sings to the beautiful dancer. Excited by the young boy’s forward advances, she comes to meet him and they go alone into the woods. Le Baron, Le Comte and Le Duc plan to ruin Chérubin’s romantic antics, but Chérubin leads the men into the woods so L’Ensoleillad can return to the hotel. Chérubin returns to the hotel after the chase, and climbs a ladder to embrace L’Ensoleillad on the balcony outside her room. The three men finally run onto the scene as Chérubin throws down the ladder allowing for no proof as to which window the ladder had been leaning toward. Chérubin has received a bouquet from La Baronne and a ribbon from La Comtesse. These gifts only add to the confusion as the police arrive and arrest the three men for causing a disturbance.
ACT III Chérubin awakes the next morning and prepares his will as he is sure the three men will challenge him to a duel. Both La Baronne and La Comtesse want to know to whom he had been singing the night before. He confesses it was L’Ensoleillad, and the husbands return to the scene accusing Chérubin of pursuing their wives. The women reveal that Chérubin was in pursuit of L’Ensoleillad and their husbands revoke their demand for a duel. Le Duc announces the dancer’s departure, and she recounts the beautiful night she had with Chérubin as he tries to prevent her from leaving. Chérubin, now alone with Le Philosophe, curses love. Le Philosophe advises his pupil to wait for true love. Coincidentally, Nina arrives to say goodbye to Chérubin before she returns to the convent. The young boy realizes that he has caused Nina sadness, and asks her to forgive him. She is deeply touched by Chérubin’s plea, and the two declare their love for each other.
55
BIBLIOGRAPHY Books: Castel, Nico. French Opera Libretti: In Two Volumes (Volume I). New York: Leyerle Publications, 1999.
Davis, Ronald L. Opera in Chicago. New York: Appleton-Century, 1966.
Dizikes, John. Opera in America: A Cultural History. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1993.
Garden, Mary, and Louis Biancolli. Mary Garden’s Story. London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 1952.
Harding, James. Massenet. London: J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1970.
Irvine, Demar. Massenet: A Chronicle of his Life and Times. Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press, 1994.
Maeterlinck, Maurice, and Richard Hovey, trans. Pelléas et Mélisande. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1913.
Marsh, Robert C. 150 Years of Opera in Chicago. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 2006.
Nichols, Roger. The Life of Debussy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
O’Connor, Gary. The Pursuit of Perfection: A Life of Maggie Teyte. New York: Atheneum, 1979.
Pleasants, Henry. The Great Singers: From the dawn of opera to our own time. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1966.
Salzer, Otto T. The Massenet Compendium: Volume 2. Fort Lee, New Jersey: Massenet Society, American Branch, 1984.
Thompson, Oscar. The American Singer: A Hudred Years of Success in Opera. New York: The Dial Press, Inc., 1937.
Turnbull, Michael T.R.B. Mary Garden. Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press, 1997.
Wagenknecht, Edward. Seven Daughters of the Theater. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1964.
56
Articles: Author Unknown. “Who’s Who In The World of Grand Opera.” New York Times Section: Magazine, page SM9 (1909).
Brubaker, R.L. “130 Years of Opera in Chicago.” Chicago History Vol. III. Chicago Historical Society (1979).
Christen, Norbert. “Cherubino in Don Giovanni’s Footsteps”: on Massenet’s Comédie Chantée Chérubin. Massenet, Jules. Chérubin. von Stade, J. Anderson, S. Ramey, D. Upshaw, P. Steinberg. RCA B000003F2M, 1992. Compact disc.
Fletcher, R.D. “Our Own Mary Garden.” Chicago History Vol. II. Chicago Historical Society (1972).
Gunn, Glenn Dillard. “News of Music and Theaters: Miss Garden Returns with Art Undimmed.” Chicago Tribune (1912), p. 15.
Recordings: Debussy, Claude. Pelléas et Mélisande. A. Giacomotti, F. von Stade, G. Linos, J. Brocheler, K. Ollmann. Opera D’oro B00000IGRB, 1999. Compact disc.
Debussy, Claude. Pelléas et Mélisande. A.S. von Otter, F. Couderc, H. Schaer, W. Holzmair, L. Naoury, A. Vernhes. Radio France V 4923 Auvidis, 2001. Compact disc.
Debussy, Claude. Pelléas et Mélisande. M. Ewing, P. Pace, C. Ludwig, F. Le Roux, J. van Dame. Deutsche Grammophon 435 344-2 Deutsche Grammophon, 1992. Compact Disc.
Garden, Mary. Mary Garden: the Complete Victor Recordings (1926-29). Romophone 8I008-2, 1994. Compact disc.
Garden, Mary. Mary Garden (Soprano) In Arias and Songs. OASI Recordings, Inc. OASI-7001, (Historical Recording). Compact disc.
Massenet, Jules. Chérubin. von Stade, J. Anderson, S. Ramey, D. Upshaw, P. Steinberg. RCA B000003F2M, 1992. Compact disc.
Musical Scores: Debussy, Claude. Pélleas et Mélisande. Libretto after Maurice Maeterlinck’s play. Fayetville, Arkansas: Classical Vocal Reprints, Catalog No. OS 0161.
Debussy, Claude. Pélleas et Mélisande. Libretto after Maurice Maeterlinck’s play. New York: International Music (vocal/piano score), c1962.
57
Debussy, Claude. Pélleas et Mélisande. Libretto after Maurice Maeterlinck’s play. Paris: A. Durand; New York: G. Schirmer (vocal/piano score), D&F 6953 A. Durand, c1907.
Massenet, Jules. Chérubin. Libretto by Henri Cain and Francis de Croisset. Fayetville, Arkansas: Classical Vocal Reprints, Catalog No. OS 0161.
58
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
A native of Meridian, Mississippi, Kristen Johnson earned her B.M. degree in Vocal Performance in 2003 from Mississippi College, where she studied with Dr. Dana Roppolo Rice. She received both her M.M. degree in Vocal Performance (2006) and her D.M. in Vocal Performance (2008) from The Florida State University under the tutelage of Dr. Jerrold Pope, Valerie Trujillo, Joyce Guyer, Dr. Timothy Hoekman, Stanford Olsen, and Douglas Fisher. During her time as a student at FSU, Ms. Johnson was involved in the opera program, both opera outreach and operatic performances with Florida State Opera. Mainstage productions at Florida State that featured Ms. Johnson include: Massenet’s Werther (Sophie, 2005), G.F. Handel’s Giulio Cesare (Cleopatra, 2006), Verdi’s Falstaff (Nannetta, 2006), and Florida State Opera’s Fall 2007 production of Puccini’s La bohème (Musetta). An active participant in the arts for her hometown, Ms. Johnson has frequently been a guest artist for the Meridian Symphony Orchestra under the direction of conductor, Dr. Claire Fox Hillard. Ms. Johnson has also been the recipient of several awards, including: Presser Scholar (2002-2003; Mississippi College), Mississippi’s Collegiate Artist (2002-2003; MTNA), member of Pi Kappa Lambda Musical Honor Society (inducted 2007; FSU), and winner of the 2008 Metropolitan National Council Auditions for the North Mississippi/West Tennessee District.
59