! "#  $ %  &  %  '  %   !" #  $!%$! &#'    !' "(&(&()(( *+*,(-!*,(."(/0  

'    

 "#  '  '%  $$('    $(#1$2/      

3( (&/       

14( /      

  

Propagating a National Genre: German Writers on German Opera, 1798–1830

A Dissertation submitted to the

Division of Graduate Studies and Research of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In the Division of Composition, Musicology, and Theory of the College-Conservatory of Music

2010

by

Kevin Robert Burke

BM Appalachian State University, 2002 MM University of Cincinnati, 2004

Committee Chair: Dr. Mary Sue Morrow

ABSTRACT

Standard histories of Western music have settled on the phrase “German Romantic opera” to characterize German operatic developments in the early part of the nineteenth century. A consideration of over 1500 opera reviews from close to thirty periodicals, however, paints a more complex picture. In addition to a fascination with the supernatural, composers were drawn to a variety of libretti, including Biblical and Classical topics, and considered the application of recitative and other conventions most historians have overlooked because of their un-German heritage. Despite the variety of approaches and conceptions of what a German opera might look like, writers from Vienna to Kassel shared a common aspiration to develop a true German opera. The new language of concert criticism found from specialized music journals like the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung to the entertainment inserts of feuilletons like the Zeitung für die elegante Welt made the operatic endeavor of the early nineteenth century a national one rather than a regional one as it was in the eighteenth century.

ii

Copyright 2010, Kevin Robert Burke

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to offer gratitude to all my colleagues, friends, and family who supported me with encouraging words, a listening ear, and moments of celebration at the end of each stage. A research grant from the Fulbright Foundation for the 2007–2008 academic year enabled me to complete the majority of the research for this project in a timely manner. I wish to thank Prof. Dr. Hartmut Schick and the Kolloquium für Musikwissenschaft at Ludwig-Maximillians Universität who offered guidance and feedback in the early stages of this project. I received assistance from several libraries and institutions; however, I would like to specifically recognize the staff of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in the Lesesaal für Musik, Karten und Bilder and in the Lesesaal für Handschriften und Alte Drucke, for helping me locate some fruitful resources. I also thank Dr. Jonathan Kregor and Dr. Steven J. Cahn for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions. A very special thanks goes out to my advisor, Dr. Mary Sue Morrow, who oversaw this dissertation from its beginning stages through its completion. Her monograph German Music Criticism in the Late Eighteenth Century: Aesthetic Issues in Instrumental Music (1997) initially inspired my interest in this topic.

Above all, I would like to thank my wife, Emily, for supplying the endless support, encouragement, motivation, and patience I truly needed to endure and complete this journey.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF JOURNAL ACRONYMS ix

CHAPTER ONE: RETHINKING “GERMAN ROMANTIC OPERA” 1

CHAPTER TWO: THE JOURNALS OF GERMAN OPERA CRITICISM 27 Introduction 27 Major Critics and Types of Journals 28 Music Journals 30 Theater Journals 35 General Arts and Lifestyle Journals 42 Feuilletons 48 Conclusion 52

CHAPTER THREE: ESTABLISHING THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY 53 Nineteenth-Century Terminology 57 Criteria 64 Hierarchy 69 Conclusion: The Appropriate Term(s) for the Historical Narrative 76

CHAPTER FOUR: REDE ODER RECITATIVE 78 German Critical Thought in 18th- and 19th-Centuries 79 Should German be set to Recitative? 80 The Ideal Libretto for Recitative 86 The Right Type of Recitative 91 What Makes for Good German Recitative? 97

CHAPTER FIVE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MUSIC AND TEXT 104 Composer and Librettist Critics 105 What Constitutes a Good Libretto? 108 Music over Text 114 Text over Music 118 Equal Relationship 126 Conclusion 131

v CHAPTER SIX: IN SEARCH OF “EINHEIT” 132 Unity When Parts Add Up to a Whole 140 The Overture’s Contribution to Unity 143 Dramatic Continuity as Unity 149 Unity of Music and Text 152

CHAPTER SEVEN: GERMAN OPERA AND NATIONAL IDENTITY 158 Constructing Histories 161 Defining a National Opera 168 Conclusion 176

CHAPTER EIGHT: A NEW HISTORY OF GERMAN OPERA 178

APPENDIX A: GERMAN OPERA CRITICISM 1798-1830 183

APPENDIX B: MUSICAL EXAMPLES 312

BIBLIOGRAPHY 318

vi

LIST OF TABLES

1-1: Histories of “German Romantic Opera”

2-1: German Opera Critics and their Professions/Associations

2-2: New General Music Journals Containing German Opera Reviews

2-3: Theater Journals Containing German Opera Reviews

2-4: General Art and Lifestyle Journals with German Opera Reviews

2-5: German Opera Reviews by Year in the JLM from 1798-1826

2-6: Feuilletons with German Opera Reviews

3-1: Genre Designations Given for Popular Early Nineteenth-Century German Opera

3-2: German Works Identified as “grosse Opern”

3-3: German Works Identified as “Singspiel”

3-4: Das Königstädtische Theater Berlin 1824–25

vii LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES

1. Massinisa: Act III Finale

2. Sofonisbe: Act III Finale

3. Jessonda: Act III Recitative

4. Euryanthe Act II Recitative

5. Euryanthe Act III Recitative

6. Euryanthe Act III Cavatina

viii LIST OF JOURNAL ACRONYMS

AdB Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek AmA Allgemeiner musikalischer Anzeiger AmZ Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung AmZ(W) Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (Wien) AT Allgemeine Theaterzeitung BS Berliner Schnellpost für Literatur, Theater, und Gesilligkeit BM Berlinische Monatschrift BamZ Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung BmZ Berlinische musikalische Zeitung BrbK Bibliothek der redenden und bildenden Kunst JLM Journal des Luxus und der Moden LKgK Leipziger Kunstschrift für gebildete Kunstfreunde MgS Morganblatt für die gebildete Stände MH Musikalischer Hausfreund MT Musikalisches Taschenbuch MTZ Münchner Theater-Zeitung NadB Neue allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek NdM Neues deutsches Magazin NtM Neue teutsche Merkur TFhH Taschenbüch für die Freunde des hiesigen Hoftheaters TM Teutsche Merkur WamZ Wiener allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (1813) WT Wiener Theater Zeitung WZ Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunst, Literatur, Theater und Mode ZeW Zeitung für die elegante Welt

ix

CHAPTER ONE

RETHINKING “GERMAN ROMANTIC OPERA”

Open a standard history of western music, nineteenth-century music, or opera, and you will inevitably encounter the phrase “German Romantic Opera.” At first the term German

Romantic Opera itself is not difficult to swallow, especially as it broadly describes operas given in the German language during a period we usually label “Romantic.” But most histories do not apply the term as a broad designator of all German opera of the early nineteenth century. Instead these texts specifically address the supernatural subject matter and the emphasis on folk-like melodies for a definition. In A History of Western Music (2006), for example, the authors define

German Romantic Opera by plots “drawn from medieval history, legend or fairy tale” and a story that “involves supernatural beings and happenings set against a background of wilderness and mystery” with “scenes of humble village or country life” frequently introduced.1 This book and other histories with similar phrases offer a definition for the genre of German Romantic Opera that is really a description of one major work: Carl Maria von Weber’s Der Freischütz (1821).

The presentation of this opera and the term German Romantic Opera reflects a process of trying to fill the historical void between Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte and the music dramas of Richard

Wagner, resulting in teleological narrative. Although there are some other works with similar plot types that fit this model, most German operas produced in the first three decades of the

1 J. Peter Burkholder, Donald J. Grout, and Claude V. Palisca, A History of Western Music, 7th ed. (New York: Norton, 2006), 673. nineteenth century have few resemblances to Weber’s work; for example, Louis Spohr’s

Jessonda (1823) is an exotic rescue opera, Ignaz Franz von Mosel’s Salem (1813) an adaptation of Christoph Willibald Gluck’s Alceste, and Joseph Weigl’s Baalstürz (1820) a Biblical opera that draws on traditions of the oratorio. Although a general historical survey cannot discuss everything, the presentation of German opera in the early nineteenth century with a narrowly defined genre that serves a teleological narrative is misleading. Another term is needed that acknowledges the diverse pool of works. This dissertation will work to develop this alternative term by considering the broad range of German operas of this time period.

Although it is given in most histories, “German Romantic Opera” is a modern phrase that did not develop until the twentieth century.2 Table 1-1 presents a list of several widely read texts in North American music survey courses in order show the broad acceptance of this modern term. Most of these monographs define and employ the actual phrase “German Romantic Opera” to characterize the German opera repertoire of the early nineteenth century. Even more telling is that every one of them excerpts the “Wolf’s Glen Scene” from Der Freischütz for this period, leaving one curious as to whether any further examples may illustrate this term. This scene is indeed a fascinating demonstration of pictorial orchestration, integrated melodrama, and thematic association; however, it is actually quite unusual among contemporary works. The overall congruence of these histories reflects a narrow framework of reference.

2 As discussed later in this chapter, the first major study to employ the term “German Romantic Opera” is the eponymous monograph, Siegfried Goslich, Die Deutsche Romantische Oper (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1975). Goslich’s monograph is an expansion of his Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen romantisichen Oper: zwischen Spohrs “Faust” und Wagners “Lohengrin” (Leipzig: Kistner & Segel, 1937).

2 Table 1-1: Histories of “German Romantic Opera”3

Title4 Term Freischütz Defined Excerpt

A History of Western Music (Burkholder 2006) Yes Yes

Music of the Nineteenth Century (Dahlhaus 1989) Yes Yes

19th-C Music: Western Classical Tradition (Finson 2001) No Yes

The Romantic Period in Music (Klaus 1970) Yes Yes

19th-Century Romanticism in Music (Longyear 1988) No Yes

Romantic Music: A History of Style in 19-C (Plantinga 1984) Yes Yes

Cambridge History of 19th-Century Music (Samson 2002)5 No Yes

Ideas and Styles in Western Music Tradition (Seaton 2005) Yes Yes

Music in Western Civilization (Wright 2006) No Yes

The introduction of the phrase German Romantic Opera occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century and in the past few decades the term has become widespread. Since the 1975 reprint of Goslich’s Die Deutsche Romantische Oper, many scholars have employed it in their texts. Aubrey Garlington, although conscious of the anachronistic use of the phrase, certainly contributed to its lasting presence in German opera studies through the end of the century.6 Texts

3 To clarify the headings of this table, I’ve indicated whether the term “German Romantic Opera” is given and defined. In other cases it is described, or presented in a similar manner to those texts that do define it. In the final column I’ve indicated if the Wolf’s Glen Scene from Der Freischütz is either the sole example given for this genre or the primary one. 4 I’ve listed the most recent edition. 5 The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Music is a collection of essays edited by Jim Samson. The discussion of German Romantic Opera and Weber is in Roger Parker’s essay, “The Opera Industry,” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 87–117. 6 Garlington is not satisfied with histories that try and identify the origins of German Romantic Opera, although he employs the term in many of his articles to characterize a genre

3 addressing the repertoire include biographies, studies of individual works, and discussions of

German opera in a broad narrative, albeit revolving around one central definition.7 Other studies, such as Derek Hughes’s “‘Wie die Hans Heilings’: Weber, Marschner, and Thomas Mann’s

Doktor Faustus” and Steven Paul Scher’s “Hoffmann, Weber, Wagner: The Birthplace of

Romantic Opera from the Spirit of Literature?” have contextualized German opera trends through the lens of contemporary literature or cultural climate.8 The interdisciplinary models are enlightening but do not present a comprehensive picture of German opera in the early nineteenth century. A close reading of this scholarship reveals a number of common threads, despite the differing approaches and agendas of the authors. Some scholars have questioned the usefulness and applicability of the term itself; others have addressed the issues of appropriate dates and have tried to establish genre characteristics. Many use the repertoire in constructing a teleological narrative that leads inexorably to Wagner’s music dramas. I shall address each of these trends before proposing an alternative approach.

The words included in the term German Romantic Opera have each presented some challenges to scholars. Some writers are uncomfortable stressing the connections of a German

type and period of German opera history. See Aubrey Garlington, “German Romantic Opera and the Problem of Origins” Musical Quarterly 63 (1977): 242–60; “August von Schlegel and the German Romantic Opera,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 30 (1977): 500–6; and “E. T. A. Hoffmann’s ‘Der Dichter und der Komponist’ and the Creation of German Romantic Opera,” The Musical Quarterly 65 (1979): 22–47. 7 For example, see Clive Brown, Louis Spohr: A Critical Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Michael C. Tusa, Euryanthe and Carl Maria von Weber’s Dramaturgy in German Opera (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991); and John Warrack, German Opera: From the Beginnings to Wagner (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001). 8 Hughes, “‘Wie die Hans Heilings’: Weber, Marschner, and Thomas Mann’s Doktor Faustus” Cambridge Opera Journal 10 (1998): 179–204, and Scher, “Hoffmann, Weber, Wagner: The Birthplace of Romantic Opera from the Spirit of Literature?” in German Literature and Music in the 19th Century, edited by Gerald Chapple, Frederick Hall, and Hans Schulte, 227–44 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992). See also Anke Schmitt, Der Exotismus in der deutschen Oper zwischen Mozart und Spohr, Hamburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft 36 (Hamburg: Wagner, 1988).

4 language opera to nineteenth-century nationalism. Richard Taruskin suggests in his Oxford

History of Western Music that the nationalism surrounding Weber’s Der Freischütz did not appear until far after its immediate reception:

Most important of all: if Der Freischütz looms now as Weber’s most important work because of its role in “inserting” opera, so-to-speak, into the history of nationalism, that is due entirely to its reception by the composer’s contemporaries, and later by posterity. It is not necessarily an indication, let alone the result, of the composer’s intentions. Critics never tire of pointing out that in its musical style and forms the opera owes as much or more to the international theatrical mainstream of its day (that is, to Italian and—say it softly!—even French models) than it does to the Volkslied movement.9

Taruskin sidesteps the so-called “intentional fallacy” by rejecting the frequent attention historians place on the work’s relationship to Germany’s emerging nationalism. But although writers did not always cite opera to advance their revolutionary agendas, they did applaud operas with “German” characteristics. Weber was vocal in his support of national opera, as were many critics and composers that preceded him. If Weber’s contemporaries and historians promoted

Der Freischütz for its reflection of national character, they did so with good cause. Writers were awaiting such a work, an expectation they often expressed in their reviews of Weber’s predecessors, and had specific expectations and suggestions for what would constitute a national opera. Weber may not have been specifically connected to the Volkslied movement; but his

“intent” to write a national opera and build a supportive audience is evident in his essay “To the

Art-Loving Citizens of Dresden”10 and other writings. Taruskin’s concern with the joining of

“German” to Romantic Opera may deter us from exploring the role of national identity, but certainly many writers at the time tried to envision a genre that was “German” in ways more than just language.

9 Richard Taruskin, The Oxford History of Western Music, vol. 3 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 187–94. 10 Weber, “To the Art-Loving Citizens of Dresden,” Dresdner Abend-Zeitung 25 (29 January 1817).

5 Like Taruskin, Carl Dahlhaus hesitates to apply the word “German” to this repertoire, albeit for different reasons. His discussion of “German Romantic Opera” and particularly Der

Freischütz attempts to separate the genre from the serious, intellectual German music tradition he admired. Dahlhaus hints at his dichotomy of music as event and as work in this approach to

German opera. As North American scholars have already argued, his ideology casts the virtuosic and operatic into the event category.11 German opera, therefore, is conveniently absent in

Dahlhaus’s grand narrative of serious music, associated instead with the popular, international style epitomized by Italian and French opera: “All the same, it is by no means absurd, at least as far as the history of composition is concerned, to view the type of opera represented by Weber’s

Der Freischütz as a variant of opéra comique, even though this view is seemingly contradicted in intellectual history by the significance the work attained after it was elevated to the national romantic opera of Germany.”12 Dahlhaus continues to argue that Weber’s work is neither connected with the Singspiel traditions of Northern Germany, nor with Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte, in effect fragmenting any unified conception of German language opera as a distinct genre.

Despite any similarities Dahlhaus observes between some Romantic operas and opéra comique, he overlooks how German language opera performed on German stages might have contributed to a widespread recognition of a distinct national form. There are far too many works in the

German language with a broad range of subject matters to pass off early nineteenth-century

German opera as merely an imported French or Italian model.

11 See Philip Gossett, “Carl Dahlhaus and the ‘Ideal Type,’” 19th-Century Music 13 (1989): 49–56; and James Hepokoski, “The Dahlhaus Project and its Extra-Musicological Sources,” 19th-Century Music 14 (1991): 221–46. 12 Carl Dahlhaus, Nineteenth-Century Music, trans. J. Bradford Robinson, California Studies in 19th-Century Music (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 68.

6 The term “Romantic” also presents challenges to scholars, because it covers a broad music historical period as well as a literary movement reflected in the compositional style and subject matter of these works. Warrack, in his recent monograph, introduces the term “Romantic opera,” but he provides no reference to themes prominent in literature for his example operas.

After characterizing Spohr’s Alruna as a “romantische Oper” because of its “devotion to the supernatural,” Warrack then applies the same term to other operas’ similar subject matter. As support for his characterization, he cites E. T. A. Hoffmann’s description of Der Trank der

Unsterblichkeit (1808) as “Romantic” because of the plot’s “fantastic events.”14 And later,

Warrack expands the definition: “Described as a romantische Oper, Silvana brings together the life of the forests and the lost world of chivalry, Romantic ideals that were to mark many operas and none more thoroughly than Weber’s own.”15 Although he never attempts a definition of what plot types were labeled, or should be labeled, “Romantic,” the examples he provides illustrate the wide range of subject matters popular in early nineteenth-century German opera that some might consider “Romantic.”

Taruskin offers a more explicit definition that accounts for many of these plot types, but does not resemble any conscious use of the term by the composers themselves when they labeled their operas “Romantic.” According to Taruskin, Romanticism was “as much drawn to the long ago, the far away, and the never-ever as it was to the celebration of the self.”16 This broad definition encompasses plots that retold medieval chivalry, dove into supernatural worlds, as well as explored exotic cultures.17 But a shift in thinking at the turn of the nineteenth century also

14 Warrack, 250. 15 Ibid., 252–3. 16 Taruskin, 193. 17 Specifically referring to exoticism and orientalism, Taruskin says they shared the same interest as nationalism in exploring human difference. Ibid., 192–3.

7 shapes Taruskin’s definition. He accounts for the growing number of operas that include everyday people as main characters rather than great historical figures. Rather than emulating the comical Singspiel of the eighteenth century, in which peasant characters were more prominent, this focus is reflective of Romanticism’s fixation on the distant, mythical past.18 Although both

Warrack and Taruskin employ the term “Romantic” to account for a variety of plot types, they do so for different reasons. Warrack tries to make sense of the word “Romantic” that was affixed by the composers and librettists to opera titles by looking for clues in the plot. Taruskin, on the other hand, summons the cultural Zeitgeist reflected in Romantic literary genres in order to examine the German opera works.

Another difficulty historians face is whether works with spoken dialogue are opera or a separate genre, for many German Romantic operas have spoken dialogue just like comical

Singspiele. One early history that distinguished Singspiel from opera by the use of spoken dialogue, even when contemporaries had disagreed and inconsistently employed the terms, is

Hans Michael Schletterer’s Das Deutsche Singspiel (1863).19 The history touts Wagner, along with Meyerbeer, as the new direction of German opera, and charts the preceding pedigree accordingly. Schletterer defines opera as the unification of tragic drama and music, and Singspiel as the combination of music with comedy.20 Thus there is a correlation between narrative type and the relationship of music and text. And his characterization of this change in the middle of the nineteenth century marks a clear break between the two terms.

18 Ibid., 193. 19 Hans Michael Schletterer, Das Deutsche Singspiel von seinen ersten Anfängen bis auf die neueste Zeit (Augsburg, 1863), reprint (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1975). Although written in 1863, Schletterer’s history only covers the nineteenth century in the final eight pages of a 163- page narrative. 20 Ibid., 118. The distinction between “Vereinigung” for opera and “Verbindung” for Singspiel suggests the aesthetic preference of the author.

8 Scholars have found other ways to distinguish Singspiel and opera as well. Thomas

Bauman has made a commitment to eschew the word Singspiel as an historical genre designator for late eighteenth-century musical stage works in Northern Germany. He argues that the word had variegated use in the eighteenth century and that our understanding today is a modern construction of nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship.21 Furthermore, he provides a table of the genre designations for North German opera consulted in his study, the majority given the name Komische Oper. Moreover, eighteenth-century writers used the term for works we would not consider to be Singspiele. For example, Wieland labeled Alceste a Singspiel, even though it has recitative.22

Singspiel, however, has also provided historians of the nineteenth century with a term for works that do not fit into the mold of developing genres such as German Romantic Opera, Grand

Opera, and Wagner’s music dramas. John Warrack, for example, pigeonholes any German musical stage work with spoken dialogue as Singspiel in his appendix, but he makes an exception for works that fit the bill of a “German Romantic Opera.” This simplistic genre requirement aids his description of “German Romantic Opera” as an emerging genre that overtakes Singspiel:

“Only sporadically did Romantic ideals begin to enter opera, but they were to give opera a

Romantic identity with an increasing dominance over Singspiel and over the continuing attempts at German Grand Opera.”23

As specific histories of German opera, especially early in the nineteenth century, are few in number, they have had significant impact on the grand historical narrative. Goslich’s Die

21 Thomas Bauman, North German Opera in the Age of Goethe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 9. The definition pervading modern scholarship that Bauman cites—“‘a play with singing’ rather than a ‘sung play’”—is further complicated by the phrase “mit Gesang,” which accompanied various genres of plays with music (i.e. Lustspiel mit Gesang). 22 Ibid., 11. 23 Warrack, 265.

9 Deutsche Oper is one of the only comprehensive studies of this repertoire and the first to make use of the label “German Romantic Opera.” In addition to defining characteristics of the libretto, song forms, overture, and other parameters, Goslich also emphasizes the influences on Wagner.24

The last major section of his book, “Der Weg zum Musikdrama,” discusses compositional techniques in early nineteenth century operas that can be connected to the Wagnerian synthesis, such as the declamatory singing style, the use of symbolic musical motives, and through- composed scenes.25

The widespread adoption of the concept of German Romantic Opera reflects a methodological tendency to construct a teleological history of German opera that culminates with the works of Wagner. In 1945, for example, Richard Engländer stated, “Only in Lohengrin is this union [of subject matter and through composition] present and the creation of a German

Romantic Opera complete.”26 While questioning the origins of German Romantic Opera,

Garlington accepts Lohengrin as its culmination, citing Engländer:

Thirty years ago Richard Engländer set the stage for the present investigation with his thought-provoking contention that German Romantic Opera came fully to fruition in one work only, Lohengrin. And Lohengrin, of course, marks the end, not the beginning, of a phase in Wagner’s development.27

By the end of the century, scholars had internalized Engländer’s argument, perpetuating it in their own writings without acknowledging the source. In 1992, while constructing a linear

24 Goslich, Die deutsche romantische Oper (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1975). 25 My use of the phrase “through-composed” refers to the dissolution of traditional Singspiel numbers by continuous musical material—that is by substituting orchestral recitative for spoken dialogue. As shown by the examples in Chapter four, the orchestral recitative may resemble a secco recitative style, albeit with strings instead of keyboard. 26 Richard Engländer, “The Struggle between German and Italian Opera at the Time of Weber,” Musical Quarterly 31 (1945): 486. 27 Garlington, “Problem of Origins,” 262.

10 development of German Romantic opera from Hoffmann through Weber up to Wagner, Steven

Paul Scher wrote:

If all this seems a roundabout way to get to my topic, I beg your indulgence. I first wanted to give some practical reasons why Hoffmann’s all-important role—in initially formulating the concept of German Romantic opera and decisively influencing its subsequent development, which culminated in Wagner’s Lohengrin—has not been duly appreciated.28

Engländer’s article appears in Scher’s bibliography but is not cited for the above quote, demonstrating that at this point the idea had become received opinion.29

The development of this teleological idea runs through the various editions of the Grove dictionary. In A Dictionary of Music and Musicians in 1889 and in the 1927 and 1955 versions of the Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the discussion of composers like Weber and

Spohr within the main heading of “Opera” is completely separate from Wagner.30 In fact, they are not even in close proximity, marginalized to opposite ends of the article by an account of

Italian opera from Rossini to Verdi. Not until the publication of the New Grove Dictionary of

Music and Musicians in 1980 did Weber, Spohr, and Wagner appear together in a subsection dedicated entirely to Germany (Opera IV).31 Not only does the author include them in same section, but he also connects the subject matter of Wagner’s librettos to that of the early nineteenth-century romantics. Furthermore, the term German Romantic Opera makes its first appearance in the 1980 edition—authors of the earlier editions discussed Romantic opera in the

28 Stephen Paul Scher, “Hoffmann, Weber, Wagner: The Birth of Romantic Opera from the Spirit of Literature?” in German Literature and Music in the 19th Century, eds. Gerald Chapple, Frederick Hall, and Hans Schulte (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1992), 229. 29 Ibid., 241–2n13. 30 A Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 1889 ed., s. v. “Opera”; Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 1927 ed., s. v. “Opera”; Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 1955 ed., s. v. “Opera.” 31 New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 1980 ed., s. v. “Opera IV: Germany and Austria.”

11 context of all countries with no special notice of it in Germany. Engländer’s teleology culminating with Lohengrin was original in his 1945 article, and by 1980 the connection between

Wagner and the early romantics discussed in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians was thoroughly accepted.

Other publications also offer a narrative of German Romantic Opera that presents a gradual emergence of Wagner, but often from a different point of origin. For example, Ulrich

Weisstein contextualizes Heinrich Marschner’s Hans Heiling (1833) as a steppingstone between

Weber and Wagner in order to define a period of “German Romantic Opera.”32 Simon Williams credits Der Freischütz for presenting the “first instance of full-fledged romanticism on the

German operatic stage,” citing Spohr’s Faust (1816) and Hoffmann’s Undine (1816) as

“important precursors” to Wagner in Wagner and the Romantic Hero (2004).33 In this monograph, Williams’s discussion of German Romantic Opera mainly highlights characteristics of Wagner’s early style rather than encompassing a larger history that happens includes

Wagner’s early works. Even the recent edition of A Short History of Opera (2003) adheres to the

German Romantic Opera trope: “With the performances of Weber’s opera, especially Der

Freischütz at Berlin in 1821, German Romantic Opera became fully established and its ensuing developments culminated in the worldwide triumph of Wagner’s music dramas fifty years later.”34 Finally, in The Oxford Illustrated History of Opera (2001), Roger Parker characterizes

32 Ulrich Weisstein, “Heinrich Marschner’s ‘Romantische Oper’ Hans Heiling: A Bridge between Weber and Wagner” in Music and German Literature: Their Relationship since the Middle Ages, edited by James M. McGlathery, 154–79, Studies in German Literature, Linguistics, and Culture 6, edited by James Hardin and Gunther Holst (Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1992). 33 Simon Williams, Wagner and the Romantic Hero (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 25. 34 Donald Jay Grout and Hermine Weigel Williams, A Short History of Opera, 4th ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003), 417.

12 Wagner as a hero for “rescuing” German Romantic Opera at the beginnings of his career.

According to Parker, by the time “Wagner secured his first professional appointment in 1833, the genre of German Romantic Opera, nurtured by Weber, Spohr, and Marschner, had already begun to decline.”35 Wagner’s music dramas, for Parker, were the result of a progression that the tradition of German Romantic Opera had formed in the first half of the century. What these texts have in common is a methodology centered on Wagner rather than a thorough attempt to characterize the entire repertoire.

Just as scholars have differed on the definition of the genre, they’ve also differed on the dates that encompass it. Dahlhaus, for example, restricts German Romantic Opera to a specific time span of “three decades, from Hoffmann’s Undine (1816) and Spohr’s Faust (1816) to

Schumann’s Genoveva (1850) and Wagner’s Lohengrin (1848).”39 He provides no support for his claim that German Romantic Opera should begin in 1816. What, after all, is one to do with

Weber’s Silvana (1810), Spohr’s Alruna (1808) and Hoffmann’s Der Trank der Unsterblichkeit

(1808), all titled by their composers as romantische Opern?40 It is possible that Dahlhaus may have chosen Undine as a starting point because of the explicit feelings Hoffmann expresses about romantic opera in the his 1813 essay “The Poet and the Composer.”41 If this is true, however,

Hoffmann’s ideas conflict with Dahlhaus’s restricted view of the history of German Romantic

35 Roger Parker, The Oxford History of Opera (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001). 39 Dahlhaus, 68. 40 Meyer, 221 n.2. It is uncertain whether Dahlhaus was aware of these earlier operas. Goslich does not distinguish between the various genre signifiers. Meyer relies on secondary sources for the dates and genre designators of these works, and only one of Meyer’s sources predates Dahlhaus’s book: Hermann Dechant, E.T.A. Hoffmann’s Oper “Aurora,” Regensburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft, vol. 2 (Regensburg: G. Bosse, 1975). 41 E. T. A. Hoffmann, E. T. A. Hoffmann’s Musical Writings: Kreisleriana, The Poet and the Composer, Music Criticism, ed. by David Charlton, trans. by Martyn Clarke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

13 Opera in the nineteenth century, for in describing the aesthetics behind romantic opera,

Hoffmann provides Die Zauberflöte as an example.42

Dahlhaus also confines German Romantic Opera to these dates by relying on only well- known works that reflect a mere fraction of the various trends. His focus on comparing the genre to opéra comique limits his vision for the category of “German Romantic Opera” and thus he overlooks other German operas of this period. Works based on Classical Mythology such as

Ignaz Franz von Mosel’s Cyrus und Astyages (1818) and Friedrich August Kanne’s Schloß

Theben (1817) bear more plot resemblances to tragédie lyrique than they do to opéra comique, and therefore are left out of the genre Dahlhaus has defined for those dates. Further complicating his model are comparable works that fall outside of his restrictive dates. Friedrich Himmel’s Die

Sylphen (1806), for instance, demonstrates the appearance of “the hallmarks of the German

Romantic opera long before Hoffmann and Spohr moved toward this genre,” according to

Aubrey Garlington.43 Ranges of dates are helpful for addressing specific issues surrounding a genre, but are counterproductive when established for a definition built from few examples.

Warrack’s dates for the period of German Romantic Opera differ from those of Dahlhaus.

Although he acknowledges that the influence of the literary Romantics did not take hold fully in music until the second decade of the nineteenth century, he also makes concessions for the occasional pre-1816 opera with a “Romantic” subject by offering the following definition: “It was, indeed, the drawing together of different disciplines, and the wish to discover, in apparent opposites or irreconcilables, a new unity and wholeness and thereby to expand the range of

42 Ibid., 206–7. 43 Garlington, “German Romantic Opera and the Problem of Origins,” 242–60.

14 human beings’ imaginative capacities, that was to find in opera an ideal Romantic condition.”44

This assessment gives works in the earliest years of the nineteenth century a preparatory role.

These periodizations, thus, appear to support such goal-oriented narratives, with the shift from Weber to Wagner paralleling other developments in the “Romantic” period. But German opera in the early nineteenth century may be characterized much differently when one considers an alternative model of periodization. Christoph Nieder explores the body of German opera in the early nineteenth somewhat differently than as a mere shift from eighteenth-century German

Singspiel to nineteenth-century German Romantic Oper 45 According to Nieder, the libretti in the first half of the nineteenth century represents one of the most powerful expressions of emerging

German aesthetics, one framed by the French Revolution and the Revolutions of 1848/49.46 He argues that several important changes in opera at the beginning of this period—the reconciliation of opera seria and Singspiel at the court theatres, the emergence of a self-sufficient, German- language opera, and an expression of the ideas of the German romantic poets—helped shape the type of libretti found in the first half of the nineteenth century. Although the term German

Romantic Opera is not sufficient for identifying all the German operas from Zauberflöte to

Lohengrin, Nieder’s study of consistent trends in libretti in the first half of the nineteenth century demonstrates flaws with the 1816 division proposed by other authors.

The diverse music periodization schemes available for turn of the century opera illustrate the challenges presented when confining German Romantic Opera within a narrow definition.

Perhaps if we consider Vienna, the music capital that gave birth to many operatic works between

44 Warrack, 265. 45 Christoph Nieder, Von der “Zauberflöte” zum “Lohengrin”: Das deutsche Opernlibretto in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts, Germanistische Abhandlungen, vol. 64 (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche, 1989). 46 Ibid., 7.

15 Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte and Weber’s Euryanthe, we will become more sensitive to these challenges. James Webster has proposed a music historical period called the “First Viennese

Modernism,” encompassing the dates of 1740 or 1750 through 1815, or in some genres through

1830.47 Although this period is specific to Vienna, some of the main points of his argument are reasonably applicable to German opera at the turn of the century. An example is Webster’s discussion of musical romanticism. In citing the writings of Hoffmann and Schlegel as antecedents, Webster is reluctant to assign beginning dates for the movement until around

1828/1830 in Vienna, even though there are a few examples of earlier works inspired by the

Romantic spirit.48 At the front end of his period, Webster acknowledges the emergence of reviews and critical commentary of music in the 1760s.49 And at the core of this Viennese

Modernism, Webster characterizes the period of 1780 to 1810 by a consistent growth in musical

“productivity, compositional technique, and artistic pretension,” with the institutions that supported this growth (i.e. theaters, patrons, publishers, societies) remaining unchanged.50 The emphasis he gives to the institutions that sustained this growth at the turn of the century lends itself to an examination of German opera that is otherwise non-existent in traditional histories.

We now could recognize the appearance of Hiller’s Die verwandelten Weiber (1766), Emperor

Joseph II’s introduction of German-language opera to the court theater (1778), and Weber’s Der

Freischütz (1821) as members of the same historical period. Webster’s alternative stands as a historical construct no different than the period of German Romantic Opera; however, it is a period that spans the most successful German operas before Wagner’s music dramas, such as Die

47 James Webster, “Between Enlightenment and Romanticism in Music History: ‘First Viennese Modernism’ and the Delayed Nineteenth Century,” 19th-Century Music 25 (2001– 2002): 109. Webster proposes the period of 1740 or 1750 to 1810/15 or 1827/30. 48 Ibid., 109. 49 Ibid., 120. 50 Ibid., 121.

16 Zauberflöte and Der Freischütz, while accounting for the varying degree of compositional approaches without simply servicing a German Romantic Opera label and Wagnerian teleology.

The shift in framework away from the German Romantic Opera period will allow this dissertation to demonstrate that early nineteenth-century writers defined German opera in much wider terms.

In order to sift through the various discussions of German opera, this dissertation will consider several recurrent themes critics explored in defining a distinct operatic identity from

Italian and French opera: eschewing foreign influences, pioneering a Classical revival, and assimilating and improving on foreign influences. These approaches are not all compatible in formulating one distinct genre. But they all contributed in the collective effort to create that genre. And as each chapter will illustrate, these multivalent efforts are what our histories should present for German opera in the early nineteenth century, a historical genre defined by the various conceptualizations of its critics. It is here that the modern term German Romantic Opera completely misses the mark.

Contemporary writers on German opera offered many vocal objections to Italian and

French opera in the pursuits of their own national opera. Some writers lamented that composers too often relied on models outside the German musical tradition. Johann Friedrich Reichardt, for example, famously wrote in his 1774 book Über die deutsche comische Oper that “there is no more general opinion than that Germans are mere imitators in the world of art.”51 Like many of his contemporaries, Reichardt was troubled by the lack of a distinctly German operatic voice.

During one of his trips to Milan, Ludwig Spohr developed a disdain for Italian music and Italian

51 Johann Friedrich Reichardt, Über die deutsche comische Oper (Hamburg, 1774), reprint Musikalisches Kunstmagazin (1782): 3. “Es ist wohl keine Meynung allgemeiner, als diese, dass die Deutschen in den Künsten nur Nachahmer sind.”

17 music making. In his autobiography, he recalled, “what the Italians consider new in Rossini’s operas is not new to us; for they consist of ideas and modulations for the most part long since known in Germany.”52 His scorn for Italian music reflects the way he thought Italians characterized German musicians: “The Italians really might be induced to believe that we have never heard any thing so good in Germany. When will Germans cease to be the blind admirers and the [imitators] of foreigners!”53

Some composers simply looked beyond, or around, the Italian and French models for inspiration. As Ancient Greek models had shaped the national traditions in Italy and France,

German writers believed they could revitalize Classical drama themselves in the early nineteenth century. The so-called “Grand” operas of Franz Danzi, Mosel, and Freiherr Nepomuk von Poissl may have emulated the aesthetic of many traditional opere serie; however, composers and critics also sought direct inspiration in Ancient Greek drama, which allowed them to ignore their Italian pedigree. This focus encouraged proponents of German national opera to summon their classical roots, even though Italian and French opera institutions had followed this practice for years.

Finally, Germans who acknowledged that foreign models influenced their style had a different strategy for promoting their own operatic identity. The claim that Germans could assimilate and perfect the discoveries of other nations was widespread in the eighteenth century.

If early nineteenth-century German operas had roots in Italy and France, then certainly the

German composers had improved upon those models. The concept of the German style as a universal one incorporating the best of other styles has a long history as well. Johann Joachim

Quantz, in his treatise on playing the flute, described the German national style in such a way:

“Germans…are all the more capable in taking whatever they like from another style, and they

52 Ludwig Spohr, Autobiography, trans. unknown (London: Reeves &Turner, 1878), 286. 53 Ibid., 300.

18 know how to make use of the good things in all types of foreign music.”54 Rochlitz wrote in his essay “Über Opern und Opernwesen” (1799) that Germans at the turn of the century were at a position to unify the best of what Italian and French opera had to offer.55 These three main lines of thought demonstrate that German opera criticism extends far beyond promoting works of local color, legend, and fantasy. They insisted that Germans dominate composition in the operatic realm as they did in the instrumental one. In addition, they hoped for a unique national opera identity, even if some of the features they promoted did not possess anything inherently German.

Musicological scholarship has addressed German music criticism at length over the past few decades. Some of the major contributions include Mark Evan Bonds’s Music as Thought:

Listening to the Symphony in the Age of Beethoven (2006), “Music Journalism and the Formation of Judgment” in Celia Applegate’s Bach in Berlin (2005), Mary Sue Morrow’s German Music

Criticism in the Late Eighteenth Century (1997), and Sanna Pederson’s dissertation,

“Enlightened and Romantic German Music Criticism, 1800–1850” (1994).56 Although these studies have uncovered some important ideological issues driving much German music criticism in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the conclusions are drawn primarily from writings on instrumental music or a few canonical vocal works. Contemporary opera criticism is largely absent in German music criticism studies, reflecting opera’s secondary status among many German composers and writers at the time, as well as the inconsistency in the way it was

54 Johann Joachim Quantz, On Playing the Flute, trans. and ed. by Edward R. Reilly (New York: Schirmer, 1966), 338. 55 Friedrich Rochlitz, “Über Opern und Opernwesen,” AmZ 2 (1799): 243. 56 Mark Evan Bonds, Music as Thought: Listening to the Symphony in the Age of Beethoven (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006); Celia Applegate, Bach in Berlin: Nation and Culture in Mendelssohns Revival of the St. Matthews Passion (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005); Mary Sue Morrow, German Music Criticism in the Late Eighteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Sanna Pederson, “Enlightened and Romantic German Music Criticism, 1800–1850,” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

19 defined. Although it is difficult to arrive at a clear picture of what German Romantic opera might mean in the early nineteenth century,57 my research shows that writers dwelled on several major themes concerning terminology, the use of recitative, libretti, the aesthetics of Einheit, and national identity in reviews of a variegated repertoire. I support my argument with over 1500 opera reviews and theoretical essays on German opera in German publications from 1798 to

1830, containing many familiar to musicological discourse as well as many relatively unexplored.

In examining the criticism, the dissertation will work to develop an alternative term for

“German Romantic Opera,” a term that will incorporate the broad range of topics in opera criticism and consider the terminology writers discussed in their reviews.58 Although my positing of a new term is also a modern construct no different than “German Romantic Opera,” I argue that my alternative better reflects the diverse and widespread development of early nineteenth- century German opera.59

In order to focus on a consistent supply of German opera reviews, I have chosen to frame my study by significant changes in the publication of periodicals. Various political, biographical,

57 In “Problem of Origins,” Garlington diffuses several claims for Die Zauberflöte, Undine, Lohengrin, and Der Freischütz as the origin or epitome of German Romantic Opera by relating their context and construction to Himmel’s Die Sylphen, a work he consequently also dismisses. Although Garlington’s arguments are convincing, the historical search should not simply cease by exhausting only a work-oriented approach. 58 Although there is no study directed at German opera criticism for an understanding of the genre at the time, some recent studies approach German opera from a perspective broader than the work itself. Even if centered on one composer, Meyer offers a rich discussion of the complex production practice behind staging German opera in the early nineteenth century. 59 Louis Mink’s classification model for historical events provides some clarity for the process of developing a new term. The type one (contemporary descriptions of events) and type two (possible contemporary descriptions of events) levels both supply the data for formulating a type five level (a later conceptual mode of interpretation). Applied to terminology, I intend to replace the type five term “German Romantic Opera” with another type five term that relies on a more comprehensive study of type one and type two terms. See Louis Mink, “Philosophical Analysis and Historical Understanding,” Review of Metaphysics 11 (June 1968): 692.

20 and aesthetic markers also coincide with these chosen dates. The first volume of Friedrich

Rochlitz’s Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (AmZ) in 1798 initiated a shift in musical journalism away from the theoretical essays of the Enlightenment that circulated among localized readership toward a variegated forum, widely distributed, and accessible to a broad readership. Another significant journal that responded to the changing face of German readership around the turn of the century is the Zeitung für die elegante Welt (ZeW, 1801–44), which is known to most music historians for E.T.A. Hofmann’s essay “Beethoven’s Instrumental Music,” an essay that summarizes several reviews of Beethoven’s works that were originally published in the AmZ.

Ernst August Friedrich Klingemann (1777–1831), editor of the ZeW from 1801, frequented lectures by Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, and August

Wilhelm Schlegel in Jena at the turn of the century, suggesting the journal’s role as a

“mouthpiece for Romanticism” clothed in music reviews aimed at general audiences.60 To ensure a manageable body of criticism, I have chosen to end my study at the July Revolutions of 1830.

Additionally, 1830 marks the end of the major operatic output of Weber and Spohr, the latter’s final opera, Kreuzfahrer (1845), is fifteen years removed from the penultimate, Der Alchymist

(1830).

As a point of comparison, the range of dates also fits well with other scholarly studies of

German opera and music criticism. For example, 1798–1830 corresponds to the first two of

Pederson’s four periods of German music criticism in the first half of the nineteenth century, as exemplified by Rochlitz of the AmZ (1798–1818) and A. B. Marx of the Berliner allgemeine

60 Ulrich Tadday, Die Anfänge des Musikfeuilletons: Der kommunikative Gebrauchswert musikalischer Bildung in Deutschland um 1800 (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1993): 69. Although journals like the ZeW are slated more for concert reviews than aesthetic essays, it is interesting to note the dispute of Klingemann’s authorship of the romantic novel Nachtwachen (1804) for well-known figures like Clemens Brentano, Friedrich Schlegel, and Jean Paul, among others.

21 musikalische Zeitung (BamZ, 1824–1830).61 Morrow’s study identifies the significant change in music criticism’s approach to instrumental music around 1800 found in the early nineteenth- century writings of Hoffmann and others as a result of a development in the late eighteenth century.62 Warrack’s chapter on opera in the mid nineteenth century specifically aims to discuss developments that only begin in 1830.63 Applegate’s chapter on “Music Journalism and the

Formation of Judgment” likewise identifies significant shifts in musical journalism stemming from Rochlitz’s AmZ as a suitable pretext for Mendelssohn’s revival of Bach’s St. Matthew

Passion in 1829. Applegate’s chapter culminates by highlighting Marx’s personal contribution to the reception of the event: “The St. Matthew Passion did not leave Marx’s front page [of the

BamZ] for six weeks running in 1829.”64

Journals like the AmZ that ran for long periods of time and circulated beyond the place of publication tend to highlight topics familiar to a readership from various locations, illustrated by the news reports (Nachrichten) of concerts in major European cities and new compositions of internationally established composers. Joachim Kirchner’s Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen: seine Geschichte und seine Probleme (1958) summarizes the contents of these general music journals, but does not devote much attention to the local offerings.65 Provincial publications like the Wiener Journal für Theater, Musik und Mode (1806) shed light on local aesthetic preferences and performances conditions. Since I consult small publications in addition to more widely circulated ones, my conclusions are drawn from a pool of reviews that incorporate less well- known composers and works.

61 Pederson, “Enlightened and Romantic German Music Criticism,” 8. 62 Morrow, 154–7. 63 Warrack, 342–43. 64 Applegate, 121. 65 Joachim Kirchner, Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen, seine Geschichte und seine Probleme, 2 vols. (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1958–62).

22 The topics of the following chapters of this dissertation reflect common trends in the body of criticism, but they are also aimed at determining an appropriate term for German opera of the early nineteenth century. Chapter two presents a broad survey of the major journals consulted for this dissertation, in order demonstrate that reviews were published in a variety of publications that attracted different types of writers and readers. Although the AmZ and the

BamZ and other music journals are important resources for early nineteenth-century German opera criticism, several other types of periodicals also played a role in the reception of new works. Theater journals, general arts and fashion magazines, and the feuilletons provided additional forums for operatic essays and reviews. The varying demographics addressed by these journal types ensured that reports and debates on new operas were available to a large and diverse segment of the German-speaking population.

The next chapter considers if any of the various terminology nineteenth-century writers employed for discussing German opera better suits histories than “German Romantic Opera.”

Many writers placed high importance on the proper classification of various musical-dramatic genres in German. An examination of the body of criticism reveals that the usage of Singspiele, grosse Oper, and other terms was not consistent. Two detailed and comprehensive taxonomies,

“Übersicht der verschiedenen Gattungen” by Marx (1795–1866) and “Vaudeville, Liederspiel,

Singspiel, Oper” by Mosel (1772–1844), dealt with the confusion by assigning definitions and hierarchies that expose their generic preferences. The former essay classifies by plot type and the latter by musical forms. The importance writes placed on distinguishing proper genre names suggests their motivation to uncover a nationally significant form of opera among all the varying terms and genres. After exhausting the available possibilities, I will offer a terminological

23 solution at the conclusion of the chapter. And as the remaining chapters of the dissertation will show, this term fully incorporates the varying topics discussed in criticism.

The next theme is the role recitative could or would play in a national German opera.

Recitative was an essential component of advancing plot and carrying dialogue in tragic French opera and all Italian opera between the songs and other musical numbers, but the German language presented challenges in adopting this form of musical diction. Chapter four discusses what qualities critics argued were essential for effective use of recitative as illustrated in their reviews. Some of these features include the accessibility to singers, the illustration of the meaning and idea of the text, as well as its role in assisting the dramatic trajectory of major scenes. A comparison of a few works with recitative (Sutor’s Masinissa, Spohr’s Jessonda, and

Weber’s Euryanthe) provides further insight into German recitative composition.

With the fifth chapter, I address debates on the status of the libretto in the composition of new German operas. Interestingly, the most vocal contributors to this discussion happened to be the composers and librettists of German opera themselves. Hoffmann for example, in his essay

“Der Dichter und der Komponist” persuaded poets to engage in writing opera libretti that would inspire composers to write more Romantic music. I also discuss the writings of librettist critics like Georg Reinbeck (1766–1849) and Eduard Gehe (1793–1850). Reinbeck, who turned a failing opera into a success by changing the libretto but keeping the original music, argued that the text was more important than composers acknowledged. Although some reviewers argued for a leading role for music or for text, ultimately the majority felt a balanced relationship would have the most impact in elevating German opera.

Chapter six considers a major aesthetic trend guiding German opera criticism in the early nineteenth century, Einheit [“unity”]. The concept of unity served critics in many different

24 modes of reviewing and analysis, and aided their attempts to distinguish German opera from foreign opera. Several major applications of unity abound in the criticism: the thematic and motivic relationships in the music that gave the opera a consistent style; the use of the overture not merely as a suite of major musical ideas, but as a portrait of the overall drama; the sympathetic relationship of music and poetry, as discussed in Chapter five; and finally the relationship of the parts to the whole. These traits were emphasized particularly in their service of dramatic continuity and comprehension, and were also suitable for musical analysis.

In Chapter seven, I consider the role of German opera criticism in shaping national identity. Mozart and Gluck served as historical reference points for critics to evaluate German operas, and emphasized the role pedigree played in shaping a distinct national style. By emphasizing admirable qualities and embarrassing deficiencies in the German operas that were reviewed, critics played a huge role in shaping the ontology of German opera. Critics praised works that drew on folk songs and painted pictures of German listeners that craved complex harmonies. And translated foreign works and works stylized on an Italian or French model earned many writers’ disapproval. Although the body of criticism consulted for this dissertation provides no consistent illustration of what a “German Romantic Opera” is, the major discussions and debates emphasized in these relatively unexplored sources prove a key for understanding what a national opera should do and be for the German-speaking public.

To conclude the dissertation, Chapter eight offers a final thought on my proposed substitution for German Romantic opera in our histories. I consider the effect on the historical narrative as well as the potential for further research on the many unfamiliar composers and works that contribute to developments in German opera in the early nineteenth century.

25

CHAPTER TWO

THE JOURNALS OF GERMAN OPERA CRITICISM

Introduction

German opera reviews appeared in several different types of publications in the early nineteenth century. The twenty-five periodicals surveyed for this dissertation are varied in design and purpose, providing several suitable outlets for concert reviews, instructional essays, and musical analysis. As expected, the major critics that devoted a significant amount of time to reviewing and discussing German opera were journal editors and frequent contributors to aesthetics and the arts in a variety of periodicals. And the various missions for their journals resulted in divergent forms of criticism.

Most research on early nineteenth-century German opera has relied on the criticism of a handful of writers, usually the composers themselves, in a few periodicals—almost always the

AmZ and Marx’s BamZ. Although those journals do constitute a major forum of criticism, there were other outlets as well. In this chapter I wish to survey the broad scope of German opera criticism in the early nineteenth century. In addition to noting the significant contribution made by the AmZ and other musical journals, I also want to demonstrate how three other types of publications—theater journals, general arts and lifestyle magazines, and political feuilletons— also promoted the development of German opera in their own manner. Within each of the four categories there are further distinctions between journals aimed at specialists and those directed toward a broad readership. The major contributors to and editors of these journals often set forth goals that went beyond the typical scope of their type of publication, resulting in a more complex and variegated network of discussion than was available in print in the eighteenth century.

Major Critics and Types of Journals

A survey of the major contributors to German opera criticism illustrates how a wide pool of specialists promoted a national genre. Table 2-1 includes some of the recurring names of signed opera reviewers and essayists.1 Although the vast number of unsigned reviews and unknown correspondents makes it impossible to create any exhaustive data on these critics, the sampling for the table demonstrates the wide spectrum of professions, associations, and experiences that inform some of the most vocal supporters of German opera in the early nineteenth century. Several writers wrote for more than one journal, spreading their opinions and ideas to different readership groups. However, I have grouped the journals discussed into the four major categories mentioned above—music journals, theater journals, general arts and lifestyle magazines, and feuilletons—in order to illustrate the reach of criticism among various segments of the German-speaking population.

1 “Critics” are either journal editors or frequent critics (not merely an occasional correspondent). The term “writer” is employed in the broad sense, particularly when the person contributed writings in many forums. Pen names are given in brackets if not easily identified from the signed name. Much of this information was gathered from the Allgemeine deutsche Biographie: Gesamtregister, ed. Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, 56 vols. (Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt, 1967–71).

28 Table 2-1. German Opera Critics and their Professions/Associations.

Adolf Bäuerle (1786–1859) playwright, critic WT Ludwig Bechstein (1801–60) fairy tale writer ZeW Ferdinand Leopold Freiherr von Biedenfeld (1788–1862)librettist, director BamZ, Gesellschafter Johann Joseph Leopold Blahetke (1782–1857) stenographer, writer WT Carl Blum (1786–1844) composer, actor MgS Karl August Böttiger (1760–1835) classicist MgS, NtM Ludwig Börne (1786–1837) political/art critic Wage Heinrich Ludwig Egmont Dorn (1804–1892) composer, romantic BamZ Gottfried Wilhelm Fink (1783–1846) critic, composer AmZ Eduard Gehe (1800–1850) librettist, critic ZeW Friedrich Wilhelm Gübitz (1786–1870) critic, publisher Gesellschafter Georg Harrys (1780–1838) theater critic, writer Gesellschafter Wilhelm Hebenstreit (1774–1840) writer, journalist WZ Franz Rudolph Hermann (1787–1823) playwright, writer WZ, ZeW Ernst Theodor Amadeus Hoffmann (1776–1822) writer, composer AmZ, ZeW Friedrich Hofmeister (1782–1864) music publisher ZeW Emerich Thomas Hohler (1781–1846) teacher, librarian WZ Franz Horn (1781–1837) writer, critic AmZ, Cäcilia Franz Sales Kandler (1792–1831) music writer WZ Friedrich August Kanne (1778–1833) composer, teacher AmZ(W) Ernst August Friedrich Klingemann (1777–1831) playwright, novelist BamZ, ZeW Adolf Bernhard Marx (1795–1866) critic, composer BamZ Ignaz Franz von Mosel (1772–1844) composer, writer AmZ(W), Cäcilia Johann Ludwig Wilhelm Müller (1794–1827) poet, novelist Gesellschafter Amadeus Gottfried Adolf Müllner (1774–1829) playwright, critic Gesellschafter Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Oswald [Saldow](1783–1845)writer, musician WT Johann Nepomuk von Poissl (1783–1865) composer, director AmZ(W) Georg Reinbeck (1766–1849) poet, councilor ZeW Heinrich Friedrich Ludwig Rellstab (1799–1860) poet, critic BamZ, Cäcilia Johann Friedrich Rochlitz (1770–1842) writer, critic AmZ Stephan Schütze (1771–1839) writer, theater critic Cäcilia Carl Ludwig Seidel (1788–1844) poet, writer BamZ, JLM Georg Ludwig Peter Sievers (1775–1830) writer, aesthete AmZ(W), Cäcilia, Karl Sondershausen (1792–1882) poet Gesellschafter Johann Gottlieb Karl Spazier (1761–1805) writer, composer AmZ Richard Otto Spazier (1803–1854) writer, critic BamZ Ludwig [Louis] Spohr (1784–1859) composer, violinist AmZ Heinrich Friedrich Karl von Stein (1757–1831) historian, statesman Gesellschafter Franz Stoepel (1794–1836) writer, historian BamZ, MamZ Adalbert von Thale [Karl von Decker] (1784–1844) military writer Gesellschafter Georg Friedrich Treitschke (1776–1842) librettist, translator AmZ(W) Carl Maria von Weber (1786–1826) composer, director AmZ, DAZ Gottfried Weber [Giusto] (1779–1839) theorist, critic Cäcilia Johann Amadeus Wendt (1783–1836) philosopher, critic AmZ(W), BamZ, MgS

29 Music Journals

According to Kirchner, the turn of the nineteenth century was significant for music criticism, as it witnessed the founding of several periodicals that lasted decades and thus spanned a major period of music history.2 The AmZ was the flagship journal, whose initial run spanned the late compositions of Haydn to the earliest operas of Wagner. Most major cities in German- speaking territories soon had imitators, although none witnessed as lengthy a run as the AmZ.3

Table 2-2. New General Music Journals Containing German Opera Reviews, 1798–1830

Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (Leipzig: 1798–1848) Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (Vienna: 1817–24) Allgemeine musikalische Anzeiger (Vienna: 1829–30) Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (Berlin: 1824–30) Berlinische musikalische Zeitung (Berlin: 1805–6) Caecilia (Mainz: 1824–48) Iris im Gebiete der Tonkunst (Berlin: 1830–41) Münchener allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (Munich: 1826–28) Wiener allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung (Vienna: 1813)

The AmZ’s impact concerns not only its longevity and wide distribution, but also its appeal to multiple audience types.5 Celia Applegate identifies the inherent contradiction among the words chosen in the title: allgemeine (general) musikalische (musical) Zeitung (newspaper), the former suggesting that the publication’s readership and coverage were broad, the second designating a specific subject that in the eighteenth century required a specialized readership, and

2 Joachim Kirchner, Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen: seine Geschichte und seine Probleme, vol. 1 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1958): 245. 3 Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, Münchener allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (Wien). 5 According to Imogen Fellinger, a music journal that aimed for appeal with both specialists and amateurs was a new phenomenon in the nineteenth century. See Fellinger, Verzeichnis der Musikzeitschriften des 19. Jahrhunderts, Studien zur Musikgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts, vol. 10 (Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1968), 14.

30 the latter word choice implying a form of print media for mass consumption that focused on reporting rather than criticism.6 The AmZ lay outside the eighteenth-century trend of short-lived, small run, specialized journal. Furthermore, the standards of writing and intellectual capacities of its contributors typically dwarf the bourgeois art and entertainment leaflets found in the feuilletons.

Although the total readership of the AmZ was small in comparison to general newspapers and the feuilletons, it initially managed to reach several types of interested parties. However, during the course of the first few decades, the AmZ increasingly catered to the growing bourgeois market. Eventually, according to Sanna Pederson, the gulf separating the layperson and expert grew so much that Robert Schumann released his Neue Zeitschrift für Musik in the 1830s to rescue serious music readers from the so-called Philistines.7 The role of opera in Germany was certainly one of the AmZ’s initial interests, as Rochlitz chose an essay on opera to appear on the cover page of the inaugural issue.8 Throughout the journal’s significant run during the first half of the nineteenth century, it reviewed and discussed most of the major German operas. And the team of correspondents Rochlitz gathered to cover these new works represented a range of professions and associations within and outside the realm of music. All, however, were deeply interested in the possibility of a national genre.

Although the word “allgemeine” certainly suggests an attempt to reach a broad audience, it also could indicate that all musical topics and discussions were invited. Dr. Franz Stoepel

(1794–1836) edited the short-lived imitator, Münchener allgemeine musikalische Zeitung

6 Celia Applegate, Bach in Berlin: Nation and Culture in Mendelssohn’s Revival of the St. Matthew Passion (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005), 88. 7 Sanna Pederson, “Enlightened and Romantic German Music Criticism, 1800–1850” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995). 8 “Gedanken über die Oper,” AmZ 1 (3 October 1798): 1–9. The essay continues two issues later, AmZ 3 (17 October 1798): 33–8.

31 [MamZ] from 1826–28.9 Like its model, the MamZ contained articles, reviews, news of Bavarian musical happenings, and correspondence from major musical cities, all suitable for a journal seeking attention from the general public. Stoepel acquired contributions from such major writers as Amadeus Wendt, Ignaz von Seyfried, and Dr. Karl Spazier, and advertised the inaugural issue of the MamZ in the now established AmZ.10 Stoepel wrote that the goal of the journal was “to bestow a critical overview of the collective new music literature in briefly assessed reports.”11 However, a comparison of the journal’s contents to this advertisement demonstrates that not all essays were geared toward the general public. The advertisement suggests the comprehensive, yet accessible format of the AmZ. But Stoepel and his contributors offered more extensive, detailed reviews akin to A. B. Marx’s Berliner allgemeine musikalische

Zeitung. Reviews of Weber’s Der Freischütz and Oberon as well as Winter’s Das unterbrochene

Opferfest and Lindpaintner’s Der Vampyr are lengthy and they discuss topics appealing to specialists, such as the musical setting of poetical rhythms in Oberon. In the case of the MamZ, the word “allgemeine” better describes the wide assortment of musical topics rather than the readership.

Although the MamZ did not catch on with the Bavarian public, other musical journals did take advantage of the growing, musically savvy readership of the AmZ to advance more focused ideals. Gottfried Weber’s Caecilia and A. B. Marx’s Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung

[BamZ] offered a new format of musical magazines in the 1820s. Marx clearly defined the BamZ as an improved form of the AmZ format established by Rochlitz. According to Pederson, Marx

9 Stoepel attempted an imitator of the AmZ in Berlin, called the Berliner allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, in 1820, which failed after its first issue. This journal is not connected with Marx’s BamZ (1824–30). 10 Stoepel, “Ankündigungen” AmZ IBXI (November 1827): 43–4. 11 Ibid., 43. “[In] kurzen beurtheilenden Anzeigen eine kritische Uebersicht der gesammten neuesten Musik-Literatur zu gewähren.”

32 considered the current state of the AmZ as old-fashioned, and proclaimed his new journal as the next influential music periodical.12 Moreover, Marx’s agenda to criticize the popular Italian opera and promote German national music in Berlin was at the forefront of several of his essays.

In addition to providing extensive reviews of new German operas, such as Spohr’s Faust,

Weber’s Euryanthe, and Spontini’s Agnes von Hohenstausen, Marx also wrote persuasive articles on the state of operatic composition.13 As editor and main writer, the presence of Marx and his attitude toward German musical life and compositional trends permeates every page of the journal’s seven-year run.

Gottfried Weber directed his Caecilia at a musically educated form of the population, boasting an editorship that comprised “a team of scholars, artistically knowledgeable persons, and artists themselves.”14 Not only did Caecilia offer many of the types of writing established in the Rochlitz model, but entire sections of each volume were dedicated to music theory, criticism

(philosophical, rather than reviewing), and historical articles. Despite a shift in focus toward more academic writing than usually appeared in each issue of the AmZ, Weber’s Caecilia was actually quite conservative. Adoration for Mozart, shared among many of the journal’s contributors, including Ignaz von Seyfried, caused the journal to overlook some of the more romantically inspired innovations in German opera. Only when Carl Maria von Weber died in

1826, did Caecilia begin publishing a range of historical documents and essays associated with the composer, having hardly noticed the German population’s excitement about Der Freischütz

12 Pederson, 68. 13 A. B. Marx, “Uebersicht der verschiedenen wesentlichen Gattungen des musikalische Drama” BamZ 25 (18 June 1828): 195–7, and 26 (25 June 1828): 203–6. 14 Kirchner, Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen, II/52. “einem Vereine von Gelehrten, Kunstverständigen und Künstlern.”

33 and Euryanthe when Weber was still alive.15 The majority of the reviews of German operas were of their arrangements for piano, since Caecilia did not offer regular “Nachrichten” like the other popular music journals. Still, theoretical essays like Michaelis’s “Gedanken über Musik,” which communicated an aesthetic for musical “Einheit,” helped shape a vocabulary for evaluating new works through the eyes of the trained specialist.

The establishment of a general musical journal for a wide distribution and readership formed a supportive outlet for German opera composition. To take advantage of increases in literacy and music consumption with the swelling middle class, Rochlitz’s AmZ offered an accessible alternative to the specialized musical pamphlets of the eighteenth century, and provided a format that could report on, evaluate, and promote German opera alongside other musical genres. The AmZ’s imitators in other German-speaking cities like Munich and Vienna are a testament to the overall success Rochlitz’s model had achieved. Once a wide musical readership was formed, editors Marx and Gottfried Weber introduced more specialized musical essays that drew on analysis and promoted German opera with an insistence more prevalent in the 1820s. The majority of new original German operas that premiered in the first three decades of the nineteenth century were reviewed, often extensively and repeatedly, in the general music journal.

Theater Journals

15 For example: Krüger, “Denkmünze auf Carl Maria von Weber,” Caecilia 14 (1826): 134; “Carl Maria von Weber: Obituary,” Caecilia 17 (1826): 83–4; Rellstab, “Carl Maria von Weber,” Caecilia 25 (1828): 1–20; and “Drei weitere Briefe von Carl Maria von Weber,” Caecilia 27 (1828): 143–6. The only review of Weber’s operas that puts the work into any sort of cultural context or theoretical scrutiny is St. Schutze’s “Über den Text der Oper Euryanthe,” Caecilia 5 (1825): 42–65.

34 Some of the major developments in German opera criticism took place in theater periodicals as well. Early nineteenth-century theater journals did not share the same pedigree of intellectual development in the eighteenth century that music journals had. Instead they followed the model of either the literary journals or the opera almanacs that emerged with the growing bourgeois patronage of theater. Yet because the theater journals at the turn of the century did not have definite models, their emergence marks a significant event in the development of German opera criticism. Not only did these publications contain a plentiful supply of German opera reviews, but also their editors were publicly vocal in discussing the role and function of criticism in improving the profile of their national theaters and building supportive audiences. Table 2-3 offers a list of several new theater journals in the early nineteenth century.

Table 2-3. Theater Journals Containing German Opera Reviews, 1798–1830

Allgemeine Theaterzeitung (Berlin: 1800) Eunomia (Berlin: 1801–5) Münchener Theater Journal (Munich: 1800, 1814–6) Münchener Theater-Zeitung (Munich: 1828–29) Wiener Theater Zeitung (Vienna: 1806–60)

The founders of these theater journals provided informed opera and theater criticism of interest to readers in a large geographic area. Proponents of German theater realized that to advance their national genre, they would have to not only build support from the opera-going public, but also cultivate a dedicated following among the best German poets and philosophers to encourage the type of new works that would speak to the entire nation. Evidence of this agenda is found in the introductory editorials that encouraged wide circulation by assuring readers that criticism would be even-handed, informative, truthful, and practical.

35 In 1800 Johann Gottlieb Rhode (1762–1827) announced the new form of theater criticism that would be introduced in his journal, the Allgemeine Theaterzeitung (AT).16 Although the journal was short-lived (fifty issues), Rhode was highly active in Berlin’s music and theater circles, even translating the poetry of Ossian and MacPherson for German lieder.17 Reflecting on the format of the AmZ, Rhode aimed to offer theater criticism that included practical reviews and news of the engagements of the theater personnel.18 Much as Rochlitz had outlined the major components of the AmZ and their function in the world of music criticism, Rhode disclosed his own goals for the AT in a “Plan dieser Zeitung.”19 He did not intend his journal to remain in the hands of the specialist, but aimed to extend its reach across a larger area of geography and competence: “And to this end I know of no better method than that which already has abolished countless abuses of all art and removed countless obstacles to art standing in the way of the perfection of each good institution, than appropriate publicity, for which a journal that circulates quickly throughout all of Germany appears to be the best method.”20 For Rhode, an appreciation of art and theatrical presentation was already established in mankind, and criticism was best

16 Johann Gottlieb Rhode, trans. Die Unächtheit der Lieder Ossian's und des MacPherson'schen Ossian's insbesondere (Mannheim: F. A. Brockhaus, 1840). 17 See Ossian’s Gedichte, rhythmisch übersetzt von J. G. Rhode, 2 vols. (Berlin: Duncker und Humbolt, 1817) and Die Unächtheit der Lieder Ossian's und des MacPherson'schen Ossian's insbesondere, ed. Talvj, trans., Johann Gottlieb Rhode (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1840). 18 In the last decade of the eighteenth century, Heinrich Gottlieb Schmieder’s Allgemeines Theaterjournal began expanding the offerings of a theater journal by including reviews in addition to aesthetic essays, although without any current news. See Joachim Kirchner, Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen: Seine Geschichte und Seine Probleme, vol. 1, Von den Anfängen bis zum Zeitalter der Romantik (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1958), 246. 19 Johann Gottlieb Rhode, “Plan dieser Zeitung,” AT I/1 (January 1800): 1–4. 20 Ibid., 2. “Und dazu kenn’ ich kein schicklicheres Mittel, als das, welches schon so unzählbare Mißbräuche aller Art vernichtet, so unzählbare Hindernisse aller Art, die der Vervollkommnung jedes guten Instituts im Wege standen, gehoben hat: eine zweckmäßige Publicität, zu welcher eine Zeitung, die sich schnell über ganz Deutschland verbreitet, das beste Mittel scheint.”

36 served by identifying the obstacles that impeded theater from attaining the next level of perfection.

Of the parameters Rhode laid out for the journal, a refreshing consideration of the actual institutions supporting German theater and its longevity and public support was at the top of the list: “1) Forthright and strictly truthful descriptions of all permanent and traveling German theater troupes, considering the artistic value of members of their company, their inner and outer conditions, and the circumstances of their location, etc.”21 Rhode continued by promising a variety of forms of criticism, from reviews and short essays to news and anecdotes, in his new journal. After the demise of his Allgemeine Theaterzeitung he joined the editorial staff of

Eunomia,22 originally overseen by Ignatius Aurelius Fessler (1756–1839) and Johann Karl

Christian Fischer (1765–1816).23 In the journal’s first year, Rhode contributed an essay simply titled “Theater” that rearticulated the new direction criticism should take in the nineteenth century.24 He stated that the mission of the journal was not to speak of every performance at the local national theater, but to respond to the most successful works on both local stages and the best stages in Germany.

21 Ibid., 2–3. “1) Freimüthige und mit strenger Wahrheitsliebe entworfene Schilderungen aller stehenden und wandernden deutschen Schauspielergesellschaften; in Rücksicht des Künstlerwerths ihrer Mitglieder, ihrer innern und äußern Verfassungen, ihrer Verhältnisse gegen ihre Standorte u. s. w.” 22 Eunomia: Eine Zeitschrift des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, eds. Fessler und Fischer (later Rhode), 3 vols. (Berlin: Maurer, 1801–3). 23 Both Fessler and Fischer were connected with the Hegelian beliefs and Hermetic rites of Johann Gottlieb Fichte and the Masonic Lodge in Berlin at the turn of the century, Fessler having aided Fichte in developing the lodge’s higher degrees, and Fischer having received Fichte’s lectures on the “Philosophy of Masonry.” See Glenn Alexander Magee, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 55. 24 Although Rhode does not sign the article, the author refers to his editorship of the AT, the arguments are similar to those outlined in the AT’s “Plan dieser Zeitung,” and Rhode’s role in assisting Fessler and Fischer in Eunomia’s editorship is established.

37 Rhode aimed to define the parameters by which theater should be judged. He maintained that the practical development of a supportive and informed audience as well as the encouragement of successful artists and works through the constructive advice for improvement would contribute more to German theater than detached philosophical musings: “He generally regards theater as an institution for the aesthetic education of mankind and the representative arts as its fine art, which in its principles and rules is no less problematic than any other fine art.”25

Because the performing arts could arouse pleasure just as well as the other arts, theater should make its purpose to impart pleasure as it is with the “schönen Kunst.” “The critic should be strong and serious but not bitter and scoffing in his censure; he should demonstrate how to improve at the same time he censures a mistake, or else his censure is mere blabbering for the artist.”26 Rhode continued warning against the negative effect sarcastic criticism could have on performers and artists.

According to Joachim Kirchner, Rhode engaged himself directly with the staff and administration of the major theaters in Berlin and Vienna, often providing reviews and reports that were polemic and lacked taste.27 He also led a campaign in the AT to accuse August

Ferdinand Bernhardi (1770–1820), theater critic for the “Berlinischen Archivs der Zeit und ihres

Geschmacks,” of a lack of qualifications.28 Apparently, Bernhardi’s background as a linguist and

25 [J.C. Rhode?], “Theater,” Eunomia I/1 (January 1801): 67. “Das Theater überhaupt sieht er als eine Anstalt zur ästhetischen Bildung des Menschen, und die darstellende Kunst als seine schöne Kunst an, die in ihren Principien und Regeln nicht weniger zweifelhaft ist, als jede andre schöne Kunst.” 26 Ibid., 68. “Der Kritiker soll in seinem Tadel streng und Ernst, aber nicht bitter und höhend seyn; er soll bei dem Tadel eines Fehlers zugleich zeigen, wie er verbessert werden könne, sonst ist sein Tadel für den Künstler Geschwätz.” 27 Kirchner, Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen, I/247. 28 Ibid.

38 philosopher did not satisfy Rhode, who had experience as a librettist and theater director.29

Rhode remained consistent in his effort to reshape the role of the theater critic in the early nineteenth century.

Another theater critic who developed concert criticism for an audience that included the non-specialist was Adolf Bäuerle (1786–1859) with his Wiener Theaterzeitung.30 As a secretary for the Leopoldstadt theater and a prolific playwright and librettist, Bäuerle was well connected to the institutions he reviewed in his journal. Although most theater journals at the turn of the century did not continue past the first few volumes, Bäuerle’s journal, despite some name and format changes, was published continuously from 1806–1860. And according to Kirchner, from

1820–1847 the WT was the most widely circulated periodical in all of Austria.31 At the end of the journal’s third year, Bäuerle published an “Ankündigung von der Fortsetzung dieser Zeitung” which confirmed his intention to reach a general audience and keep them informed of happenings in the local and regional theater world. According to Bäuerle, the journal was more concerned with developing the cultural minds of the general populace than with engaging in the

“literary and artistic knowledge” of an established academic readership.32 After arguing that the journal had garnered enough support to continue, Bäuerle announced that the journal would no longer participate in polemical debates: “The editorial staff will therefore distance itself from all

29 Rhode was the theater director in Breslau and provided Carl Maria von Weber with the libretto Rübezahl. Clive Brown, “Carl Maria von Weber,” Grove Music Online, http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com [accessed 12 November 2009]. 30 Although Bäuerle’s Wiener Theaterzeitung [WT] underwent several name changes in this period—Zeitung für Theater, Musik, und Poesie (1807–1808), Theater Zeitung (1811–15), Wiener allgemeine Theaterzeitung (1819–21) and Allgemeine Theaterzeitung (1822–30)—most contemporaries referred to the WT as Bäuerle’s Theaterzeitung. 31 Kirchner, Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen, I/248. 32 Adolph Bäuerle, “Ankündigung von der Fortsetzung dieser Zeitung,” WT 24 (27 December 1807): 292. “literarischen und artistischen Kenntnisse.”

39 polemics, as worthy of the refined world.”33 Instead of the heading “Nachrichten” that became conventional for news in the musical and theater world in the early nineteenth century, Bäuerle chose to update readers on the happenings of the Viennese theaters under the title “Neuigkeiten.”

Although both words are loosely translated as news, “Neuigkeiten” also implies the translation

“scoop,” suggesting the urgent dynamic governing the journal’s relationship with the theater institutions and their readers.

In 1815 the name and format of Bäuerle’s WT changed. He explained his reasons to readers at the end of 1814 in “Ein paar Worte zur rechten Zeit: An die Leser der

Theaterzeitung.”34 Dedicated to high standards of criticism, Bäuerle explained that objective and thorough evaluations would not be sacrificed to pander to the human element: “The goal of this journal is to display through unbiased evaluations of the newest appearances in the area of drama: whether or not they reflect the rules of good taste; how far the actors and poets stepped forwards or backwards; to what degree wishes for the German stage were fulfilled or remained unsatisfied; not, however, how flawless everything human must be, because this theater journal itself is a human activity.”35 At the same time Bäuerle assured readers that the egocentric critic type that had emerged was not to be heeded. “The reviewer, who only damns and never praises, earns a ridiculous reputation, his feeling of intellectual superiority is silly, because he himself doesn’t know any better; and even if he undertakes only a short time to impose his tyrannical

33 Ibid. “Die Redaktion wird daher fernerhin von aller Partheysucht entfernt, der feinen Welt würdig.” 34 Bäuerle, “Ein Paar Worte zur rechten Zeit: An die Leser der Theaterzeitung,” WT 146 (8 December 1814): 571–2. 35 Ibid., 571. “Der Zweck dieser Zeitschrift ist durch partheilose Urtheile über die neuesten Erscheinungen im dramatischen Gebiethe darzuthun, in wie fern diese den Regeln des guten Geschmackes entsprachen oder nicht, in wie fern Schauspieler und Dichter vorwärts schritten oder zurück gingen, in wie fern für die deutsche Schaubühne Wünsche erfüllt wurden oder unbefriedigt blieben, nicht aber, wie fehlerlos jedes Menschliche seyn müsse, da diese Theaterzeitung selbst nur eine menschliche Arbeit ist.”

40 criticism, he will only reduce the range of his bilious authority.”36 Bäuerle encouraged music critics to be more constructive in their writing, so that reviews were read as much as the news sections.

But not all writers felt that the difference between reporting and reviewing was maintained. In the essay “Theaterkritiken in Zeitschriften,” published toward the end of

Darmstadt’s Taschenbüch für die Freunde des hiesigen Hoftheaters (1813),37 Gottfried Weber evaluated the terminology of theater criticism, considering the writings of the ancient Greeks as well as noting the type of content typically found in theater journals under the heading “Theater-

Nachrichten.” Although historians today recognize Weber’s contributions to music theory, his lasting impact on German opera criticism is credited not only to this essay but also to his editorship of Cäcilia in Mainz in the 1820s. According to Weber, readers often misattributed the word “criticism” for “reporting,” which he felt offered “cursory, shallow, empty, or false—often even contradictory news about the theater.”38 Weber encouraged writers to maintain a distinction, insisting on the word “theater news” when the discussion involved traditional reporting.39

The theater journals offered an alternative forum for German opera reviews in the early nineteenth century. The editorial goals of theater journals to educate readers and promote new activities on German stages as well as the format of integrating essays, reviews, and news reveal

36 Ibid. “Der Rezensent, der nur verdammt und nie lobt, gibt sich ein lächerliches Ansehen, sein durchaus Besserkennenwollen ist einfältig, da er sich selbst nicht besser kennt, und, wenn er sich auch nur eine kurze Zeit vorgenommen hat, durch seine Tyrannen-Kritik zu imponiren, so wird er sich diese Spanne seiner gallsüchtigen Herrschaft nur verkürzen.” 37 Gottfried Weber, “Theaterkritiken in Zeitschriften,” TFhH (1813): 103–14. Among the lists of personal, repertoire, portraits, sample dialogues, poems, and song texts, are the theoretical essays at the end of the volume. 38 Ibid., 107. “flüchtige, flache, nichts sagende, oder falsche, oft sogar geradezu sich widersprechende Nachrichten von Theatern.” 39 Ibid., 109.

41 many similarities to the model of Rochitz’s AmZ. Most of the institutions that produced German theater also produced operetta other dramatic genres with music. Therefore, the work theater journals did to promote and evaluate German theater also served as an important voice in

German opera criticism. Many Singspiele and comical operettas performed on suburban stages in

Vienna might never have received attention without publications like the Wiener Theater-

Zeitung, as they were rarely discussed in the general music journals. As many editors and contributors were involved in the creation and production of musically dramatic works, their theater journals positioned readership and audiences in a dialogue with the opera-supporting institutions.

General Arts and Lifestyle Journals

An abundance of literary journals included discussions of visual arts as well as theater in both the eighteenth and nineteenth century. But only a handful of publications in the early nineteenth century included reviews of German operas alongside these other arts.

Table 2-4. General Art and Lifestyle Journals with German Opera Reviews, 1798–1830

Berliner Conversations-Blatt für Poesie, Literatur und Kritk (Berlin: 1827–29) Berliner Schnellpost für Literatur, Theater, und Geselligkeit (Berlin: 1826–29) Der Gesellschafter oder Blätter für Geist und Herz (Berlin: 1817–48) Journal des Luxus und der Moden (Weimar: 1786–1827) Leipziger Kunstblatt für gebildete Kunstfreunde (Leipzig: 1817–18) Neue allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek (Berlin: 1793–1805) Die Wage, Eine Zeitschrift für Bürgerleben, Wissenschaft, und Kunst (Frankfurt: 1818–21) Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunst, Literatur, Theater und Mode (Vienna: 1816–46)

The Journal des Luxus und der Moden [JLM] was a revolutionary forum for codifying a social identity for the rising middle class. In addition to the beautiful plates illustrating both women’s and men’s fashions, the JLM identified artistic activities that would define the cultured

42 citizen, among them opera. The original editor and creator of the JLM was Friedrich Justin

Bertuch (1747–1822), whose experience as a financial advisor to the court, businessman, and publisher made him an authoritative voice to readers that aspired to a better place in society. He considered periodicals an important agent in economic and cultural well-being of the German people, defining a journal as “an infallible medium to enliven the German industry and to provide for us sustenance and prosperity.”40 The JLM distributed between 1000–1600 copies, each read by multiple readers interested in the latest fashions.41 According to Karin A. Wurst,

Betruch considered fashion to be not only clothing, but also a variety of cultural activities that defined the middle-class lifestyle.42 The popularity and circulation of the journal attests to its contribution in shaping an opera-going public in German-speaking territories. For most of its history, JLM provided short reviews and news of German operas; however, during its final four years, the JLM included more reviews of German operas, including some lengthy ones by well- known critics like Amadeus Wendt (See Table 2-5). Betruch’s death in 1822 signaled the end of the JLM’s prolific run.

Table 2-5. German Opera Reviews by Year in the JLM from 1798–1826

1798 2 1808 6 1818 1 1799 4 1809 6 1819 1 1800 3 1810 6 1820 2 1801 6 1811 5 1821 0

40 “Friedrich Justin Bertuch,” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, ed. Historischen Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vol. 2 (1875), 552. “[Ein] unfehlbares Mittel, die deutsche Industrie zu beleben und Nahrung und Wohlstand unter uns zu verbreiten.” 41 Karin A. Wurst, “Fashioning a Nation: Fashion and National Costume in Bertruch’s ‘Journal des Luxus und der Moden,’” German Studies Review 28 (May 2005): 368. At the turn of the nineteenth century a print run of 1600 was on par with such widely-circulating periodicals as the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek, which would have sent anywhere from 20-200 copies to each major city. See Morrow, 29. 42 Ibid.

43 1802 5 1812 2 1822 3 1803 1 1813 3 1823 11 1804 1 1814 2 1824 11 1805 2 1815 1 1825 7 1806 2 1816 4 1826 7 1807 1 1817 1

The success of the JLM spawned imitators in other large cities. Wilhelm Hebenstreit

(1774–1854) and Johann Schickh (1770–1835) founded the Wiener Moden-Zeitung [WZ] as a

Viennese alternative to the JLM. Prior to its publication, Schickh had worked in the textile industry, suggesting his interest in focusing primarily on fashion.43 Yet after just the first year, the focus of the WZ shifted away from fashion to more articles and reviews of other arts.44 In

1817 the journal was renamed the Wiener Zeitschrift für Kunst, Literatur, Theater und Mode, a name it kept until it ceased publication in 1848. In addition to the competition the WZ offered the

JLM, the vast number of theater and opera reviews also made Schickh’s journal a formidable rival to Bäuerle’s WT.45

The Berliner Conversations-Blatt für Poesie, Literatur und Kritik [BCB] appeared briefly from 1827–29, and was co-edited by Friedrich Christoph Förster (1791–1868) and Georg

Wilhelm Heinrich Haring [Willibald Alexis] (1798–1871). The journal responded to the niche

Marx’s BamZ had established with musical scholars by offering something different: musical reviews and essays without the jargon of theoretical analysis. Förster, in his forward to the journal, wrote that “true scholarly evaluation is excluded from our journal; thus we are not concerned with the technical parts of music, with scores and counterpoint, but rather with works

43 Barry Cooper, “Beethoven’s ‘Abendlied’ and the ‘Wiener Zeitschrift,’” Music & Letters 82 (May 2001): 236. 44 Kirchner, Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen, II/66. 45 The majority of new comical operettas and farces that premiered in Viennese theaters were reviewed in both the WT and WZ, usually published on the same day. See Appendix A for reviews of Volkert, Gläser, and Wenzel Müller in both publications.

44 as artistic creations and artistic achievements.”46 Förster made the BCB’s attention to performances of the dramatic arts clear in the forward: “What was said about the relationship of the critic (in our sense) to the visual arts, applies as well for music, poetry, and theater, which, because they have their essence not in sensually-confined material but rather in perception and performance, have thus already moved closer to thought.”47 Additionally, the BCB appeared the year after the JLM ceased publication, filling the void the general arts and fashion magazine left behind.

Although general entertainment journals like the BCB refrained from specialist jargon to encourage a wide readership, and thus appreciation for new cultural developments, other editors had high expectations for the literary background of its readers. [Johann] Amadeus Wendt

(1783–1836), the philosopher, editor, and critic supplying the comprehensive essays on German opera’s most lauded masterpieces, had failed to find an audience for his Leipziger Kunstblatt für gebildete Kunstfreunde [LKgK] in 1817.48 According to Johann Kirchner, “the exclusively theoretically aesthetic and critically instructive direction of the [LKgK], with the intention of

“guiding the taste of the public and thus advancing art in a worthy manner,” had no appeal to the

46 Friedrich Christoph Förster, “Vorwart” BCB 1 (1 January 1827): 4. “Da jedoch von unserm Blatte die eigentliche gelehrte Beurtheilung ausgeschlossen ist, so haben wir es nicht mit dem wissenschaftlichen Theile der Musik, mit Partituren und Contrapunkt zu thun, sondern mit ihren Werken als Kunstschöpfungen und Kunstleistungen.” 47 Ibid., 3. “Was von dem Verhältniß der Kritik in unserm Sinne zu den bildenden Künsten gesagt wurde, gilt eben so von dem zur Musik, Poesie und Schauspielkunst, die, weil sie ihr Element nicht in einem sinnlich-festen Stoffe, sondern in der Empfindung und Vorstellung haben, schon dadurch dem Gedanken näher gerückt sind.” 48 Wendt reviewed Beethoven’s Fidelio, Weber’s Euryanthe, Spohr’s Jessonda and Der Berggeist, Marschner’s Der Vampyr, Kreutzer’s Libussa, and Mozart’s Die Entführung aus dem Serail in lengthy, essay format from 1815–28. He reviewed Fidelio, Euryanthe, and Jessonda more than once.

45 public.”49 Unfortunately, the journal folded at the conclusion of its first year of publication, leaving behind only a handful of German opera reviews. The popular operas of Spohr, Weber, and Marschner had not appeared, and the Leipzig readership outside of Wendt’s University circles was not ready for a journal with such lofty expectations of its readers.50 Although the journal had a short run, Wendt managed to push through his argument for the cultivation of a national opera. In addition to reviews of several German operas for the LKgK, Wendt also published instructive essays on pertinent issues like German recitative.51

Another significant figure to shape the landscape of German music criticism within the political climates of the early nineteenth century is Ludwig Börne. Although his background was primarily literary, he did have considerable amount of knowledge about music. He was even approached to write for the exclusively music journal Cäcilia.52 Perhaps his most significant contribution to German opera criticism is his own publication of collected essays entitled Die

Wage, Eine Zeitschrift für Bürgerleben, Wissenschaft, und Kunst (1818–21), which contained his reviews of works performed in Frankfurt’s theaters.53 And according to Rogols-Seigel, the bulk

49 Kirchner, Das deutsche Zeitschriftwesen, II/58. “Die ausschließlich theoretisierend- ästhetische und kritisch-belehrende Ausrichtung des Blattes mit dem Vorsatz, ‘den Gesmack des Publikums zu leiten und dadurch die Kunst selbst auf eine würdige Art zu fördern, fand beim Publikum keinen Anklang.” 50 Wendt was a professor of Philosophy at the University in Leipzig. 51 Wendt, “Über das Recitativ,” LKgK 80 (17 March 1818): 329–30, and 81 (19 March 1818): 334–5. 52 In a letter to Jeanette Wohl, Börne describes the invitation he received from Fink. There are no pieces signed “Börne” in the volumes of Caecilia from its initial publication to his death in 1837. See Linda Rogols-Siegel, “Ludwig Börne as Music Critic,” The Musical Quarterly 74, no. 2 (1998): 270-1. 53 “Frankfurter Volksbühne” and “Frankfurter Dramaturgie” were major sections of most issues, and included reviews of performances of German operas by Weigl, Spohr, Himmel, Mozart, Romberg, and others.

46 of Börne’s German music criticism is of stage works, including thirty-six reviews of operas performed in Frankfurt for Die Wage and fifteen opera reviews published in the MgS.54

Börne addressed in his 1818 “Introduction” to Die Wage how important arts and the

German arts would be to the journal’s coverage. Since music was enjoyed every day by the

German people, it deserved to be discussed in any publication devoted to national causes: “A place should be set aside in Die Wage for these arts, [a place] appropriate to the dignity they enjoy in the public life of the German people.”55 He explained that the role of concert criticism was not just to articulate the beautiful features or flaws in operas and stage works, but to forge a bond between local institutions and their supportive audiences:

Drama is now showing a brisk appetite for life in Germany, sometimes advancing and sometimes lagging in popularity, and it deserves high attention. This magazine will never lose sight of its course and manner. It is not merely artistry and feeling for the beautiful that engage themselves in the evaluation of dramatic works and performance on the stage, other things emerge that attract interest. The permanent theater of a place is seldom better, never worse, than the audience therein, and thus it becomes the most civilized art to say in general to a devoted citizenry what is said about its stages.56

Even though Börne came from a literary and philosophical background, his knowledge of music and his political aspirations led him to emphasize music criticism more in the forum of reviewing than aesthetics. Börne’s widespread exposure and attention to his readers support Kirchner’s

54 The opera reviews in Die Wage appear under the “Frankfurter Volksbühne” and “Frankfurter Dramaturgie” headings; In the MgS, his opera reviews are published under the title “Briefe aus Frankfurt.” Rogols-Seigel, 272. 55 Ludwig Börne, “Einleitung,” Die Wage 1 (1818): 6. “Diesen Künsten soll in der Wage ein Platz angewiesen werden, welcher der Würde, die sie im öffentlichen Leben der Deutschen genießen, angemessen ist.” 56 Ibid., 6. “Die Schauspielkunst zeigt jetzt in Deutschland einen raschen Lebenstrieb, und der Volksthümlichkeit bald vorgehend bald nacheilend, verdient sie eine hohe Aufmerksamkeit. Deren Gänge und Halte wird diese Zeitschrift nie aus dem Blicke verlieren. Es ist nicht blos der Kunstsinn und das Gefühl für’s Schöne, die sich an der Beurtheilung dramatischer Werke und ihrer Darstellung auf der Bühne üben, es treten noch andere Dinge hervor, welche hierbei die Theilnahme fesseln. Das stehende Schauspiel eines Orts ist selten besser, nie schlechter als die Zuhörer darin, und so wird es die höflichste Art einer lieben Bürgerschaft überall zu sagen was an ihr sey, dass man über ihre Bühne spreche.”

47 characterization of him as one of the most influential journalists of the early nineteenth century. 57

His contribution to the world of theater criticism is as significant as that of Rochlitz and A. B.

Marx to music criticism. Therefore, his reviews offer a persuasive voice in shaping a national genre of musical theater.

The fashion and general arts magazines brought opera criticism to the non musician, offering reviews that were free of theoretical jargon and not edited by theater directors.

Publications like the BCB discussed opera on equal terms with other genres like poetry and visual art for a general audience, and the specialized Die Wage of Ludwig Börne brought philosophy and a strong literary background to the evaluation of new German operas.

Furthermore, the JLM promoted opera attendance alongside many other fashionable outings to define the cultural identity of the emerging middle class. Not only the reviews, but also the essays of contributors to this group of periodicals illustrated that the push for a national opera was not merely the concern of specialists.

Feuilletons

The feuilletons contributed significantly to shaping a language for German opera criticism. Appearing during the Napoleonic conflicts, these widely circulating papers garnered support from the early nineteenth-century’s most vocal proponents of a unified German upheaval. Typically a non-political, or arts and entertainment section would be attached to the main section of the newspaper, and these often included reviews and news of new German operas. Embracing broad topics spanning education and the arts, editors of these inserts were able to present ideas to a variety of readers. Additionally, the editors of these journals typically

57 Kirchner, Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen, II/59–60.

48 had opinions on many subjects, writing both for the political and non-political portions of the paper. Alongside their composer colleagues, they contributed a fare share of opera reviews.

Table 2-6. Feuilletons with German Opera Reviews, 1798–1830

Der Freimüthige oder Scherz und Ernst (Berlin: 1803–17) Morgenblatt für gebildete Stände (Stuttgart: 1807–65) Zeitung für die elegante Welt (Leipzig: 1801–59)58

Some scholars have discounted or underestimated the contribution of the feuilletons to music criticism. Indeed their readership lacked the specialized music training required for some of the theoretical essays, say, in the AmZ. One might characterize the bourgeois audience of these publications as more concerned with the event than the work, as most of the discussion of music centered on the news of traveling virtuosi and prima donnas. The description given by Celia

Applegate that the “feuilletons’ perspective was that of provincials looking out on the wide world and doting on what came their way” or that they “created a sort of lowest cultural denominator capable of creating ties among places by the sheer banality of their common concerns,” suggests how reviewers might amass broad public support for a national opera.59

Although, as Applegate notes, the relaxed tone of the contributors to the feuilletons appears to ridicule the serious writers of the AmZ,60 polemical discussions on topics of recitative, music and text relationships, formal analysis, as well as dramatic presentations are not difficult to find.61

Furthermore, Ulrich Tadday addresses the feuilletons’ manner of toggling from discussion of

58 These three periodicals are the same three discussed at length in Tadday. 59 Applegate, 103–4. 60 Ibid., 102. 61 A few examples: “Deutsche Oper Kritik der Opernkomposition” MgS 255 (24 October 1807): 1017–8; C. F. Michaelis, “Über die verschiedenen Gattungen der Musik,” Freimüthige 53 (15 March 1811): 209–12 and 54 (16 March 1811): 213–6; “Über die musikalischen Gegensätze in Gehe’s Oper die bezauberte Rose” ZeW 113 (13 June 1826): 905–9.

49 musical happenings to deeper criticism by their function to provide both entertainment and education.62

But two major points here lead us to take the feuilletons much more seriously in terms of opera criticism. For one, most of their musical discussions focused on opera, not surprisingly as the readers seeking a social interaction through the arts gravitated more to the opera circles than those connected with the intimate setting of chamber music. But as news and reviews of operas were expected in the journals, the composers, librettists, and other interested parties frequently engaged in debates that were far from superficial. Secondly, the editors of the feuilletons engaged either politically or intellectually with institutions and figures that had much to contribute to the development of German opera.

Leopold Voß, whose company published the Zeitung für die elegante Welt [ZeW], aimed to improve the cultural literacy of his readers. The arts and entertainment portion of this

Bildungszeitung provided not only a guide to new operas and their singers but also endeavored to shape a supportive and informed audience out of the rising middle classes. Each volume that Voß edited was prefaced with the journal’s mission. Topping the list of enumerated goals was the presentation of essays for the “adjustment of opinion about art and for the refinement of taste.”63

In addition to offering several reviews by prolific opera critic August Klingemann, the ZeW published lengthy reviews and correspondence from Dresden by the librettist Eduard Gehe. A recurring voice in the discussion of German Opera was rare in a feuilleton,64 and in the late

62 Ulrich Tadday, Die Anfänge des Musikfeuilletons: Der kommunikative Gebrauchswert musikalischer Bildung in Deutschland um 1800 (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1993), 8. 63 Leopold Voß, “Die Zeitung für die elegante Welt enthält, ihrem Plane zu Folge,” preface, ZeW, “Berichtigung der Urteil über Kunst und zur Veredlung des Geschmacks.” 64 Georg Reinbeck contributed several essays to the ZeW as well in 1812, but they were centered only on his own operas. If any other feuilleton writer wrote as many essays as Gehe, he did so anonymously.

50 1820s Gehe and his strong reputation as a librettist gave the arts section an appearance akin to that of the general music journals. The influence of [Johann Gottlieb] Karl Spazier (1761–1805) in the founding of the journal also kept its general readership in close proximity to the Romantic followers of Goethe.65

The Stuttgart publisher Johann Friedrich Cotta introduced the Morgenblatt für gebildete

Stände [MgS] in 1807 as an alternative to the Freimüthige for southern Germany. As August von

Kotzebue’s Freimüthige had criticized the Stuttgart Romantic movement, 69 the MgS found its own voice with a slant toward the works and ideas of Schiller and Goethe.70 The reach of the

MgS was extensive, boasting 2500 copies in circulation with 1400 subscriptions,71 bringing

Romantic ideals to a broad segment of the literate populace through short, accessible essays, poems, and reviews of theatrical and musical productions on local stages. Essays like “Ein Wort

über das Verhältnis des Texts zur Musik in der Oper,” by Weisser, in the MgS helped bring literary and musical romantics into a dialogue about the developing national genre.72

Although the purpose of the arts and entertainment sections of the feuilletons was to offer material outside the realm of the political conflicts in early nineteenth-century Europe, the focus was not always free from polemics. The editorial slant of the Freimüthige against the Stuttgart

65 The influence of the Romantics on the feuilleton is illustrated by some witty musings built from literary models. For example, the ZeW published a fictional dialogue between the spirit of Mozart and Schikaneder as a response to the Kärtnertortheater’s uncredited performance of Die Zauberflöte just before the opening of the Theater an der Wien. See “Mozart und Schikaneder. Ein theatralisches Gespräch über die Aufführung der Zauberflöte im Stadttheater: in Knittelvers,” ZeW 41 (4 April 1801): 326–8. 69 Kirchner, I/262–3. 70 Ibid., I/261. 71 See Sabine Peek, “Cottas Morgenblatt für gebildete Stände. Seine Entwicklung und Bedeutung unter der Redaktion der Brüder Hauff (1827–1865),” in Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel Frankfurt am Main 42 (1965): 947–1064. 72 A serial essay, “Bemerkungen eines Musikfreundes über Musik, Komposition, Operntexte,” beginning in MgS 59 (9 March 1812): 234–5, illustrates this point as well, and is addressed more thoroughly in Chapter 5.

51 Romantics, left the MgS and ZeW to pursue more progressive ideas. Although the reputation of these dailies suggests carefree, bourgeois social living, many editors often included theoretical essays for instruction and to encourage the artistic cultivation of its readers. The wide circulation and particular focus on reviewing and reporting on new operas leaves the feuilletons a major outlet of German opera criticism in the early nineteenth century.

Conclusion

German opera criticism was supported through several different outlets, some of which have hardly received acknowledgment. Current scholarship has relied primarily on reviews of certain key works by a handful of critics, many who are the composers themselves. But German writers discussed and propagated the cause of a national opera in many forms. Theater journals consistently provided reviews and thoughtful essays specifically on German opera, written by theater directors, literary figures, as well as librettists that all had an interest in the cause. General arts magazines and fashion magazines addressed a readership that supported opera but were not necessarily music or theater specialists. Finally, the art sections of the political feuilletons both delivered news and writings about new German operas to a large segment of the German- speaking population that may never read a specialized journal, as well as complemented the emerging nationalistic spirit promoted in that medium.

52

CHAPTER THREE

ESTABLISHING THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY

At the turn of the nineteenth century, there was no unified genre of German opera. In

Hamburg and Berlin in the late eighteenth century, the Singspiele of Johann André, Johann

Adam Hiller, and Ernst Wilhelm Wolf constituted a group of works rather isolated in Northern

Germany.1 In Vienna, on the other hand, farcical stage plays and comedies enlivened with varying amounts of music resided in the suburban theaters (the Theater auf der Wieden and those in Josephstadt and Leopoldstadt2), while the court theaters had only recently begun performing

German Singspiele.3 Moreover, the popularity of translated opéra comique at the turn of the century brought additional ideas for stories and musical forms for use in new German

Singspiele.4

It is no surprise then that an assortment of terminology for the various incarnations of staged dramas with music and singing in the German language appeared in periodicals in the

1 Thomas Bauman, North German Opera in the Age of Goethe (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985). 2 Peter Branscombe, “Music in the Viennese Popular Theatre of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 98 (1971–2): 107. 3 For a glimpse of the changing repertoire at the court theaters during the brief period of the National German Singspiel initiate by Emperor Joseph II, see the performance calendars in Dorothea Link, The National Court Theatre in Mozart’s Vienna (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). 4 Carl Dahlhaus identifies opéra comique as the strongest foreign influence on early nineteenth century German Opera, and goes as far as citing Der Freischütz as a an example of such borrowing, in Nineteenth-Century Music, trans. J. Bradford Robinson (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), 68. Stephen C. Meyer provides a detailed discussion of how Weber reworked Mèhul’s Joseph for a local performance in Prague as part of his effort to build an audience for German Opera and learn his craft of dramaturgy, in Carl Maria von Weber and the Search for a German Opera (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 28–75. early nineteenth century. The major musical-theatrical terms found in reviews at the time include: Oper, grosse Oper, Operette, Singspiel, Liederspiel, and Melodrama. Many ordinary theatrical forms, such as the Schauspiel, Lustspiel, Trauerspiel, Mährchen (Fairy Tale) and Posse

(Farce) as well as the more visually-oriented Pantomime and Gemählde (Tableau), were also enlivened with songs, choral numbers, and ballets. Vaudevilles and Quodlibets incorporated popular theatrical music from other works in their presentations. The subject matter and mood of the given story or plot were sometimes indicated (e.g., “heroisch,” “romantisch,” “ernsthaftlich,” even “allegorisch,” “mythologisch” or “militärisch,” or a hybrid like “romantisch-komisch”) to refine the basic distinction between serious and comical. The growing interest in the supernatural is also evident in the specific terms Feenoper and Zauberoper. Some of these were more local terms, while others remained widely used and broadly defined across the German-speaking lands.

Before trying to figure out what nineteenth-century writers meant by words like Singspiel and Oper, it is beneficial to consider how recent histories have dealt with the various terms. Most historians have had difficulty with German opera terminology, and to simplify matters have made Singspiele, grosse Oper, and romantische Oper their main designations for this period:

Singspiele for a genre with spoken dialogue instead of recitative, grosse Oper for through- composed work (i.e., works with continuous music), and romantische Oper for the plethora of popular works with supernatural and/or chivalrous themes. These distinctions were certainly maintained by some contemporary writers and composers of German opera, and they make for a concise presentation of German opera history in the early nineteenth century. It is understandable that these genres have been adopted as the major designators in our histories, for they were the ones attributed to the period’s most successful works. But even a cursory survey of other musical

54 stage works by Reichardt, Schubert, and Wenzel Müller, to name a few, would unveil genre types unfamiliar to many musicians today.

A brief survey of modern usage of the terms illustrates some of the ways historians have relied on these few, broadly defined terms in order to overcome inconsistencies in the primary sources—although, sometimes this simplification creates further confusion. Edward Dent attempted to sort through the history of opera types and their names in his two 1944 articles on the “The Nomenclature of Opera.”5 Dent is sensitive to the changing definitions of Oper and

Singspiel during the eighteenth century. Singspiel, for example, did not have association with comic opera until the second half of the eighteenth century. When applied to the works of

Handel and Keiser in the early eighteenth century, it designated works performed in German, whereas Oper was reserved for works in Italian, no matter how loose the treatment was in parlance.6 Dent maintains that the majority of German operas in the nineteenth century were referred to as simply Oper, komische Oper or grosse romantische Oper.7 Although the main three terms Dent identifies are among the most commonly employed in the reviews, there are grosse Opern that have nothing “romantic” in terms of plot or musical composition, just as there are romantische Opern that lack the use of recitative often associate with grosse Opern.8

Christoph Nieder compares developments in German opera with those of French opera in the first half of the nineteenth century, equating Singspiel to opéra comique and Musikdrama to

5 Edward J. Dent explores operatic terms spanning the history of opera to the mid twentieth century by country (i.e. language) in “The Nomenclature of Opera-II” Music & Letters 25 (October 1944): 213–26. This article considers terminology in France, Germany, and England and the other article, “The Nomenclature of Oper,” Music & Letters 25 (July 1944): 132–40, considers operatic terms of Italy. 6 Dent, “The Nomenclature of Opera-II,” 221–3. 7 Ibid. 8 Spohr’s Jessonda, for example, is exotic, not romantic. Dahlhaus, 73.

55 Grand Opéra.9 Yet this distinction leads him to include Der Freischütz as a Singspiel because of its spoken dialogue, and hence an extension of the eighteenth-century traditions. Such a connection may simplify our histories but it also feeds our desire to present a seamless development of German opera from Mozart to Wagner, as Nieder has argued through his study of libretti. Therefore, Weber and his works have suited such histories well. In addition to his popular appeal and acclaim, Weber’s Freischütz connects his interest in the supernatural well to

Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte, just as continuous music in Euryanthe proves a satisfying precursor to

Wagner’s Musikdramen.

John Warrack’s recent history of German Opera, despite acknowledging composer-given genre designations, employs Singspiel to identify those works with spoken dialogue.10 But the manner in which he labels the operas in his appendix can cause confusion in a few cases. Poissl identified his Athalia (Munich, 1814) as a “grosse Oper,” and the work does include recitatives in the Italian style.11 Although the child’s part Joas is in dialogue, the significant number of recitatives renders the work no different from that of Spohr’s Jessonda, another opera with recitatives but without continuous music from scene to scene. Poissl even clarified in the MTJ that he included the short passages of spoken dialogue in Athalia only to simplify the material for the child performer.12 It is not clear why this small performance consideration should make such a difference as to result in two different genre classifications. Although Warrack’s employment

9 Christoph Nieder, Von der Zauberflöte zum Lohengrin: Das deutsche Opernlibretto in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche, 1989), 29. 10 John Warrack, German Opera: From the Beginnings to Wagner (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Warrack notes at the beginning of the appendix that “the description Singspiel (Spl) covers a very wide range, from plays with song insertions to large- scale operas, but here indicates that a work has spoken dialogue.” 11 D-Mbs St. th. 6-1. 12 Johann Nepomuk von Poissl, “Erklärung,” MTJ 9 (September 1816): 446–58 [sic, 546– 58]; and MTJ 10 (October 1816): 503–7 [sic, 603–7].

56 of Singspiel for any work with spoken dialogue might seem a useful at first glance, it does create some confusion.

These historical surveys have settled on some standard terms that, while useful for characterizing much of the repertoire, are not consistently defined. It is worth taking a closer look at the terminology employed in early nineteenth-century reviews. An examination reveals that writers, composers, and librettists did not always agree on what terms described specific genres of German stage works. Confused by the fluid use of terminology, some writers, such as

Mosel and A. B. Marx, even sought to clarify genre distinctions with these terms. However, for the purposes of this dissertation, an examination will help us identity what vocabulary is consistent with how writers discussed German opera in the broad sense. At the conclusion of the chapter, I will propose that the terminology that critics followed most consistently be substituted for “German Romantic opera” in our histories. This substitution will allow modern writers to discuss the various trends and sub genres but still have an over-arching term to address early nineteenth-century German opera in general without the pitfalls “German Romantic opera” presents.

Nineteenth-Century Terminology

Although nineteenth-century sources present various usage of several of these terms, it is worth investigating if some commonality exists. One musical trait that hints at the possibility of consistent distinctions in the body of reviews is recitative. I have been unable to identify a

German work labeled as Singspiel in early nineteenth century reviews that contains recitative in lieu of any spoken dialogue, suggesting some common levels of understanding among many editors, writers, and readers that may be assessed from these sources. But this is difficult to confirm because of the widespread fluidity in usage. Depending on the reviewer, composer,

57 librettist, or journal editorial staff, for example, the same work could receive several different labels. In some cases journals identified new works using the term given by the composer or librettist. But other times local variant terms were substituted. Oper could stand for just about any theatrical work with new music, singing, and a continuous, unified plot. Singspiel, a phrase carried over from the eighteenth century, was still employed, though not always in the modern sense of a work that has spoken dialogue instead of recitative. As a brief example, Table 3-1 provides a short list of the various terms employed in reviews for some of the more popular works in the early nineteenth century.

Table 3-1. Genre Designations Given by Contemporaries for Popular Early 19th-Century

German Opera

Winter’s Das unterbrochene Opferfest (Oper, grosse Oper, grosse heroische Oper, Singspiel)

Weber’s Abu Hassan (kleine Oper, Oper, Singspiel)

Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte (Oper, grosse Oper, heroische Oper, heroisch-komische Oper)13

Klein’s Dido (Oper, festlische Oper, grosse Oper)

Weigl’s Bergsturz (Oper, Singspiel)

Himmel’s Kobold (komische Oper, komisches Singspiel)

Süssmayr’s Solimann der Zweyte/die drei Sultaninnen (Oper, Singspiel)

The variety of terms for Das unterbrochene Opferfest and Die Zauberflöte demonstrates that our modern understanding of “opera” and “singspiel” does not correspond to that of early nineteenth-century writers. It is useful to explore what the works identified as grosse Oper or

13 Despite the classification given by modern scholars (Warrick, 2004), no review from 1798–1830 refers to Mozart’s die Zauberflöte as a Singspiel, which may signify the status it had already received in the repertoire.

58 Singspiel have in common.14 Table 3-2 is a list of German operas referred to as “grosse Oper” in

German-speaking periodicals from 1798 to 1830. I have indicated the original term given by the librettist and/or composer in the original manuscript or first publication. I’ve also specified which of these works contain recitative in some form, as that was a major criteria for Weber and other writers to qualify an opera as “grosse.” Roughly half of them were so titled by the composer and/or librettist, and likewise only half of them contain continuous music through the use of recitative.

Table 3-2. German Works Identified as „grosse Opern“ in Periodicals from 1798–1830.15

Work (Composer) Year Original Title Recit. Journals

Adelheit (Reinicke) 1806/7 Grosse Oper ? AmZ Alexander in Persien (Götze) 1819 Grosse Oper yes AmZ, Gesellschafter Athalia (Poißl) 1814 Grosse Oper yes AmZ, MgS, MTJ,MTZ Baals Sturz (Weigl) 1820 Heroische Oper yes AmZ, WT Babylons Pyramid (Winter) 1797 Her.-kom. Oper no AmZ Bathmendi (Lichtenstein) 1798 Grosse alleg.-kom. Oper no JLM Die blaue Katze (Roser) 1824 Grosse Feenoper yes WT Cantemire (Fesca) 1820 [Oper?] ? AmZ Chimene (Wagner) 1821 Grosse Oper ? AmZ Comal (Winter) 1809 Heroische Oper ? AmZ Dido (Klein) 1823 Grosse Oper yes MgS Euryanthe (Weber) 1823 Grosse romantische Oper yes AmZ, JLM, WT, WZ Faust (Spohr) 1816 Romantische Oper yes AmZ Harald (Kleinheinz) 1814 Oper yes AmZ, WT Heliodor (Gläser) 1826 Feenoper no WT Hochlands Fürsten (Payer) 1825 Grosse romantische Oper ? WT Idas und Marpissa (Seyfried) 1807 Romantische Oper ? AmZ Jessonda (Spohr) 1823 Grosse Oper yes AmZ, Caecilia, JLM

14 I’ve chosen to provide an example of grosse Oper rather than simply “opera,” because the latter term is too illusive to make a concrete point. 15 Not all works identified as grosse Opern in periodicals were labeled so by the composer or librettist. I’ve gathered additional data from Charles H. Parsons, Opera Composers and their Works, 4 vols. (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1986). Some works with recitative that were never referred to as “grosse Oper” in journals are Schubert’s Alfonso und Estrella (1822), Mayer’s Burgschaft (1823), Kreutzer’s Cordelia (1810), Danzi’s Iphigenie in Aulis (1807), and Mosel’s Salem (1813).

59 Kaiser Hadrian (Weigl) 1807 Grosse Oper yes JLM, WT Die Karthagerin (Sutor) 1812 Grosse heroische Oper yes MTJ Könign v. schw. Inseln (Eberl)1801 Oper no JLM Libella (Reissiger) 1829 Grosse Oper ? AmZ Libussa (Kreutzer) 1822 Romantisch Oper yes WT Ludlams Höhle (Weisse) 1816 Singspiel no AmZ Mathilde (Hauptmann) 1826 Grosse tragische Oper ? AmZ Numa Pompilius(Buchwieser)1808 Grosse heroische Oper ? AmZ Orpheus (Kanne) 1807 Grosse Oper yes WT Pauline (Drechsler) 1822 Grosse militärische Oper no WZ Phasma (Süssmayr) 1801 Heroische Oper no JLM Rittertreue (Romberg) 1817 Grosse ernsthafte Oper ? AmZ Rosenhütchen (Blum) 1819 Grosse Zauberoper no AmZ(W), WT, WZ Rübezahl (Würfel) 1824 Romantische Oper no MgS, WZ Sauertöpfchen (Gläser) 1824 Romantische Oper no WT Schlangenfest (W. Müller) 1796 Grosse her.-kom. Oper ? AmZ Selico (Gyrowetz) 1804 Singspiel no AmZ Seraphine (A. Müller) 1828 Rom.-kom. Oper no WT Swetards Zaubertal (Fischer) 1805 Komische Zauberoper no Freimüthige Der Taucher (Kreutzer) 1814 Romantische Oper no MgS Triumph der Liebe (Stegman) 1796 Grosse Feenoper ? AmZ Undine (Hoffmann) 1816 Zauberoper yes AmZ Das utrbrch. Opferfest(Winter)1796 Oper no WT Der Vampyr (Lindpaintner) 1828 Romantische Oper yes AmZ, WT Der Vampyr (Marschner) 1828 Grosse romantische Oper yes AmZ Wettkampf zu Olympia (Poißl)1815 Grosse Oper yes AmZ Wittekind (Lobe) 1821 Grosse ernsthafte Oper yes AmZ Die Zauberflöte (Mozart) 1791 Singspiel no JLM, MTJ

In some cases the journals have simply used the term from the printed libretto, published score, or programs from the performances. Grosse Oper could also have been employed to advertise new works as a significant event.16 (This was also the case in other genres, particularly instrumental ones, of a large scale, such as Mozart’s grosse Konzerten.) And according to

Edward Dent, the phrase “gross” was employed as frequently in German as “grand” in England

16 Theater directors might have loosely described new works with the “gross” qualifier. Emanuel Schikaneder, for example, famously entitled Die Zauberflöte a “grosse Oper,” despite its lack of recitative and its resemblance to heroische, romantische Opern or non comical Singspiel of the time.

60 in the first half of the nineteenth century to tout new contributions to musical life, such as a grand pianoforte, grand symphony, or grand concerto.17

Most scholars cite the presence of recitative in German opera as the main criterion for grosse Opern, but the variances in Table 3-2 suggest that nineteenth-century writers may have been looking more toward the way recitative was composed. Among the German operas with recitative, there are noticeably different approaches. Amalie Abert’s comparison of Weber’s

Euryanthe and Spohr’s Jessonda, for example, identifies a “striking divergence in the clear alternation between recitative and aria, as is practiced in Jessonda but blurred in Euryanthe.”18

Therefore, the simple presence of recitative may not have necessarily signaled something

“grand” to composers, librettists, or critics. Scholars may continue to accept recitative as a feature typical of works called grosse Oper, but one should be aware that it is difficult to find consistency in the use of recitative in early nineteenth century German opera.19

The word Singspiel also produces some challenges, and is worth exploring in its historical usage. Table 3-3 lists the works referred to as Singspiele in reviews.

Table 3-3. German Works Identified as “Singspiel” in Reviews from 1798–1830.

Die Abentheuernacht (Drechsler) 1826 Abu Hassan (Weber) 1811 Adolph und Klara (Fränzl) 1800 Aladin (Gyrowetz) 1819

17 Dent, “The Nomenclature of Opera-II,” 222. 18 Anna Amalie Abert, “Webers ‘Euryanthe’ und Spohrs ‘Jessonda’ als große Opern,” Festschrift für Walter Wiora zum 30. Dezember 1966, eds. Ludwig Finscher and Christoph- Hellmut Mahling (Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1967), 437. “In Jessonda besteht inhaltlich wie sprachlich eine klare Scheidung zwischen Rezitativ und geschlossener Form, wie denn die ganze Oper auf Klarheit der Konturen in jeder Hinsicht angelegt ist, in Euryanthe geht beides ineinander über, sprachlich durch den Reim, der Rezitativ—wie Arientexte durchdringt, inhaltlich durch den dramatischen Fluß, der beide zusammenschließt.” 19 Michael Tusa adds that Euryanthe and Jessonda are also similar in their departure from the traditions of grosse Oper gleaned from the works of Danzi, Mosel, and Poissl, in “Carl Maria von Weber’s Euryanthe: A Study of its Historical Context, Genesis and Reception” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1983), 363.

61 Amadis (Stengel) 1798 Der Augenarzt (Gyrowetz) 1811 Der Bergssturz (Weigl) 1812 Die Edelknaben (Lichtenstein) 1823 Elbondokani (Zumsteeg) 1803 Die Entführung aus dem Serail(Mozart)1782 Feodore (J. P. Schmidt) 1812 Das Fischmädchen (J. P. Schmidt) 1818 Der frohe Tag (Uber) 1815 Fürst und Rauchfangkehrer (Kinsky) 1817 Die gefährliche Nachbarschaft (Stein) 1815 Germania (Kienlen) 1817 Die Geschwister vom Lande (Roser) 1819 Der Grenadier (Umlauf) 1812 Er hält wahrhaftig Wort (Seyfried) 1815 Hans Klachl (Tuczek) 1797 Hermann (Brandl) 1817 Die Heyrath im zwölften Jahre (Blum) 1823 Das Hochzeits-Konzert (Aigner) 1829 Der hölzerne Säbel (Seyfried)20 1830 Der Jugend Peter des Großen(Weigl) 1814 Die Junggesellenwirtschaft (Gyrowetz)1807 Julie der Blumentopf (Miller) 1811 Der Kobold (Himmel) 1813 König Waldemar (Weigl) 1821 Der Kosaken in Wien (Müller) 1814 Das Mädchen v. Montfermeuil(Kreutzer)1829 Die Marketänderinn (Müller) 1795 Die Mitternachsstunde (Danzi) 1788 Die musikalische Akademie (Payer) 1822 Nachtigall und Rabe (Weigl) 1818 Das Ochsenmenuette (Haydn)21 1823 Peterl und Paulerl (Gläser) 1827 Pietro und Elmira (Riotte) 1808 Der Sänger und der Schneider(Winter) 1820 Der Schusterfeyerabend (W. Müller) 1801 Die Schwestern v. Prag (W. Müller) 1794 Die seltsame Laune (Gläser) 1825 Solimann II (Süßmayer) 1799 Das Ständchen (Gyrowetz) 1823 Das unterbrochene Opferfest (Winter) 1796 Die Verschwornen (Schneider) ? Die Verwechslung (Fischer) 1820 Der vierjährige Posten (Steinacker) 1813 Die Wanderschaft (Eulenstein) 1802 Das Waisenhaus (Weigl) 1808 Das Winterquartier (Gyrowetz) 1812 Das Wirthshaus im Walde (Seyfried) 1813 Die Zwillingsbrüder v. Krems (Müller) 1819

At first glance the list of German works identified as Singspiel in concert reviews from 1798–

1830 seems quite long. But taken into context, the group of compositions makes up only a small fraction of all the musical stage works reviewed at the time. And in many cases, even the works listed as Singspiel in one journal may be identified as Oper, komische Oper, or another genre in other periodicals.

Attempts to clear up confusion behind the terminology employed for categorizing

German opera types took place in the early nineteenth century as well. As writers, composers, and librettists campaigned for German opera in periodicals, many aimed to define what makes an

20 Adapted from Mozart’s music. 21 Haydn’s music is set to the Singspiel.

62 opera an opera. By the 1820s, in particular, writers debated the criteria for characterizing the genre. Despite the freedom many publishers, composers, and often reviewers employed identifying new works, there was a group of writers committed to maintaining correct distinctions. The interest in cultivating a truly German art form is evident in the amount of ink spilled to define and assess the qualities of the various terms.

Some writers were casual in their use of terminology, often considering Oper and

Singspiel as synonymous with the latter merely the German word for the former term. One contributor to the ZeW, for example, while trying to demonstrate that Germany was producing too few works for the stage, listed all the major repertoire of each country as Singspiele, regardless of their form, subject matter, or use of recitative.30Although the author made some qualitative analysis of which German works were significant national achievements, he employed the word Singspiel as fluidly as most writers employed the word “opera.”

But other writers were not as relaxed in their terminology. For some it was irresponsible to mislabel a work, especially with dishonest intentions. A Berlin correspondent to the

Gesellschafter discussed the fluid use of genre labels and accused some librettists and composers of trying to elevate their works through this misuse.33 The writer attributed this practice to the changing tastes of the public who would fill an opera house for a “große Oper” but stay away from the everyday comedies. An opera was an event and a major performance in the public’s mind, whereas comical plays and farces with music were commonplace. For Schütze’s operetta

30 I. “Über Singspiele” ZeW 42 (27 February 1821): 332–4. His list of German Singspiele contains Die Zauberflöte, Die Schweizerfamilie, Nachtigall und Rabe, Der Dorfbarbier, Das unterbrochene Opferfest, Der reisende Student, Belmonte und Konstanze, Undine, Das Schweizerhirtenmädchen, Röschen die Müllerin, Zaire, Athalia, Das rothe Käppchen, Der Doktor und Apotheker, Das Waisenhaus, Der lustige Schuster, Der Augenarzt, and Fanchon. 33 “Zeitung der Ereignisse und Ansichten” Gesellschafter 10 (18 January 1826): 49.

63 (“Posse in einem Akte”) Herzog von Gestern, the reviewer acknowledged the contrary practice in which a librettist did not give a work the high classification it deserved:

The public’s apathy towards this piece, which no one would deny deserves to be called one of the best German ones of its type, indicates how much its taste has been shaped by the so-called “grosse Oper.” …That Hr. Schütze named his “Herzog von Gestern” a “farce” is a credit to his modesty. How many modern comedy librettists would consider themselves successful enough to write such a farce and call it at least a heroic-romantic comedy or character piece?34

The writer concluded the essay with the substitution of quasi “Posse” in reference to the genre of

Herzog von Gestern, which illustrates his commitment to definitive forms.

Criteria

In response to disagreements over terminology some influential figures in the development of German opera set forth to establish criteria to distinguish what constitutes an opera, Singspiel, or any other genre. The main features discussed for each genre included the use of recitative, the relationship of the musical numbers to the entire work, and the target audience.

The composer and Viennese court theater director Ignaz Franz von Mosel offered a firm definition of opera for Gottfried Weber’s lexicon of music in the late 1820s.35 Weber chose to publish the entry as “Ueber die Oper” in his journal Caecilia just before the new edition of the

34 Ibid. “Wie sehr der Geschmack des Publikums durch die sogenannte große Oper aus der Richtung, gebracht worden ist, beweiset die Theilnahmlosigkeit an diesem Stück, das unbedenklich eins der besseren deutschen seiner Art genannt zu werden verdient. …Daß Hr. St. Schütze seinen “Herzog von Gestern” ein “Posse” genannt hat, macht seiner Bescheidenheit Ehre. Wie mancher moderne Lustspiel-Dichter würde sich glücklich schätzen, eine solche Posse schreiben zu können, und sie wenigstens ein heroisch-romantisches Lust- oder Charakterstück nennen?—Die quasi “Posse” wurde recht brav dargestellt.” 35 Ignaz Franz Freiherr von Mosel, “Ueber die Oper,” Caecilia II/7 (1825): 233–9. Gottfried Weber’s lexicon appeared as a supplemental dictionary to a new edition of his original Allgemeine Musiklehre für Lehrer und Lernende (Darmstadt: C. W. Leske, 1822), published as Allgemeine Musiklehre zum Selbstunterrichte für Lehrer und Lernende in vier Kapitalen (Mainz: B. Schott’s Söhne, 1831).

64 lexicon was complete.36 The essay triggered two responses in subsequent issues of Caecilia.

Mosel’s overall characterization of opera was conservative, reflecting the composer’s affinity for the operas of Salieri,37 his own German form of a traditional opera seria, Salem, and his strict adherence to the rules established in his treatise on dramatic composition, published earlier in the

1800s. Mosel considered the free application of the word “opera” to an array of musical stage works reckless, and he set out to establish more exclusive criteria.

For Mosel, the true form of opera was tarnished by the term’s loose application in the early nineteenth century. Weber’s Der Freischütz, which he and his librettist Johann Friedrich

Kind (1768–1843) both called a “romantische Oper,” was by this date well known across

Europe. But Mosel maintained that true opera should never be confused with German works that had spoken dialogue, despite the high level of musical composition: “Opera is a dramatic poem, intended to be set entirely to music, and this is its prime distinction from Singspiel.”38 An opera in which everything is to be set to music meant that recitative should be employed to bridge songs, ensembles, and the other musical numbers. For a national genre for Germany, it is clear

Mosel favored traditional opera due to its perpetuation of Classical ideals and its widespread support of Europe’s most respected writers.39

Not all of the readers of Caecilia accepted Mosel’s exclusion of dramatic musical works without recitative in his definition of opera. M. K. published a response, “Einiges über die Oper,”

36 Mosel’s entry was also published in his hometown journal WT. 37 See Mosel’s monograph on the life and works of Salieri: Über das Leben und die Werke des Anton Salieris (Wien: Wallishausser, 1827). 38 Mosel, “Über die Oper,” 233–5. “Die Oper ist ein dramatische Gedicht, bestimmt, ganz in Musik gesetzt zu werden, und dies ist ihre vorzügliche Unterscheidung vom Singspiele.” 39 Mosel, as Ernest Neumann has suggested, wrote his Versuch einer Aesthetik des dramatischen Tonsatzes (1813) with the reform ideals of his idol, Christoph Willibald Ritter von Gluck (1714–87), in mind. “A Forerunner of Wagner,” The Musical Times LIII/838 (1 December 1912): 780.

65 to demonstrate flaws in Mosel’s distinction between Oper and Singspiel by the use of continuous music alone.40 Particularly noteworthy is M. K.’s explicit reference to German opera, moving him to expand Mosel’s restrictive definition of opera: “Almost all German operas would be considered not operas but mere Singspiele by Herr Mosel’s definition. We would gladly accede to it, if one—as it would perhaps be better suited—accepted Singspiel as the Germanization of the expression Opera, and left the other meaning of Singspiel for Operette!”41 M.K. was skeptical that the definition actually said anything about what made an opera different from any other dramatic genre and considered Mosel’s main point as distinguishing opera from

Singspiel—or what M. K. referred to as “a branch opera.”42 He went on to reject a fundamental distinction based on more or less music,43 to emphasize the importance of the subject matter to the purpose of opera and the diligence in choosing an appropriate subject.44 Unlike Mosel, who held opera firmly as a work entirely set to music, M. K. recognized “how difficult the composition of recitative” was and he wanted to account for German Singspiele with spoken dialogue that shared many other qualities with opera.46

Another contributor to Caecilia discussed Mosel’s essay and M. K.’s response. Dr. C.

Wöltje argued that such a restrictive definition was misguided amidst the fluidity of usage in the early nineteenth century and completely out of place in the type of source Gottfried Weber was

40 M. K., “Einiges über die Oper,” Caecilia 28 (1828): 251–61. I have not been able to identify the identity of this author who made only a few other contributions to Caecilia in its run, never providing more than these initials. 41 Ibid., 260. “Nach Herrn von Mosel’s Definition (s. a. a. o.) wären fast alle deutsche Opern keine Opern, sondern blosse Singspiele. Dem möchten wir recht gerne beitreten, wenn man, wie es sich vielleicht besser schicken möchte, Singspiel als Verteutschung des Ausdrucks: Oper gelten liese, und die andere Bedeutung des Singspiels der Operette überliesse!” 42 Ibid., 251. “als einem Zweig der Oper.” 43 Ibid., 252. 44 Ibid., 259. 46 Ibid., 260. “Wie schwierig die Composition der Recitative ist.”

66 preparing: “One seeks practical knowledge in an art encyclopedia, not the individual opinions of an aesthetician.”48 To further illustrate his point, Wöltje constructed the following analogy:

Mosel: “Opera is a dramatic poem, intended to be set entirely to music ”

Wöltje: “A roast is a piece of meat, intended to be cooked from the outside by the heat of a fire”49

The point here being that a roast in some regions may be prepared in a different manner, or in other words the word roast is applied to dishes that may have been prepared by different means.

Returning to opera, Wöltje thus contends that for many dramatic works with some music, but perhaps also with spoken dialogue, such as romantische Opern, opera is the preferred term. M.

K. and Wöltje appear more sympathetic to early nineteenth-century usage of the word “opera” for more modern German works, and in rejecting Mosel’s requirement of recitative they accepted that some German examples could be opera even with spoken dialogue.

Carl Maria von Weber also aimed to clarify terminology based on the use of recitative; however, he focused on a distinction between grosse Oper and Oper. He recognized that other parameters could contribute something “grand,” but fixated on the role recitative played in forming a complete work of continuous music.50 In his review of Poissl’s Wettkampf zu Olympia,

Weber defined the grosse Oper as such:

48 C. Wöltje, “Über die Oper,” Caecilia 28 (1828): 265. “In einem Kunst-Lexikon sucht man Sachkenntnisse, und nicht die individuellen Ansichten eines Aesthetikers.” 49 Ibid., 266. “Die Oper ist ein dramatisches Gedicht, bestimmt, ganz in Musik gesetzt zu werden.” “Der Braten ist ein Stück Fleisch, bestimmt, durch Feuerwärme von aussen gar gemacht zu werden.” 50 Weber does not use the term recitativo secco in any of his reviews, so it is not clear whether his perception of Grosse oper is focused more the continuous music created by employing recitative instead of spoken dialogue or from a recognition that all recitative be fully orchestrated. I maintain the former in my reading of Weber’s quote, as the examples he identifies by Mosel and Poissl contain quite a few passages of recitative that are simply stylized recitativo secco with chordal support from the string section instead of a keyboard.

67 The exact nature of so-called “grand” opera has been much discussed, and hitherto no firm conclusion has been reached on the basic principles which determine the matter. I will content myself therefore with the present generally accepted meaning of the adjective “grand,” namely an opera in which the musical numbers are connected by a continuous recitativo accompagnato, fully orchestrated—in fact a scene where music holds court, surrounded by her courtiers who are in perpetual activity.51

Although Weber makes his definition clear, it was not the same definition maintained by his contemporaries, as Tusa has discussed in detail.52

As Weber focused on the role of recitative in distinguishing grosse Oper from other types of opera like the romantische Oper and komische Oper, Mosel also addressed recitative in his comparison of Oper and Singspiel. The diagram below gives a summary of how the two writers both looked to recitative to determine which term to employ:

Composer Recitative/Continuous Music No Recitative/Spoken Dialogue

WEBER (1820) grosse Oper Oper

MOSEL (1822) Oper Singspiel

Mosel’s distinction, therefore, appears more traditional and in agreement with the definitions he introduced in his Versuch einer Aesthetik des dramatischen Tonsatzes (1813).

As Weber’s quote implies, other factors also determined terminology usage. As the opera director in Prague and then in Dresden, he was familiar with a variety of styles and forms, and therefore he maintained proper term usage whenever possible. Another feature guiding his use of terminology was the relationship of each musical number to the whole. He felt each piece should reflect and contribute something to the story. In his review of Fanchon by Friedrich Heinrich

51 Weber, Writings on Music, ed. John Warrack, trans. Martin Cooper (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 289. Weber continues his review to cite Mosel’s Salem and Cyrus as examples. 52 Tusa, 321–6.

68 Himmel (1765–1814), set to a text Kotzebue arranged from the Jean-Nicholas Bouilly (1763–

1842) original vaudeville, Weber clarified his preference for the term Liederspiel because each of the songs was brief and tailored for the individual performers that premiered the work: “There is no question of elaborate or protracted musical numbers in an opera, or really Liederspiel, such as this, modeled as it is on the French vaudeville.”53 Although critics often employed the word

“Opera” indiscriminately for a variety of genres, Weber was more careful in his choice of terminology.

Hierarchy

Weber’s characterization of Liederspiel and his insistence on proper terms reveals an aesthetic bias that reflects an internal, personal hierarchy of operatic forms. Because of the gray area surrounding types of works that did not have recitative but had varying levels of musical involvement, Weber and other writers made distinction of and within genres. This effort resulted in debates particularly on how to distinguish different types of Singspiel that usually revealed the aesthetic preferences of the authors.

In 1811, an anonymous author published an essay in Der Freimüthige in which he described higher and lower forms of opera, maintaining that the highest state of German opera was in its grandiose form, when music contributed to carrying the emotional and passionate components in the story in addition to its role of accompanying song and bridging sections.55 To illustrate the point the author cited Alceste (1773) as the original exemplar of German grosse

53 Weber, Writings on Music, 214. Kotzebue’s libretto Fanchon das Leyermädchen is titled Singspiel and arranged into three acts, as a conventional drama would appear, complicating Weber’s statement. 55 “Ueber die verschiedenen Gattungen der Musik,” Die Freimüthige 53 (15 March 1811): 209–12; 54 (16 March 1811): 213–6. 1811 was the last year the playwright August von Kotzebue edited the journal.

69 Oper.56 The examples the author cites as well as the description of the ideal form of music and plot help to distinguish the high and low forms described in the essay. But the author’s major contribution in the essay was to characterize the Liederspiel and distinguish it from other genres by length and the nature of the songs: “Liederspiele, like those set by Reichardt and Himmel, are a miniature type of Singspiel that are put together from short arias and simple folksongs and differ from grosse Opern in their simplicity and naivety.”57 Qualifying Liederspiele as a simple and naïve genre paralleled his description of Melodrama as a “drama of a more basic disposition.”58 Although the author’s main premise was to characterize various genres, he evaluated them on a continuum of grandiose to simplicity.

Mosel had also separated high and low forms, and actually proposed a strategic plan for opera houses to follow based on the separation. In concluding his characterization of opera, the genre to which he assigned the loftiest goals of the composer, librettist, and singer, Mosel segregated the forms into two types of theater. The first theater would produce true operas and first-rate Singspiele, with a sign over the entrance hall that displayed “PROCUL ESTE

PROFANI,” “be gone, uninitiated ones.”59 The second theater would house the remaining genres, i.e. lesser Singspiele, operettas, Liederspiele, and foreign works translated into German.

For Mosel, this would encourage the proper patronage and prevent confusion and misrepresentation in the criticism of individual works and genre types:

56 Text by Christoph Martin Wieland (1733–1813) and music by Anton Schweitzer (1735–1787), the opera premiered at the Schloßtheater in Weimar on 28 May 1773. 57 “Ueber die verschiedenen Gattungen der Musik,” 215. “Die Liederspiele, wie Reichardt und Himmel gesetzt haben, sind eine Art kleiner Singspiele, die aus kleinen Arietten und simpeln Volksliedern zusammengesetzt sind, und sich durch Einfachheit und Naivetät von den grossen Opern unterscheiden.” 58 Ibid., “Die Melodramen sind Schauspiele einfacher Art.” 59 Mosel, “Vaudeville, Liederspiel, Singspiel, Oper,” AmZ(W) 88 (1 November 1820): 701.

70 Good taste would gradually win the upper hand over habit, fashion, and prejudice; and if initially the second theater, without a doubt better attended, must help carry the cost of the first theater (for where would the more knowledgeable part of the public also be the larger one?), a balance would surely be reached, perhaps more quickly than one might dare to hope, which would be all the more pleasing as it would be the best proof that the noble goal had been reached.60

Mosel, therefore, encouraged cultivating an audience that would support opera in its most sacred and traditional form, yet those by native composers committed to elevating German opera as a whole. By creating a hierarchy of the genre types and clearly defining their boundaries, Mosel was able to depict for his readers an ideal genre.

Karl von Decker (1784–1844), known primarily as a writer on military topics who published under the pseudonym “Adalbert von Thale,” also wished to separate high and low forms, distinguishing some Singspiele and komische Opern from Liederspiele and other genres.

He published an evaluation of the 1824–5 season of the Königstädtischen Theater in Berlin in the

Gesellschafter,61 providing a survey and classification of all of the dramatic works with music that were performed in the season. Table 3-4, printed in his article, contains the distinction of the various genre types he used to judge the balance of programmed works. Absent from his table are the categories of grosse Opern, Singspiel, and romantische Opern. Although it is possible that Decker included such works in the komische Opern category, it is also likely that the theater

60 Ibid. “...der gute Geschmack würde über Gewohnheit, Mode und Vorurtheil allmählig die Oberhand gewinnen, und wenn auch Anfangs die zweyte, ohne Zweifel zahlreicher besuchte Bühne (denn, wo wäre der verständige Theil eines Publicums zugleich der grössere?) die Kosten der ersteren tragen helfen musste, würde sich doch, vielleicht in kürzerer Zeit als man zu hoffen wagt, auch hierin ein Gleichgewicht zeigen, das um so erfreulicher wäre, als es den schönsten Beweis enthielte, dass das edle Ziel errungen sey.” 61 Decker also published some Lustspiele under pseudonyms, such as “Das Vorlegeschloß” and “Guten Morgen Vielliebchen.” In addition to contributing essays and commentary in various periodicals, Decker founded the journal Karten-Wegweiser durch Europa in 1824. “Karl von Decker,” Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, vol. 5 “Von der Decken— Ekkehart” (Leipzig, 1877), 10.

71 did not present any grosse Opern that season.62 The examples of komische Opern given later in the essay under new works (Ochsenmenuet, Doktor und Apotheker, Uniform, and Theodor,

König von Korsika) indicate how broad his concept of komische Oper was: Uniform is a German translation of L’Uniform; Doktor und Apotheker is a revised form of Dittersdorf’s eighteenth- century work; and Theodor, König von Korsika is a traditional mythological opera. Table 3-4.

Table 3-4. Das Königstädtische Theater Berlin 1824–25.64

Es Wurden Gesang- 1824 1825 Stücke gegeben. Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Sum

Komische Opern 13 17 11 8 10 12 14 12 11 108 Vaudevilles – 2 4 7 8 5 5 10 10 51 Zauberspiele u.s.w. – – 6 2 4 3 3 1 4 23 Melodramen – 7 4 2 4 3 2 1 1 24 Liederspiele u.s.w. 4 3 2 4 2 4 2 1 – 22

Im Ganzen 17 29 27 23 28 27 26 25 26 228

Decker’s preference for opera, which he was pleased was the dominant genre, is illustrated by his concern for the increasing number of Vaudevilles throughout the season. After characterizing the genre as “borrowed from the French” he went on to claim that there was “nothing more fitting for corrupting taste than the Vaudeville.”65 Although his premise was to report on trends in the programming choices during the season, Decker attempted to clearly distinguish comical opera from Liederspiele and genres like the Vaudeville, which he held in low esteem.

62 The new grosse Opern in the early 1820s, such as Euryanthe, Jessonda, and Cordelia, all had premieres in either Vienna or Dresden. 64 Produced in Thale, 420. 65 Thale, 420. “Hier nehmen wir sogleich wahr, dass das Vaudeville sich hin Wachsen bestand, und das können wir für keinen Vortheil erklaren, besonders da die meisten Vaudevilles aus dem Französischen entlehnt sind. Nichts ist geeigneter, den Geschmack zu verderben, als das Vaudeville, das beinahe durch gehends nur auf den vorüber gehenden Augenblick berechnet ist.”

72 Although writers had revealed their biases as to which genres were more suitable to the national interests and musical tastes of the German people, none had concretely devised a thorough taxonomy of dramatic genres until A.B. Marx’s classification in the BamZ in 1828. An ardent proponent of cultivating German national music in a culture that still had a taste for Italian opera, Marx made his mission and that of his journal no secret to Berlin readers. But unlike his colleagues, whose national preferences are evident only in fleeting comments and comparisons in generalized essays on opera or in reviews, Marx presented direct classification to highlight what genre he considered ideal for German opera.

His essay, titled “Übersicht der verschiedenen wesentlichen Gattungen des musikalischen

Drama,” is a concise summary of all the major dramatic genres with music.66 As Marx even admits, his taxonomy goes further than the most authoritative histories of the time, including well-known works by Algarotti, Sinorelli, Busbi (trans. Michaelis), and Sulzer,67 to include rarely-found genre names like the musikalische Posse. Additionally, Marx’s distinctions rely on multiple parameters that include language and poetic subject as well as musical types and sometimes result in hyphenated genre hybrids (i.e. heroische-komische Oper or grosse- romantische Oper).68 Marx is also cognizant of the free use of terminology found in most opera criticism, and attempts to group together terms to simplify distinctions among genres. Finally, he

66 A. B. Marx, “Freie Aufsätze: Uebersicht der verschiedenen wesentlichen Gattungen des musikalischen Drama,” BamZ 25 (18 June 1828): 195–7 and 26 (25 June 1828): 203–6. 67 Marx’s sources include Algarotti, Saggio sopra l’opers, Signorelli, storia critica de’ teatri, Busbi, Geschichte der Musik, and Sulzer, Theorie der schönen Künste und Wissenschaften. 68 Michael Tusa considers Weber’s description of Euryanthe as a “rosse romantische Oper” an attempt to designate a melding of traditions of grosse Opern and his earlier romantische Opern, that is the inclusion of chivalry and recitative as well as local color and the supernatural. See “Weber’s ‘Große Oper’: A Note on the Origins of ‘Euryanthe’” 19th-Century Music 8 (Autumn 1984): 119–20. Dahlhaus, however, finds this integration of grosse Oper and romantische Oper a contradiction, labeling merely the chosen compositional technique and subject matter without considering their challenging relationship in the work. Dahlhaus, 71.

73 discusses the terminology developed specifically for German opera as well as the foreign terms that writers maintained for Italian and French works adapted for German stages. In his classification, Marx ultimately aimed to distinguish opera from other types of drama with music, and through his clarification of terminology created a clear separation of serious opera, comical opera, and farcical opera.

Of importance to the present study in particular are Marx’s multiple levels of classification. The first level considers all of the dramatic genres that contain music:

1. Oper A. Fabel (mythisch, geschichtlich, klassisch und orientalisch), u.s.w. B. Verhaltnissen der Handelnden (heroisch, idyllisch, u.s.w.) C. Mischung verschiedenen Inhaltes (heroisch-komisch, komisch-romantisch)70 2. Schauspiel mit Gelegenheitsmusik 3. Aelteres Melodramen 4. Schauspiel mit Chören 5. Schauspiel mit Chören und Gelegenheitsmusik 6. Neueres Melodramen71

The subdivision of the category for opera, the highest in Marx’s assessment, considered how the subject matter of the libretto affected the genre designation given by librettists, publishers, and composers. Later in his essay, Marx addressed terminology again and created another hierarchy within the category of “Opera” he had just established, this time he distinguished types of opera by the amount of music and how it contributed to the drama. Marx recognized that due to borrowing of genres, some names were mixed and freely exchanged in common discourse.

Therefore, he identified adequate synonyms for each of the three levels of opera: grosse

Oper/lyrische Drama; opera buffa/komische Oper/Operette; and Vaudeville/Liederspiel. These

70 Marx gives his sub-classification of opera in the second part of the essay, BamZ 26 (25 June 1828): 205. 71 This list is itemized as well in Meyer, 11.

74 designations, as Marx admitted, however, do not rely on the subject matter.72 Marx’s first major type within the category of opera included court operas (opera seria, tragédie lyrique, dramatische grosse Opern), marked by serious plots and continuous music from the use of recitative instead of spoken dialogue. The second opera type included musical dramas found outside the court written for widespread popular appeal, including the works of Kaiser in

Hamburg, and by Hiller and Dittersdorf. Marx saw a parallel between these works and the genres of Operette, opera buffa, komische Oper, Singspiel. Finally, the borrowed Vaudeville from

France also recognized in Reichardt’s Liederspielen made up the third level.

Marx complained about misuses of terminology, particularly when a term from one level of his classification was used interchangeably with a term from a different level. One example he provided concerned Opera buffa:

Indeed a misunderstood terminology for Opera buffa is to be noted, which has crept here and there into everyday parlance, as shown above, without having found a justification in the writings of theorists or in the history and works of any opera subjects: the opinion, namely, that by Opera buffa is meant the coarser type of musical comedy—the musical farce—in contrast to komische Oper or Operette (komische Singspiel) as the finer or more proper musical comedy.73

The musikalische Posse, a farcical genre developed in Vienna and gaining popularity in northern

Germany, fell into a lower level in Marx’s classification than opera buffa. Marx’s comment reveals that the public did not always maintain the proper use of terminology and the respect for

72 Marx, 204. “In dieser Lage der Sachen bleibt denn kein andrer Weg, als in den bis jetzt vorhandenen Stoffe selbst, die Unterscheidungszeichen aufzusuchen und die Benennungen der Theorie, nach historischer und kunstphilosophischer Ansicht, zu vertheilen und anzuwenden.” 73 Ibid., 205. “Doch einer misverständigen Begriffsbestimmung der Oper buffa ist noch zu erwähnen, die sich hin und wieder in den gemeinen. Rede gebrauch eingeschlichen hat, ohne, wie wir oben gesehen, in der Schriften der Theoretiker oder der Geschichte und den Werken des Opernfaches irgend eine Begründung gefunden zu haben: der Meinung nämlich, dass unter Oper buffa die gröbere Art des musikalischen Lustspiels—die musikalische Posse zu verstehen sei, im Gegensatz zur komischen Oper, oder Operette (komische Singspiel) als dem feinern order eigentlichen musikalischen Lustspiel.”

75 the varying levels theorists like himself had classified in treatises and periodicals. Whereas some writers identified model genre types, or gave careful consideration across multiple forms, Marx’s classification is much more dogmatic and in his clear bias more aggressively committed to preserving the integrity of the genres he valued.

Conclusion: The Appropriate Term(s) for the Historical Narrative

After reviewing the body of reviews, several important points emerge. Oper remains the broadest term nineteenth-century writers employed to discuss the repertoire of dramatic stage works with music in the German language. Singspiel appears to be a word going out of fashion in many periodicals and does not appear with enough consistency, save its absence in describing opera with recitative, to be of much use to historical surveys of major German opera achievements and trends in the early nineteenth century. Romantische Oper, although fitting for describing the subject matter of a significant portion of works, remains too specific for addressing German opera of this period as a whole. And grosse Oper, while typically connected with works with recitative, may sometimes describe different “grand” features in a work, as shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Is anything more fitting for our histories than “German Romantic opera”?

After consideration of the terms employed and the tone behind the discussions of Weber,

Mosel, Marx, and others, I would like to propose an alternative heading for this place in the historical narrative: “Early 19th-Century German Opera.” At first glance, the phrase lacks specificity, but I have italicized the word German for very specific reasons. Composers, librettists, critics, and other writers approached the body of repertoire as a national genre. They recognized that these works were different from French opera and Italian opera in more ways

76 than just language. And they aimed to improve and develop this genre to a level that rivaled the traditions of their foreign neighbors. In the remaining chapters of this dissertation, I would like to explore the recurrent topics in these reviews that suggest a widespread effort to propagate a viable German opera tradition. Chapter four will consider how writers hoped recitative in their own language would make the national genre a true opera. Chapter five discusses how both librettists and composers debated the role of music and poetry in developing a genre that was dramatically engaging. Chapter six addresses how writers entered an aesthetic search for unity in reviewing German operas to assess quality. And finally, chapter seven explores how reviewers helped to define a distinct national character in German opera and a rich tradition and history.

77 CHAPTER FOUR

REDE ODER RECITATIV: GERMAN LANGUAGE AS OPERATIC ART

Recitative remained a contentious subject for most writers on German Opera in the early nineteenth century. The idealists maintained that recitative was either an essential component of true opera because of its historical inclusion in Classical operas modeled on Greek tragedy or that it was key to Germany’s future opera by carrying continuous music through extensive dramatic scenes. The practical reviewers addressed how the German language was poorly suited for recitative and how few German singers were trained well enough to execute it in their own tongue. Original German works with recitative were expensive to produce and too few of them had earned enough success for the encouragement of theaters.

Yet the inclusion of recitative in new German operas was attractive to many writers. But for it to earn the endorsement of critics, standards had to be developed. At the turn of the century most German recitative mimicked Italian secco recitativo, even if chordal orchestral accompaniment was included. By the 1820s writers expected recitative to be expressive and dramatic, supported by inventive orchestration, and carried with precision and clarity by the singers. Although recitative was employed in only a small fraction of the original German operatic works in the early nineteenth century, it remained by far one of the most discussed topics. This chapter addresses the recommendations for the use of recitative in German opera found in reviews. From this body of material, it is possible to determine what features and characteristics critics felt would be effective in composing recitatives. Ultimately the reviews of these works helped shape aesthetic criteria for a type of recitative suitable for the ideal German opera. In rejecting secco recitative, the stark alternation between recitative and aria, and the pointless application of the traditional technique, the critics ultimately prescribed a form of musical drama rarely executed in contemporary works with recitative. However, those works that did succeed provided models for later generations.1

German Critical Thought on Recitative in the late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth

Century

Eighteenth century theoretical discussions of recitative discouraged the juxtaposition of speech and song, particularly once the premiere of Georg Benda’s successful melodramas Medea and Ariadne auf Naxos in the late 1770s demonstrated the dramatic possibilities of recitative and dialogue with full orchestral underlay. According to Thomas Bauman, Benda had reservations about the use of secco recitative in German serious opera.2 In his essay “Ueber das einfache

Recitativ” Benda characterized secco recitative as unnatural, constraining to the plot, and tedious for singers.3 He only accepted secco recitative fully in oratorios and cantatas, where the emphasis is on music rather than drama, and in serious, heroic opera where the story was not well known to the audience.4 Some writers, however, continued to reject all recitative, deeming it too foreign.5 In “Über das deutsche Singschauspiel,”6 Johann Friedrich Reichardt criticized the

1 Heinrich Marschner’s Hans Heiling (1833), Richard Wagner’s Der fliegende Holländer (1843), Robert Schumann’s Genoveva (1850), for example. 2 Carl Friedrich Cramer, editor of the Magazin der Musik, was one of the first writers to employ the term recitativo secco, and dedicated a few volumes of his magazine (1783–5) to debates on its use is German serious opera. Benda’s essay is among those contributions to the discussion. See Thomas Baumann, “Benda, the Germans, and Simple Recitative,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 34 (Spring 1981), 123–7. 3 Georg Benda, “Ueber das einfache Recitativ,” Magazin der Musik I/2 (1783), 750–5. 4 Bauman, 122–3. Bauman includes a summary of these points and a few other related ones and surveys the context of other contemporary writers on the subject. 5 Ibid., 124. Friedrich Reichardt, for example, rejects recitative altogether. He instead suggests instrumental music preceding the aria as underlay to the dialogue, as in melodrama, to suture the stark contrast of speech and song in the drama.

79 adoption of Italianate recitative and deemed the German language too direct and truthful to be clothed in the foreign style.7 He insisted that dialogue in German opera should not be set to recitative, suggesting instead that instrumental music accompany the spoken dialogue before an aria in order to avoid the unnatural fissure between speech and song.8 However, as Friedrich-

Heinrich Neumann notes, it is not clear whether Reichardt would permit either secco or accompanied (i.e. full orchestral accompaniment) recitative during certain parts of the dialogue that perhaps demanded more emphasis or expression.9 Writers in the nineteenth century continued to debate these same issues, but they began to frame the discussion in terms of dramatic unity. For many, recitative was not necessary to satisfy this unity. They believed that imaginative orchestration accompanying the recitative would pull together isolated numbers better than secco recitative could ever do, whether spoken dialogue was included or not.

1) Should German be set to Recitative?

One litmus test for the success of German recitative in opera was its application in the many translations of foreign works performed on German stages in the early nineteenth century.

Italian comic operas had been performed in suburban Viennese theaters since the eighteenth century, and many traveling troupes had made those works popular in other German operatic centers as well. A large number of scores of Italian operas from the early nineteenth century have

German translations penciled in, suggesting their translation for performance on German

6 Friedrich Reichardt, “Über das deutsche Singschauspiel,” Musikalisches Kunstmagazine 1 (1782): 161–4. 7 Friedrich-Heinrich Neumann, Die Ästhetik des Rezitativs: Zur Theorie des Rezitativs im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Baden-Baden: Heitz, 1962), 21. 8 Ibid. Neumann quotes Reichardt here, “die Instrumentalmusik früher als den Gesang, zu den letzten gesprochenen leidenschaftlichen Worten, oft auch zu ganzen Monologen, eintreten, und den Gesang in die redebegleitende (d. h. melodramatische) Musik einfallen.” 9 Ibid.

80 stages.10 Additionally, even French serious operas were translated into German for local performances.11 When Spontini arrived in Berlin in the 1820s, his French operas were performed throughout in German.12 The general practice for translated operas had discouraged many

German composers and performers from developing their own technique. Typically German theaters retained the instrumental numbers, the arias, and the ensembles of foreign operas and sometimes they substituted spoken dialogue in the local tongue for the recitatives so that the story could be conveyed clearly to the audience. Since less of the narrative occurred in the arias, the original language of those local numbers often remained. Depending on the skill of the singers and the aesthetic preferences of the audiences and theater directors, variations in this practice abounded.

One example of the disparate practices is the diverging treatments of Mozart’s La clemenza di Tito in Vienna. Michael Tusa compares the favorable Viennese reception of the opera in German translation with spoken dialogue at the Theater an der Wien and its failure with

German recitative when performed at the Hofoperntheater.13To illustrate this distinction, he cites the AmZ review of the Hofoperntheater performance, which observed the difficulty the audience had following the story because the recitative was incomprehensible in performance.14 The reviewer continued to discourage the attempt at recitative by drawing a comparison between

Italian and German singers: “It is true that [all the recitatives] in Italian opera are sung; but

Italians take great pains to pronounce each word clearly. Meanwhile most German singers

10 Stephen C. Meyer, Carl Maria von Weber and the Search for a German Opera (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 30. 11 Ibid., 57. 12 Spontini approached Hoffmann about a translation of Olimpia for Berlin. See Abigail Chantler, E. T. A. Hoffmann’s Musical Aesthetics (London: Ashgate, 2006), 151. 13 The work premiered as Titus der Gütige at the Kärtnertortheater on July 20, 1811. 14 Michael Tusa, “Carl Maria von Weber’s Euryanthe: A Study of its Historical Context, Genesis and Reception” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1983), 342.

81 consider this part of the music irrelevant and [think they] have done everything when they sing the arias, duets, etc. well.”15 In a climate where translations with spoken dialogue were more successful with audiences and simpler to execute, it is easy to see why so many writers discouraged German recitative. Works originally intended for different languages presented practical problems in any case; and since translated recitatives were often unsuccessful, most theaters eliminated them for spoken dialogue in the local tongue.

Some theater staff did invest the time to preserve the musical continuity of foreign works in their translation, and the revisions and alterations that were made to insure a successful performance often resulted in operas that were quite different than the original. Wilhelm Sutor’s

Masinissa originated from such a practice. Ferdinando Paer’s Sofinisba was poorly received in

Frankfurt in direct translation from Italian to German. For its performance at the Hoftheater in

Stuttgart, the theater director asked writer Georg Reinbeck to alter some scenes and lighten the tragic element. His new libretto created gaps that Sutor filled in with accompanied recitatives in

Paer’s style, but with shorter phrases of fewer notes to accommodate the German language.16

The transformation of the foreign work gave the resulting performances in Stuttgart an appearance of a new grand work for the local audiences. The newly named Masinissa by

Reinbeck and Sutor illustrated that with proper attention recitative could work. But few theaters had the budget and time to alter the foreign translations. Reinbeck and Sutor had capitalized on

15 Ibid. AmZ 8 (20 February 1811): 145. “Es ist wahr, die italienischen Opern werden alle recitirt; aber der Italiener giebt sich auch alle Mühe, jedes Wort deutlich auszusprechen, indes die meisten deutschen Sänger und Sängerinnen diese Gattung Musik als Nebensache betrachten, und alle gethan zu haben, wenn sie ihre Arien, Duetten etc. gut singen.” 16 Sutor also filled the gaps with a few musical numbers from some of Paer’s lesser- known operas. But according to the Stuttgart correspondent that reviewed Masinissa for the MgS, Sutor had composed new recitatives to frame the interpolated arias. “Korrespondenz aus Stuttgart,” MgS 104 (1 May 1811): 416.

82 the request to make changes in the plot in order to write new accompanied recitatives that were more accessible to the audiences.

Many writers discouraged the use of German recitative because opera singers rarely performed it well. Audiences could rarely understand the text of Italian operas, but their attraction to beautiful singing and melodies won them over. So when German singers were unable to perform the recitative well, it was distracting. Dem. Leist, who performed the role of

Josabeth in Poissl’s Athalia for the Berlin in 1817, for example, garnered praise for her “rein und angenehm” voice in her arias.17 But the author was critical of her nervousness and lack of facility with the recitative during an important dramatic scene:

Unfortunately she appears very nervous, which as is known is immensely damaging to singers’ recitation. In the passionate recitative that closes with the words ‘Mit Wehmuth und aus glühend heissem Auge fällt kummerschwer die lang’ verhaltne Träne, etc.,’ and also later at the line ‘Ich kann die Last nicht tragen: sie bricht mein schwaches Herz’— the emotion overpowers her so much that the intonation of the recitative is lost. This is a mistake that disrupts the illusion, because as is known actors indeed should bring forth pain and tears for the audience, however they themselves must remain outside the state of mind portrayed; they should not cry and sob themselves.18

If critics and audiences were to accept recitative in their own language, singers would have to learn to execute it as confidently as they sung the arias they were trained to perform. And

17 “Nachrichten aus Berlin,” AmZ 19 (April 1817): 260. “Pure and agreeable.” There is little known of the identity of the performer. She is first named in print for her role in Athalia. Later she was recognized for her role as Marzelline in a review of Fidelio in the WZ 136 (12 November 1822): 1101. See The Critical Reception of Beethoven’s Compositions by his German Contemporaries, eds. Wayne M. Senner, Robin Wallace, and William Meredith, trans. Robin Wallace (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2001), 242n4. 18 Ibid. “Leider scheint sie sehr ängstlich, was bekanntlich dem Vortrage des Sängers ungemein schadet. In dem leidenschaftlichen Recitativ, das mit den schönen Worten schliesst: Mit Wehmuth und aus glühend heissem Auge fällt kummerschwer die lang’ verhaltne Thräne etc., so wie später bey der Stelle: Ich kann die Last nicht tragen: sie bricht mein schwaches Herz—übermannte sie die Rührung so sehr, dass darüber die Intonation des Recitativs verloren ging. Dies ist ein Fehler, da bekanntlich der Mime zwar Schmerz und Tränen im Zuhörer hervorbringen, aber selbst über dem geschilderten Seelenzustand schweben, also nicht selbst weinen und schluchzen soll; was die Illusion stört.”

83 composers like Poissl who began their careers composing Italian opera were just learning how to facilitate German recitative for singers.

A few singers did succeed in performing recitative in German, giving writers encouragement. Henriett Sontag (1806–1854) emerged as a leading singer of the Italian operas of

Rossini and Mozart and brought her skill and expertise to German works as well.19 She performed the role of Euryanthe for the premiere of Weber’s grosse Oper in 1823, and the WZ reported that her performance could not have been better, despite any flaws in the work.20

According to John Warrack, two other German singers, Charlotte Häser (1784–1871) and Helene

Harlas (1785–1818),21 also had favorable reputations for their ability to sing with directness and simplicity, which were both necessary for recitative to succeed in German.22 Wilhelmina

Schröder-Devrient (1804–1860), notably, made a career for herself primarily for her performances of German works.23 According to Isabelle Putnam Emerson, she stood as a symbol of the early nineteenth-century German endeavor to achieve skill and education through determination. She did not possess a natural talent for singing, yet audiences and composers took notice of her dramatic stage presence. It was only with hard work and diligence that she was able

19 Sontag later traveled across Europe and London performing not just German roles but also those in the operas of Rossini, Bellini, Donizetti, and Mozart. 20 WZ 134 (8 November 1823): 1102–4; 135 (11 November 1823): 1109–12. 21 Harlas, for example, portrayed Athalia in the premiere of Poissl’s grosse Oper in Munich in 1814. “Korrespondenz-Nachrichten aus München,” MgS 173 (21 July 1814): 692. 22 See John Warrack, “German Operatic Ambitions in the Early 19th Century,” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 104 (1977–8): 82; and Warrack, German Oper: From the Beginnings until Wagner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 221–2. 23 Wilhelmina Schröder-Devrient’s career began with roles in German works, Pamina in Die Zauberflöte and Emmeline in Weigl’s Die Schweizerfamilie. Weber considered her the best Agathe for his Der Freischütz, and she was also highly regarded for her portrayal of Leonore in Fidelio. Schröder-Devrient went on to perform roles in other languages across Europe, but returned to German opera as in Wagner’s Rienzi and Die fliegende Höllander.

84 to perform the biggest roles of the day.24 Early in her career she earned roles as Leonore and

Euryanthe and after impressing a teenage Wagner went on to perform as Adriano (Rienzi), Senta

(Der fliegende Höllander), and Venus (Tannhäuser).25 The success many of these singers had helped to convince more composers to use German recitative in their operas.

Until there were more successful examples of German operas with recitative, writers remained discouraged. At first Amadeus Wendt, who by the mid 1820s was far more supportive of recitative,26 found no evidence of its potential. In an 1822 essay “Über den Zustand der Musik in Deutschland,” published in the AmZ(W), Wendt included a brief discussion of recitative but remained pessimistic about its future in German opera:

Now we currently want almost completely for singers that can perform recitative; the so- called grosse Oper, in which the entire plot is presented musically, and therefore needs connecting recitative, thus must await a favorable result and under these circumstances may not hope for a better view in the future; because almost nothing is more boring and tiresome in regards to music than poorly executed recitative.27

Wendt, like many of his contemporaries, did not encourage the use of recitative unless it could be performed correctly. Likewise, he blamed singers and the composers who pieced together

24 Isabelle Putnam Emerson, Five Centuries of Women Singers (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2005), 137. 25 Ibid., 137–145. 26 Amadeus Wendt wrote lengthy reviews of several major German operas with recitative in the mid 1820s, including those of Spohr’s Jessonda and Weber’s Euryanthe. “Korrespondenz- Nachrichten: Leipzig” (Jessonda) MgS 94 (19 April 1824): 375–6, and 95 (20 April 1824): 380; “Ueber die Oper Jessonda von Spohr und Gehe” ZeW 33 (14 February 1824): 265–8, 34 (16 February 1824): 275–8, 35 (17 February 1824): 281–4, 36 (19 February 1824): 291–4; “Ueber Weber’s Euryanthe” BamZ 2 (11 January 1826): 11–2, 3 (18 January 1826): 21–3, 4 (25 January 1826): 26–9, 5 (1 February 1826): 37–9, 6 (8 February 1826): 43–5, 7 (15 February 1826): 54–6. 27 Wendt, “Über den Zustand der Musik in Deutschland: Eine Skizze von F. A. Wendt” AmZ(W) 94 (23 November 1822): 745. “Nun fehlt es gegenwärtig fast durchaus an Sängern und Sängerinnen, welche zu recitiren vermögen; die eigentlich sogenannte grosse Oper, welche die ganze Handlung musikalische darstellt, und darum des verbindenden Recitativs bedarf, hat daher einen günstigen Erfolg zu erwarten, und darf sich unter diesen Umständen auch für die Zukunft keine bessere Aufnahme versprechen; denn beynahe nichts ist in musikalischer Hinsicht langweilender und ermüdender, als schlecht vorgetragenes Recitativ.”

85 recitatives as an afterthought. In addition, he did not quite buy into the widespread fascination with grand opera, citing no great successes among German composers. Wendt demanded much more of German recitative than his predecessors by insisting on its effectiveness and not just the presence of it in the opera over spoken dialogue. In 1822, before the grosse Opern of Spohr,

Weber, Kreutzer, Wendt had little confidence that German texts could be set to recitative at all.

2) The Ideal Libretto for Recitative

One of the major concerns in composing suitable recitative in German was finding the right libretto. As shown in the reviews of German translations of foreign works, audiences often had difficulty understanding the words in recitative and became bored by secco recitative that failed to enhance the drama. As recitative developed out of the first operas based on Greek tragedy, some composers and librettists sought stories with Classical roots to try their hand at setting the German language. Mosel, discussed in Chapter three, was one of the first major figures in the early nineteenth century to provide a thorough exposition of the practice of writing

German recitative, devoting several sections of his treatise, Versuch einer Ästhetik des dramatischen Tonsatzes (1813) to the subject. An admirer of the works of Gluck, Mosel subscribed to the belief that if German opera were to succeed it needed to conform to a Classical model.28 Recitative was, for Mosel, the deciding feature that separated Singspiel from true opera, and he prescribed its function and proper compositional makeup:

28 The Munich composers Franz Danzi and Poissl also looked to Gluck as a model for opera composition, and in particular the application of recitative. Danzi’s through-composed German opera Iphiginie in Aulis premiered at the Munich Court Theater in 1807, and, according to Ludwig Schrott, its success inspired Poissl to focus on grand, serious operas from that point forward. Although Danzi left Oper for Singspiel after Iphiginie in Aulis failed in Munich, when he accepted the position of Kapellmeister in Stuttgart he encouraged Weber to finish Silvana. Their relationship would continue throughout both of their lives. And Danzi witnessed how

86 Spoken dialogue must remain entirely barred from tragic and heroic opera, and recitative must take its place because here music retains its own language, and [because] the alternation of declamation and song would interfere too much with the noble feelings opera intends [and] with the high degree of illusion that opera needs to be effective.29

His affinity for Gluck and the serious operas modeled on Greek tragedy led him to conclude that

German composers should feel compelled to write recitative in the classical sense. As other writers had noted, Mosel considered it odd for gods to speak in an unmusical language.30 If

German composers were inspired to write recitative, they would at least need to do so in a serious mythological opera.

A Dresden correspondent to the ZeW also called for the use of recitative in traditional opera based on Greek tragedy. According to the author, German singers would have more success in performing recitative if all serious operas abandoned spoken dialogue:

They [German singers] often sing like the gods and speak like the—Oh Graces, drown out that two-syllable word! If we ask art completely, its primary rule is that a work must have unity. This unity will be broken in elevated tragic opera by the alternation of song and speech, and flow of the harmony disrupted, while a musically educated mind will not be disturbed by the continual harmonic path of an opera well composed with recitative.31

much German recitative had changed when he directed the performance of Euryanthe in Karlsruhe on 21 March 1824. See Weber, “Brief aus Hosterwitz bei Dresden an Danzi,” 26 May 1824 in Danzi: Briefwechsel 1785–1826, ed. Volkmar von Pechstaedt (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1997), 236–7. 29 Mosel, Versuch einer Ästhetik des dramatischen Tonsatzes (Wien 1813), ed. Eugen Schmitz (München: Heinrich Lewy, 1910), 28. “Der gesprochene Dialog muß von der tragischen und heroischen Oper ganz ausgeschlossen bleiben und das Rezitativ seine Stelle einnehmen, weil hier die Musik eine eigene, stets beibehaltene Sprache bildet und der Wechsel der Deklamation und des Gesanges die erhabenen Gefühle, welche die Oper beabsichtigt, den hohen Grad von Täuschung, auf den sie ihre Wirkung baut, zu sehr stören würde.” 30 According to Justus Möser in Harlekin, oder: Vertheidigung des Groteske-Komischen (1761), “It would be laughable for operatic gods to speak as the children of Adam do.” Bauman, 121. 31 “Korrespondenz aus Dresden” ZeW 66 (2 April 1825): 527–8. “Sie singen oft wie die Götter und reden wie die—ihr Grazien, deckt mir das zweisylbige Wörtchen zu! Fragen wir vollends die Kunst, so ist ihre erste Regel, ein Werk müsse Einheit besitzen. Diese Einheit wird in der hohen tragischen Oper durch Abwechselung von Sang und Rede unterbrochen, und der Fluß der Harmonien zerrissen, während ein musikalisch gebildeter Sinn bei dem durchaus harmonischen Gange einer mit Recitativen gut komponirten Oper durch nichts gestört wird.”

87

Musical unity was a requirement for any elevated form of tragic opera, and German composers were to maintain this standard even for works in their own language. The reviewer was optimistic that German singers would become more comfortable with recitative as the Italians had done, presenting a new opportunity for German opera in the future as long as enough composers expected them to perform recitative for their works.

As many critics of German recitative noted the difficulties audiences had in understanding the text and following the plot, some composers looked beyond mythological subjects to include themes from the Bible.32 If audiences already knew a story well, there was less pressure for the narrative to be dictated clearly in the recitative. Johann Nepomuk von

Poissl, after his success writing Italian opera for the Munich court, turned to the Biblical story of

Athalia for an original, German grosse Oper the year following Mosel’s Salem. The MgS noted that the familiarity of the story to most audiences removed the need for conveying the entire historical narrative: “This is the case with Athalia whose history is sufficiently known through the Bible and through Racine’s tragedy; a long narrative exposition is not required.”33 Although

Poissl applied the techniques from Italian opera, he made some adjustments for local performances to further assist the audiences with the story, including recitative with dramatic

32 The reasoning behind the use of recitative in operas based on Biblical subjects is further suggested by the oratorio tradition. Staged Italian oratorios were not unheard of either in Italy or on the other side of the Alps. Ever since the early part of the eighteenth century in Munich, there were oratorios performed with stage action for the Elector Max Emanuel. According to Howard E. Smither, in some circles in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century oratorio became synonymous with sacred opera when associated with a work that was staged. See Smither, “Oratorio and Sacred Opera, 1700–1825: Terminology and Genre Distinction,” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 106 (1979–80): 96–8. Forming a related genre are the Biblical music dramas of Ignaz Ritter von Seyfried that were performed in Vienna, such as Saul (1810), Abraham (1817), Die Makabäer (1818), and Noah (1819). 33 “Ueber Operntexte,” MgS 204 (26 August 1815): 815–6. “Dies ist der Fall bey Athalia, deren Geschichte, durch die Bibel und Racine’s Trauerspiel hinlänglich bekannt, keiner langen erklärenden Exposition bedarf.”

88 orchestral underlay and some moments of melodrama to simplify the performance expectations for the child that would portray Joas. Joseph Weigl also turned to recitative for his Biblical opera, Baals Stürz. By its premiere in Vienna in 1820, the Viennese theaters had already presented several sacred operas and staged oratorios, which because of their Italian pedigree had recitative.34 The German Biblical operas written in first few decades of the nineteenth century were keeping in line with this tradition in the use of recitative.

Finally, German stories and myths familiar to local audiences also provided subject matter suitable for German recitative. Critics often complimented a composer’s efforts to write recitative and showed more sympathy for the challenges it presented when the story was close to home. In 1824, Carl Eberwein, after succeeding with Singspiel, attempted recitative in his romantic opera Der Graf von Gleichen and was rewarded for his efforts.35 The AmZ claimed that the repertoire of each and every theater with good solo singers and a serviceable chorus and orchestra would gain by performances of Eberwein’s opera.36 Eberwein’s position in Weimar suggests several possible motivations for his abandonment of spoken dialogue for recitative in his second musical stage work. First of all, he was well connected with Goethe, having set the poet’s Proserpina to music in 1815, and the local music circles. Eberwein even studied with

34 Smither, 104. Smither includes appendices to his article including the number of sacred operas and staged oratorios performed. 35 Although the plot takes places during the Crusades in Egypt, the story had long- standing popularity in German speaking areas: Goethe used the plot in Stella (1775), Gleich and Volkert produced a comic operatic version in 1815, and Schubert drafted sketches for an opera based on the story in the late 1820s. See Elizabeth Norman McKay’s review of Der Graf von Gleichen, D. 918, facsimile, ed. Ernst Hilman, “Veröffentlichungen des Internationalen Franz Schubert Instituts,” ii, 1988, in Music & Letters 70 (August 1989): 452–4. 36 “Der Graf von Gleichen: Weimar,” AmZ 26 (24 June 1824): 423–5. “Er wiederholt dagegen, dass das Repertoire eines jeden Theaters, an dem man gute Solosänger und Choristen und ein gutes Orchester besitzt, durch Hrn. E’s Oper einen schätzbaren Zuwachs erhalten wird.”

89 Zelter in Berlin upon Goethe’s recommendation. In addition, in 1812 he married the opera singer

Regina Henriette Hässler [Häser] who frequently performed roles with recitative at the court.37

Popularized by the Brothers Grimm, Der Graf von Gleichen proved a suitable choice for recitative because the story was well known. In a review of an 1829 Weimar performance in the

ZeW, the reviewer commented in particular on Eberwein’s attempt at recitative:

The opera is through-composed, that is written with recitative. Herr Eberwein has not been discouraged by the great difficulty of writing a good recitative and the lack of appreciation most have for this practice, and that is very commendable and reveals a determined will and spiritedness. His recitative, though not always new and original and sometimes somewhat monotonous, is in general successful and appropriate.38

Reviews such as this one reflect the critical support German recitative had before the opera crowds had accepted it, particularly when the libretto was based on a familiar plot. Although for different reasons, critics were most supportive of recitative in works based on Greek tragedy and other Classical subjects or in works set to stories audiences already knew. The former case appears to be for aesthetic preferences, whereas the latter appears to be acknowledging a practical concern.

37 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Begegungen und Gespräche, ed. Renate Grumach, vol. 4 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1965), 685. Hässler’s father, Johann Wilhelm Hässler, had studied organ and keyboard, was acquainted with C.P.E. Bach, and wrote several songs that his daughter performed at the Weimar court. Henriette Hässler should not be confused with Charlotte Häser, although both had vocal training for court performances that would have included recitative. 38 “Korrespondenz aus Weimar” ZeW 8 (10 January 1829): 63. “Sie ist durchcomponirt, das heißt, mit Recitativen geschrieben. Von der großen Schwierigkeit, ein gutes Recitativ zu arbeiten, und dem Undankbaren, welches dies Geschäft bei der großern Menge hat, ist Hr. Eberwein nicht abgeschreckt worden, und das ist sehr lobenswerth und verräth einen festen Willen und Energie. Sein Recitativ ist, wenn auch nicht immer neu und originell und manchmal etwas einförmig, im ganzen gewiß gelungen und charaktergemäß.”

90 3) The Right Type of Recitative

Although composers and librettists considered audiences in choosing accessible plots for recitative, they had to look elsewhere to learn how to write recitative that was both singable and dramatic. There were some available resources for composing Italian recitative,39 or German recitative in the Italian manner, and German recitative,40 but there was no model with currency in the nineteenth century until Mosel’s 1813 treatise on dramatic composition. In addition to distinguishing how recitative composition was different from aria composition—for the latter he prescribed a lack of repetition and a steady tempo—Mosel also provided approaches for composing both accompanied and unaccompanied recitative.41 He argued for the importance in understanding these approaches fully because recitative was not only useful in advancing the plot, but also capable of expressing a composer’s best music:

Normally neither the composer nor the audience gives recitative sufficient attention; however it is hard to decide whether the composer has neglected it because it will not be heard, or if the public has found it unworthy of listening to because the composer has neglected it. Nonetheless, it is still strange that one sets aside the root of the tree in order to focus merely on its branches (the songs); because without question recitative is the foundation on which the entire interest of the opera depends and can—if the poet has properly handled it—be elevated to the most alluring part.42

39 For example, “Delle false de I Recitativi, e del modo di far Acciaccature” in Francesco Gasparini’s L’Armonico pratico al cimbalo (Venice: Bartoli, 1708). 40 One early resource is Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel’s Abhandlung vom Recitativ (1739), which remained unpublished until 1962 and was likely unknown to German opera composers in the early nineteenth century. Stölzel was a composer of many cantatas and Georg Benda’s predecessor at the court in Gotha. Benda, of course, had also written on recitative as discussed above. 41 The two types of recitative Mosel identifies are “unbegleitete Rezitativ,”—that is “unaccompanied recitative,” which presumably is dry, simple, or secco recitative—and “begleitete Recitativ” or instrumental recitative. 42 Mosel, Versuch, 44. “Gewöhnlich schenken demselben weder Komponist noch Zuhörer hinlänglich Aufmerksamkeit, indeß möchte schwer zu entscheiden sein, ob die Tonsetzer es vernachlässigen, weil es nicht angehört wird, oder ob das Publikum es nicht des Anhörens wert findet, weil der Tonsetzer es vernachlässigt hat. Seltsam bleibt es indessen, dass man den Stamm des Baumes beiseite setzt, um sich blos an seine Aeste (die Gesangstücke) zu halten; denn ohne Zweifel ist das Rezitativ die Grundlage, am welcher das ganze Interesse der

91

Indeed Mosel placed more value on the role of recitative than many of his contemporaries. And he aspired to elevate German opera to the ranks of Opera seria and tragédie lyrique. His treatise provided fellow composers with suggestions on how to properly write recitative and employ it in their operas. For the unaccompanied recitative, Mosel stressed the importance of using the music to highlight the stressed and unstressed syllables found in everyday conversation and of maintaining intervals of a limited range that do not rise to high or sink too low.43 For accompanied recitative, the type Mosel intended for moments of escalating passion in the drama, composers were to be more judicious. He warned that excessive orchestral commentary for every phrase of recitative would result in chaos.44 Of utmost importance to Mosel was the proper coordination of the two types of recitative for the right moments in the plot: “A lack in the correlation and connection between these two genres of musical passages [types of recitative] disrupts the sentiment and abolishes the total effect, which in every respect should be the primary goal of the dramatic composer to attain.”45 Mosel not only felt true opera should employ recitative instead of spoken dialogue, as discussed in the previous chapter, but opera composers should consider proper recitative composition one of the most fundamental steps in creating opera.

Despite his theories, Mosel’s Salem did not have a successful run, nor did it win over critics. A reviewer of the work for the WamZ provided one of the first detailed criticisms of a

Oper beruht und kann—wenn der Dichter es gehörig behandelt hat—zu dem anziehensten Teile derselben erhoben werden.” 43 Ibid., 44–5. 44 Ibid., 46. 45 Ibid., 47. “Mangel an Beziehung und Verbindung zwischen diesen beiden Gattungen von Musikstücken stört die Empfindung und hebt die Totalität auf, welches in jeder Hinsicht zu erreichen das erste Bestreben des dramatischen Tonsetzers sein soll.”

92 nineteenth-century German work with recitative.46 Although Mosel had outlined different procedures for aria and recitative composition in his treatise, the author observed a more uniform musical style that blurred the distinction between the two: “ Mosel’s opera contains, in addition to the overture, 20 songs, which, because they are purely declamatory, melted into the dialogue

(recitative), and only with difficulty could be separated into individual parts without disrupting the whole.”47 In addition, the review evaluated the recitatives’ suitability for German singers, finding that some passages unnecessarily exceeded the conventional tessitura: “Herr Demmer, in many ways a very viable singer, is certainly more suited to the part of Markard since the transposition made after the first performance. However, in order to save him entirely, we also wish that in the recitative in Act 4, scene 3, a few of the notes too high for his voice be changed, because especially in the quick tempo, they hinder the expression and make the song erratic and unstable.”48 Even though the opera was not well received by the public, the review signals two common topics that critics would continuously discuss about German opera with recitative. The declamatory nature of the German language lent itself more toward a uniform style among the arias and recitatives. And many composers and critics eventually favored a continuous musical style. Secondly, composers would need to be more attentive to the ability of German singers to execute recitative in their own language.

46 “K. K. Hof-Opernbühne” WamZ 11 (13 March 1813): 160–3; WamZ 12 (20 March 1813): 174–84. The essay is a review of the premiere of Mosel’s lyrical tragedy, as it was dubbed, which occurred 5 March 1813 at the Kärtnertortheater. 47 Ibid., 174. “Mosels Oper enthält außer der Ouverture 20 Gesangstücke, die, da sie rein deklamatorisch gehalten sind, mit dem Dialog (Rezitativ) gleichsam in einander schmelzen, und ohne das Ganze zu zerreißen, auch in einzelne Theile nur schwer getrennet werden können.” 48 Ibid., 184. “Dem in mancher Beziehung sehr brauchbaren Sänger, Herrn Demmer, ist zwar der Part Markards seit der, nach der ersten Vorstellung, getroffenen Transponirung mehr angemessen; um ihn jedoch ganz geborgen zu wissen, wünschten wir auch im Rezitativ Akt 4. Szene 3. einige für seine Stimme noch immer zu hoch gesetzte Noten umgeändert, weil sie, besonders im geschwinden Zeitmaas, den Ausdruck erschweren, und den Gesang schwankend und unsicher machen.”

93 A review of Kreutzer’s Cordelia for a performance at the Kärtnertortheater in 1823 illustrates a further development in this direction. Kreutzer had experimented with recitative in some passages of his earlier opera Libussa (1822), and its success emboldened Kreutzer to bring his experience to a revision of Cordelia.49 In Cordelia he sought to integrate recitative even more completely into the musical fabric. The review in the WZ of Cordelia’s premiere was enthusiastic and supportive. The author made reference to Kreutzer’s treatment of recitative in

Libussa, and considered Cordelia a further advancement in German opera towards continuous dramatic music:

Attentive observers will have already observed in the music of Libussa, that the composer takes much more care with the recitative for this work than generally occurs in German opera. He goes a step further in the music of Cordelia, and has tried to replace dialogue with recitative, and to execute all scenes from beginning until end in song. His attempt is so fortunately successful, that he may encourage not only Herr Kreutzer but also other composers to make recitative thoroughly at home in German opera, which undisputedly would be an important advancement in the development of the character of German song.50

In addition, the reviewer also noted that Kreutzer had had the courage to actually compose

“German music” for this opera, which was not the fashion, suggesting that the “care” he had taken to integrate recitative into the scenes was unusual for composers of German opera at that

49 Cordelia, a lyrisch-tragische Oper in 1 Act to the text of Pius Alexander Wolff, is a revision of Adele von Budoy, a 1-Act Singspiel written in Königsberg in 1821, that premiered at the Kärtnerthortheater on 15 February 1823. Kreutzer again revised the work for the Odéon in 1827 as La folle de Glaris, despite some claims that another composer had contributed music. Everist, 277–8. 50 “Opernmusik,” WZ 23 (23 February 1823): 183. “Aufmerksame Beobachter werden schon in der Musik der Libussa die Bemerkung gemacht haben, dass der Tonsetzer dem Recitative viel mehr Sorgfalt widmet, als dieß in deutschen Opern gewöhnlich zu geschehen pflegt. Er ist in der Musik der Cordelia einen Schritt weiter gegangen, und hat versucht, das Recitativ durchgängig an die Stelle des Dialogs zu setzen, und alle Scenen vom Anfang bis an’s Ende im Gesange vorzutragen. Sein Versuch ist so glücklich gelungen, dass er nicht nur Herrn Kreutzer, sondern auch andere Tonsetzer ermuntern dürfte, das Recitativ in der deutschen Oper durchgängig einheimisch zu machen, welches unstreitig ein wichtiger Fortschritt zur Ausbildung des deutschen Gesangwesens seyn würde.”

94 time.51 Writers continued to push composers to develop a recitative style suitable for the German language that in turn helped shape a continuous musical fabric through the drama.

Other critics added that recitative could be more engaging for audiences than simply a carrier of narrative information. Wendt published reviews of Jessonda in the ZeW and the MgS in

1824, following its Dresden and Leipzig performances, respectively.52 Although Wendt was already familiar with Weber’s use of recitative in Euryanthe,53 he had only studied it from the score. But in the case of Jessonda, he was able to observe recitative in performance and record its effectiveness in areas beyond its traditional use:

The recitative, which Spohr has employed for this opera, is indeed masterful. It is not merely that meager shelf of sound which is supposed to save energy for arias and ensembles, or those old, worn-out phrases, which so often appear as a necessary evil on an avoidable stopgap in Italian opera. It has much more of a true dramatic character, is light, interestingly accompanied, and never masks the execution of the voice, so that with good articulation from the singers the progress of events does not escape the listener. With this Spohr has made a new step forward and provided an admirable example of how one can dispense with spoken dialogue in German opera.54

Wendt’s review of Jessonda not only accepted German recitative, it clearly demonstrated why it had succeeded. Like Mosel, he believed that recitative should be given the same effort as the

51 Ibid., 183. “Wahre Kenner werden es daher dem Herrn Conradin Kreutzer Dank wissen dass er sich von dem modischen Geschmacke nicht fortreißen lässt, sondern mit festen Schritte seinen eigenen Weg verfolgt, und den Muth hat, deutsche Musik zu setzen.” 52 Wendt, “Über die Oper Jessonda,” ZeW 33 (14 February 1824): 265–8; ZeW 34 (16 February 1824): 275–8; ZeW 35 (17 February 1824): 281–4; ZeW 36 (19 February 1824): 291–4; and “Ueber Spohrs Jessonda” MgS 94 (19 April 1824): 375–6; MgS 95 (20 April 1824): 380. 53 Wendt admits that his only knowledge of the use of recitative in Euryanthe is in studying its score, “Über die Oper Jessonda,” 275. 54 Ibid. “Das Recitativ, welches Spohr in dieser Oper angewendet hat, ist in der That meisterhaft; es ist nicht jener ‘dürre Breterklang,’ welcher nur die Kraft für die Arien und Ensembles ökonomisch aufsparen soll, oder jenes alte, abgenutzte Phrasenspiel, welches in der italienischen Oper so oft als nothwendiges Uebel, als unvermeidlicher Lückenbüßer erscheint; es hat vielmehr einen wahrhaft dramatischen Charakter, ist leicht, interessant begleitet, und verdeckt doch nicht den Vortrag der Stimme, so dass bei guter Aussprache des Sängers dem Zuhörer das Fortrücken der Situation nicht entgehen kann. Hierin hat Spohr einen Schritt vorwärts gethan und ein vortreffliches Beispiel gegeben, wie man den gesprochenen Dialog in der deutschen Oper entbehren kann.”

95 arias. But Wendt put more stress on what role recitative could play in the drama, believing that it could do more than carry the plot and dialogue, that it could command the interests of audiences.

But not all libretti facilitated recitative that engaged audiences with the plot. Weber had attempted an elevated grosse Oper in Euryanthe through the use of recitative for continuous music.55 Contributing to the work’s overall poor reception were several critics who expressed their dissatisfaction with the libretto.56 The WZ, for example, applauded Weber’s dramatic music, but blamed Helmine von Chezy’s text for the lack of fantasy, inventiveness, ideas, and dramatic treatment.57 The JLM, on the other hand, felt that the text had too many recitatives, creating an abundance of musical images and feelings that over-stimulated the listener and distracted from the story: “The overabundance appears especially with the recitatives, where one musical picture engulfs the next, so that one is eventually quite confused by the innumerable little paintings.”58

Chezy, however, issued a response to the review, defending her attentiveness to the overall dramatic interest by the use of recitative. Responding to widespread criticism of her libretto, which most critics used as a foil to compliment Weber’s music, Chezy admitted that she was first encouraged to write recitative by examples she observed in other works:

If you had asked me, as librettist, whether I consider my work in its most particular nature as intelligible and comprehensible in this treatment? Then I must admit that in recitative so pleasantly clear, concise, and natural, each syllable is befallen its purpose

55 Weber had defined grosse Oper as an opera where recitative was used to bind together the musical numbers in his review of Poissl’s Der Wettkampf zu Olimpia for the Dresdner Abend-Zeitung in 1820. 56 According to John Warrack, “More abuse has been heaped on this libretto than on any other in the history of opera, the more so since it has been generally accepted that this was the rock upon which a potential masterpiece became wrecked.” Carl Maria von Weber, 2d ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976): 287. 57 WZ 135 (11 November 1823): 1109. “Sie vermissen ferner Phantasie, Erfindunskraft, Ideen und dramatische Behandlung.” 58 “Correspondenz-Berlin,” JLM 9 (31 January 1826): 71. “Diese Ueberfülle zeigt sich in’s besondre bei den Recitativen, wo eine Tonmalerei die andre verschlingt, so dass man von den unzähligen kleinen Gemälden zuletzt ganz verwirrt wird.”

96 (for example in Mozart’s and Beethoven’s works, as well as in the moments of recitative in Kreutzer’s Libussa) and had been as preferable for me as the most artistic phrase.60

Although she was attracted to the idea of having her libretto set to recitative in a manner she’d admired elsewhere, the process proved challenging. She admitted to substituting recitative for some of the songs at Weber’s request in order to advance the plot.61 Despite her efforts to assist the drama by speeding things along with recitative, however, the resulting work still appeared too overbearing and cumbersome for an effective performance.62

As shown by the reviews of German operas with recitative, critics and other writers felt that recitative should be given adequate attention by the composers, should be suitably phrased for effective execution, and attractive in and of itself to command the attention of spectators.

Recitative was to be employed to elevate German operas by not only carrying the dialogue and narrative, but also for presenting some of the work’s most interesting scenes, integrating the numbers into a continuous musical drama, and accelerating the presentation of the plot that was encumbered by a lengthy libretto.

4) What makes for good German recitative?

Most reviews of German operas at this time, unfortunately, did not cite specific excerpts in the recitative to illustrate practical examples for good composition. However, an examination of some passages from the operas reviewed allows us to assess what made for a successful

60 Helmina von Chezy “Euryanthe” WZ 138 (18 November 1823): 1137. “Sollte man mich, als Dichterinn fragen, ob ich mein Werk in seiner eigensten Natur bey dieser Behandlung für verstanden und für verständlich halten kann? so muß ich gestehen, die in Recitativen so erfreuliche Klarheit, Kürze und Natürlichkeit, die jeder Sylbe ihr Recht widerfahren lässt—(z. B. in Mozart’s, Beethoven’s Werken, auch in den recitativischen Stellen von Kreutzer’s Libussa) wäre mir lieber gewesen, als der allerkunstvollste Satz.” 61 Ibid., 1142. 62 Conradin Kreutzer initially eliminated a large portion of the opera once Weber left Vienna in 1823. Meyer, 152.

97 German opera with recitative at the time. As mentioned in the previous section, some qualities of an effective recitative included its ability to convey the meaning of the text and story, make use of the orchestra for dramatic emphasis, and move efficiently through the libretto so that the trajectory of the drama is not lost. Although these qualities are not unique to German opera composition—evident in good Italian opera as well—they illustrate what critics expected of composers that attempted recitative in their own language.

Examples 1 and 2 offer a comparison of the recitatives written for Sofonisba’s final scene in Act III of Masinissa. The new accompanied recitative Reinbeck and Sutor supplied for this scene contributes to the dramatic trajectory of the opera’s main climax. Reinbeck had purposefully pared down Sofonisba’s lengthy monologue, as discussed in his “Die deutsche

Oper.” The allegro agitato section of Sofonisba’s recitative in Sutor’s new Finale to Act III is shown in Example 1. The short phrases in both recitatives suit the drama of the scene, as the character is moments from her death. However, in Sutor’s version, Osmida’s exclamation as

Sofonisba dies leads directly into the closing choral section of the scene, aided by the diminished third in D minor moving to an augmented six chord in C minor. In Example 2, Paer’s original,

Sofonisba’s monologue recitative ends on a half cadence in C minor, and the chorus enters in a much more separated closing section for the scene. By integrating additional characters into the scene and extending the harmonic palette to include the augmented and diminished sonorities, the new version reflects the attention to dramatic presentation discussed by many of the reviewers.

An example from Spohr’s Jessonda demonstrates his efficient treatment of recitative to avoid lulls in the activity of the story. A reviewer of the opera for the ZeW congratulated Spohr’s ability to write recitative that was easy for the singers to execute and move smoothly through

98 passages where the librettist had supplied too much text. The reviewer concluded that Spohr worked under the assumption that “recitative that takes the place of normal human speech should be expressive but kept as simple as possible.”68 Example 3, an excerpt of recitative from

Jessonda’s part in the third act, offers an illustration of the technique the reviewer recognized in

Spohr’s composition. As the reviewer observed, the passage contains quite a bit of text, composed in the secco style with limited orchestral accompaniment. Yet the regular rise and fall of each phrase keeps the trajectory of the scene moving, the recitative is neither cumbersome nor awkward and is easy to sing. The presentation of the text seems quite rapid in this section, but moves forward no faster than normal speech. The passage is a description of Jessonda’s dream, and does not require the rhythmic elongation for emphasis that accompanies more plot-driven scenes.

Wendt, as he had done for Jessonda, offered a detailed and supportive evaluation of recitative in Euryanthe for the BamZ in 1826. In tune with the detailed standards of analysis and criticism espoused by Marx’s journal, Wendt cited specific passages and evaluated the effectiveness recitative had toward advancing the plot and aiding characterization. One example that Wendt observed in his review concerns the use of the orchestra in recitative from the first scene of act two: “Weber knows how to use instruments adeptly to express each transition, and in this way often avoid the monotonous outcome of ordinary recitative (as here, where the instruments lead to the more tranquil key of G minor).”69 Example 4 is a few measures from this

68 “Eine Stimme aus Dresden über Jessonda, Oper in drei Akten von Spohr und Gehe,” ZeW 16 (22 January 1825): 124. “das an die Stelle der einfachen Menschenrede tretende Recitativ ausdrucksvoll, aber möglichst einfach zu halten sei.” 69 Amadeus Wendt, “Ueber Weber’s Euryanthe: Ein Nachtrag von A. Wendt,” BamZ 4 (25 January 1826): 27. “Sehr geschickt weiß Weber die Instrumente zum Ausdruck jener Uebergänge zu benutzen, und auf diese Weise oft (wie hier, wo die Instrumente nach der

99 opening scene, in which the orchestra moves from F minor to G minor via a tonicization of C minor. Again the augmented sonority appears to enhance the harmonic vocabulary. The continuous harmonic shift through the passage provides an effective transition into the ensuing aria.

Wendt also praised the recitative following the introduction to the third act, insisting that it contained “beautiful traits of character,” displaying the “refined tact of the composer in the use of unresolved chords.”70 Example 5 is an excerpt from Euryanthe’s opening recitative, where

Weber seamlessly directs the melodic line by step with each changing chord. Although this technique is not much different from examples of eighteenth-century accompanied recitative,

Wendt’s explicit reference to a passage of recitative is rare for most early nineteenth century reviews. For composers aspiring to enliven the drama of their works through passages of recitative, such reviews provided encouragement to compose recitative and illustrated procedures that were effective in keeping the music moving while conveying the necessary text.

But Wendt did not find all passages of recitative in Euryanthe entirely convincing. Later in the opening recitative to the third act, he identified a few examples that exhibit curious matching of musical line to text-phrase: “However it [the passage of recitative] contains some oddities in the declamation, like for example the case in question:

and the rise in the plea:

ruhigern Tonart G-moll überleiten) die einförmigen Ausgänge des gewöhnlichen Recitativs zu vermeiden.” 70 Ibid., 44. “schöne Züge, von Karakteristik,” “feinen Takt des Tonsetzers in der Anwendung unvollständiger Akkorde.”

100

that, like the following line, is constrained in the melody.”72 In this particular case, Wendt felt that Weber had tried to make the recitative more tuneful than would be the norm in secco recitative, but at the expense of realistically emphasizing the meaning behind the words. The descent in the melodic line of the question and the rise in the melody of the plea, according to

Wendt, did not seem to adequately express the function of the text. In contrast, Wendt considered the recitative following the Cavatina “Hier dicht am Quell” appropriate because the effect of trailing off into languid recitative after the melody was appropriate for the situation of fatigue.

Example 6 contains the last three measures of the beginning melody of the Cavatina and then the first two measures of the recitative interpolated before the second phrase of the Cavatina.74 By offering just criticism of German recitative, Wendt introduced a vocabulary and understanding of a German recitative that proved much more suitable to the German language yet allowed composers to communicate plots more effectively and with artistic merit. Although the compositional techniques were not all that different from the eighteenth century, the few references to specific passages in the reviews provided a new resource for composers to learn how to write effective recitative.

Recitative underwent many changes in German opera in the early nineteenth century, and the gradual acceptance and eventual critical praise of German recitative is evident in the criticism of grosse Opern. In the eighteenth century, Benda and Reichardt had encouraged German

72 Ibid., 44. “aber es enthält auch einige Sonderbarkeiten in der Deklamation, wie z. B. das Fallen in der Frage: Was ist’s, das mir Dein Züman droht?” und das Streigen in der Bitte: “Lass mich nicht ehne Trost verscheiden!” was, wie die folgende Zeile, in der Melodie gezwungen ist.” 74 Carl Maria von Weber, Euryanthe, 251–2.

101 composers to put more thought into recitative to avoid the Italianate secco style and to aid the drama through the use of the orchestra. Some early nineteenth-century writers were hesitant about German recitative, as translations of foreign works and inadequately trained singers had produced weak results. The writers that supported German recitative encouraged composers with recommendations of the type of libretto. Mosel, in emulation of Gluck, expressed an adherence to the classical traditions of setting Greek Tragedy with recitative. Others found success in choosing libretti that were already known and familiar to German audiences, including Biblical stories and local myths and tales. The reviews of such works that employed German recitative provide a resource for assessing what compositional techniques and dramaturgy were effective.

Recitative was to be composed not merely to carry narrative and dialogue, but to enliven scenes with colorful harmonic shifts from the orchestra. The passages were to be accessible to singers, and should convey the meaning of the text as clearly as possible to aid the listeners. As this list suggests, the recommendations were not entirely innovative; Gluck and other eighteenth-century writers had made similar recommendations for the use of the orchestra to carry the drama and to form continuous scenes. What this dialogue in the early nineteenth century illustrates, is a commitment to employ the best of these recommendations and to avoid the pitfalls of poorly conceived Italian operas and their imitators in Germany.

102 CHAPTER FIVE

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MUSIC AND TEXT

I am willing to admit that my imagination may well be lively enough to devise several good subjects for an opera; indeed, especially when at night a slight headache produces in me that dreamlike state halfway between sleeping and waking, I not only conceive quite good, genuinely romantic operas, but actually see them performed before me together with my music. So far as the gift of grasping hold of them and writing them down is concerned, however, I am afraid I do not possess it; and really it is hardly right to expect us composers to develop the mechanical skills necessary for success in every artistic medium, and learned only through constant diligence and long practice, that we would need in order to compose our own texts as well. But even if I did acquire the ability to work out a story, and to set it properly and tastefully into poetic and dramatic force, I could still never bring myself to write my own libretto.1

The above quote from the character Ludwig in E.T.A. Hoffmann’s dialogue “The Poet and the Composer” is not only an expression of the author’s own experience as a writer and composer, but also a testament to the concerns of many operatic composers in the early nineteenth century. Although eighteenth-century Italian writers had also tried to reform libretti, nineteenth-century writers in Germany wanted to find the right kind of libretti for their time as well as for the German people. It is not surprising, then, that intellectuals, composers, and poets would voice their opinions and share their experiences in the various forms of print media available. And although some, like Poissl, had success adapting established opera books and plays into new libretti for their own music, most operas were the result of collaboration. Both composers and librettists chimed in on an ideal relationship between music and text as opera reviewers themselves. This chapter addresses what they had to say about this topic and will contextualize their discussion by examining the types of relationships that German opera critics

1 E.T.A. Hoffmann, “The Poet and the Composer,” in E.T.A. Hoffmann’s Musical Writings: Kreisleriana, The Poet and the Composer, Music Criticism, ed. David Charlton, trans. Martyn Clarke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 192–3.

argued for most often: music over text, text over music, and the ideal union described in

Hoffmann’s essay.

Composer and Librettist Critics

As the previous chapters have shown, a number of German opera composers and librettists were also critics. A fair number of these individuals played an important role in discussions of libretti and music/text relationships. To understand their perspective on the ongoing debates, it is beneficial to assess their various roles as critics and writers. Even before

“The Poet and the Composer” Hoffmann expressed strong opinions about German opera libretti, and the ideology of his essay is apparent in his opera reviews.3 Hoffmann’s dual role as critic and composer is hardly surprising due to his stance on the significance of criticism for musical progress in the early nineteenth century. He considered the composer and the critic as closely kindred spirits much more so than the critic and the listener or the composer and the listener.4

When Weber became a director of opera in Prague—and later in Dresden—his attention turned from criticism toward publishing “introductions” to new works in order to prepare and build supportive audiences. Following the publication of “Introduction to Musico-Dramatic

Articles,” in the Königliche Kaiserliche privilegierte Prager Zeitung (KPZ) in 1815,5 Weber issued a series of previews on each new opera in order to provide readers with background

3 For example, see Charlton, “Introduction to The Poet and the Composer: Hoffmann and Opera,” in Hoffmann’s Musical Writings, 169–87; Hans Ehinger, E.T.A. Hoffmann als Musiker und Musikschriftsteller (Olten: Walter, 1954); and Aubrey S. Garlington, “E. T. A. Hoffmann’s ‘Der Dichter und der Komponist’ and the Creation of German Romantic Opera,” The Musical Quarterly 65 (1979): 22–47. 4 Sanna Pederson, “Enlightened and Romantic German Music Criticism, 1800–1850” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 40. 5 Weber, Writings on Music, ed. John Warrack, trans. Martin Cooper (New York: Da Capo Press, 1981), 137. Weber’s introductory essay explained to readers of the KPZ that he intended the series of previews to build public support for new works.

105

information on plots, composers, and librettists and to identify which works he felt might give

Germany its long-searched-for identity in the operatic genre. Although these articles offer both positive and negative assessments of works, they were primarily positive because of Weber’s intent to build support for a cause that would benefit his own career. His perspective on German opera libretti was also shaped by personal experience. His rapport with Der Freischütz librettist,

Johann Friedrich Kind (1768–1843), suffered after the success of the opera was credited primarily to the composer.6 Weber had made alterations to the libretto against Kind’s wishes and made more extensive alterations to the libretto for Euryanthe by Chezy.7 As with Hoffmann,

Weber’s difficulties in working with his librettists shaped the critical attitude toward opera texts that pervades his criticism.

The number of librettists working as critics is fairly limited.8 Georg Reinbeck was a respected literary figure and editor of the Stuttgart-based journal Morgenblatt für die gebildete

Stände (MgS) from 1811–17.9 His association with Carl Maria von Weber is documented by

Weber’s own contributions to the journal as well as his two musical settings of Reinbeck’s

6 Clive Brown, “Carl Maria von Weber,” Grove Online, ed. L. Macy (accessed 9 November 2007) . 7 In response to Weber’s extensive changes, Kind published his own version of the libretto, Friedrich Kind, Der Freischütz (Leipzig: Göschen, 1822). Ulrich Weisstein discusses the major differences between the two versions in “Carl Maria von Weber’s Der Freischütz: ‘Nummernoper’ or ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’?” in The Romantic Tradition: German Literature and Music in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Gerald Chapple, Frederick Hall, and Hans Schulte (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992), 281–307. 8 Some critics, such as Adolph Bäuerle and August von Kotzebue, wrote plays for which composers often supplied incidental music. But they did not write libretti specifically for opera. 9 “Morgenblatt für die gebildete Stände,” Literaturkritik (accessed 8 January 2008) .

106

texts.10 Reinbeck represents a very small number of librettists who contributed German opera criticism, despite the long list of opera composers writings reviews.

Eduard Gehe is connected with the discussions on German opera and the composer critics in many forms. In 1818 Weber set instrumental music to Gehe’s text Heinrich IV: König von

Frankreich, and in 1828 Gehe published two reviews of Weber’s Oberon in the ZeW.11 But an even more significant example of the part Gehe played in developing a national opera in the early nineteenth century is that he was the librettist for Spohr’s Jessonda. On occasion, Gehe discussed operas to which he had written the libretti.12 For example, he reviewed his own

Flibustier (1829), with music by future AmZ editor Johann Christian Lobe (1797–1881), and discussed Die bezauberte Rose (1826), music by Joseph Maria Wolfram (1789–1839), in his criticism. In addition he even published the entire libretto of his opera Der Norman (1828), music also by Joseph Wolfram, with brief commentary.

Librettist critics, however, had a distinct advantage in making their points across in print media. Whereas composer critics could not feasibly publish full scores or lengthy excerpts to their operas in periodicals, librettist critics like Reinbeck could print their own libretti to demonstrate their theories. Even in specific music journals like the AmZ, there was no guarantee

10 Weber, “Ballade zu dem Trauerspiel: Gordon und Montrose, oder Der Kampf der Gefühle, text by Georg Reinbeck”; Schauspielmusiken, eds. Oliver Huck and Frank Ziegler (Mainz: Schott, 2003); and “Romanze der Laura,” Winterblüten von Georg Reinbeck (Leipzig, 1810). Weber likely met Reinbeck when he participated in the Stuttgart literary group Faust’s Höllenfahrt from 1807–10. Warrack, Weber, 62–3. 11 Gehe, “Correspondenz aus Dresden,” ZeW 52 (1828): 415–6; “Über Webers Oberon,” ZeW 85 (1828): 673–6; 86 (1828): 683–6; 87 (1828): 691–2. 12 Examples include Gehe’s discussion of Die bezauberte Rose in “Ein Ausflug nach Teplitz und Prag,” ZeW 144 (1826): 1153–6; 145 (1826): 1163–5; and 146 (1826): 1169–72, as well as “Über die Oper der Norman von Gehe und Wolfram,” ZeW 117 (1828): 929–32; 118 (1828): 940–2; 119 (1828): 947–8; 120 (1828): 955–7; 121 (1828): 961–3; 122 (1828): 970–2; 123 (1828): 980–1, and “Über den Hofmusicus Lobe zu Weimar und Dessen Oper, Die Flibustier,” ZeW 28 (1829): 217–20.

107

that a substantial readership could understand musical jargon associated with voice leading, form, or orchestration, let alone read musical excerpts from the score. Therefore, the few examples of such analysis and discussion were usually slated for instrumental music. Thus the inclusion, not citation, of excerpts of the librettists’ works in their criticism fully contained the discussion in the forum of the journals. Musicological scholarship has already probed the writings of composer critics such as Weber and Hoffmann, so it is important to consider the voice of the librettist critics as well in determining what constituted a suitable libretto for

German opera.

What constitutes a Good Libretto?

Most critics of German opera, and not only those found in specifically music journals, railed about the quality and availability of inspiring libretti. In many cases, a composer’s efforts to supply quality music were noted as a waste due to deficiencies in the libretti. In order to provide some context for the negative criticism composer critics often directed at opera libretti, it is beneficial to consider what other reviewers found wrong with the texts in German opera.

The feuilletons also contributed to a widespread criticism of German Opera libretti, although specifics from the musical score or text were never given. A review of Conradin

Kreutzer’s Aesop for the ZeW provides an example.13 The Stuttgart correspondent faulted the libretto for failing to deliver distinguishing attributes and coming across as uninspired, and held it responsible for overall flaws in the composition and the poor audience response: “The whole is, however, especially in the flat demeanor of the libretto, too empty and has no definite

13 Aesop in Phrygien [Lydien] is an opera in one act to a text by Stegmayer.

108

character, a drawback that could not be concealed with an abundance of lovely melodies.”14

After Spohr and Weber, Kreutzer was one of the more respected composers of original German operas in the 1820s. He also made contributions to grosse Opern, composing original recitatives for his well-known Libussa. However, this correspondent did not feel that Aesop had made any significant contributions to the development of a national genre and deemed Kreutzer’s efforts in setting his music to such a poor text a waste of time: “German opera can at present only be helped along if true poets embrace it and talented composers no longer concern themselves with poor libretti.”15 The reviewer’s use of the weaknesses of the libretto in Aesop as an example of the concerns he had for German opera suggests how widespread criticism of texts were at the time. And even in the ZeW, a feuilleton whose readership was far too broad for a detailed analysis and critique, the attitude that the operas of Germany’s best composers suffered from paltry libretti was perpetuated.

Hoffmann’s review of Das Waisenhaus by Weigl, published in the AmZ in 1810, describes a certain trait of a good libretto that is a little more difficult to verbalize. His discussion of the opera predates “The Poet and the Composer,” and speaks specifically to the problems he sought to rectify in the latter writing. Hoffmann expanded the review to general aesthetic musings, and expressed that a good libretto would have an overall quality that would inspire the composer to romantic music:

The plan, the concept of an opera, as provided by the poet must inspire the composer, and if it has the power to excite his imagination, then weak or ineffective details in its elaboration cannot destroy his inspiration. Animated by this concept and reacting to it

14 “Korrespondenz aus Stuttgart” ZeW 46 (6 March 1823): 368. “Das Ganze ist aber, besonders in der flachen Haltung des Textes, zu leer und hat keinen bestimmten Charakter, ein Ubelstand, den eine Fülle lieblicher Melodien nicht zu verdecken vermag.” 15 Ibid. “Der deutschen Oper kann gegenwärtig nur aufgeholfen werden, wenn wahrhafte Dichter sich ihrer annehmen, und talentvolle Komponisten nicht mehr mit schlechten Dichtungen sich befassen.”

109

alone, he creates a work that musically expresses the poet’s idea; anything feeble or dull in the poet’s realization of the text is extinguished by the music, which powerfully and perfectly depicts the character, situation, etc. of the participants according the idea underlying the whole.16

The actual review of the opera seems an afterthought, tucked away in a small corner at the end of the essay; yet, the harsh criticism of the Singspiel libretto springs naturally from the idealistic discussion occupying most of the review. Hoffmann did not wish composers to initially deal with individual verses and scenes, but rather to let their spirit follow the overall imagination of the text. But in Das Waisenhaus he did not find that quality, and blamed the story’s attention to ordinary life rather than to loftier subjects:17 “As a subject for opera, which raises human nature to a higher power, where the language is song and…chords echo every expression of feeling, and which only exists at all in the wonderful world of romanticism, it is quite wrong to choose scenes from ordinary life which positively counteract any sense of the romantic.”18

Hoffmann had similar criticism for Der Augenarzt by Adalbert Gyrowetz, which he directed himself in 1813 and cited in “The Poet and the Composer,” and was certainly aware of the opera’s success with audiences. Again in his review, Hoffmann turned to Gyrowetz for any merit he attributed to the work. He found the libretto, again, rather ordinary and lifeless, and certainly challenging for a composer to summon dramatic music: “If one could wish for greater characterization of the individual roles, the blame for this deficiency lies with the librettist, who gave his characters a rather generalized physiognomy, where the libretto provided only a flat surface, the composer would have had to give it depth entirely from his own resources.”19 Again

16 Hoffmann, Musical Writings, 253. 17 The story of Das Waisenhaus deals with poor orphaned children who find shelter, protection, and care. Hoffmann found the overall story of noble character, but the setting too drab for stimulating music. 18 Hoffmann, Musical Writings, 254. 19 Ibid., 296.

110

Hoffmann found fault with libretti that dealt with ordinary life, presented stock characterization, or remained rather lifeless, for he believed that the romantic lay outside reaches of ordinary life:

“But what is to become of music in our theatres when even opera lowers itself to the vulgar dealings of domestic ordinariness, which clips the spirit’s wings and curbs its invention instead of letting it soar up into the romantic realm whose language is song?” 20 In this distinction,

Hoffmann revealed his impatience for plots dealing with everyday subjects and the trivial songs that accompanied them. These features reflected an absence of an overall quality Hoffmann thought would inspire composers to truly dramatic music, although the specifics on what that quality entailed remained undefined in his reviews.

Weber had also adopted a harsh critical stance toward most contemporary operatic texts in his reviews. One of the problems Weber found with texts was the lack of clarity they provided for the audience. For Hoffmann’s Undine, Weber noted that librettist Friedrich de la Motte

Fouqué (1777–1843) did not take the time to clearly emphasize the main points of the fairy tale.

He felt that the confusion other critics had observed in the opera was the result of Fouqué’s failure to recognize that his audience would know less than he did about the tenor of the story. A solution to the unclear libretto was Hoffmann’s music: “To compensate for this weakness the composer has made the colors and outlines of the music all the more explicit and unambiguous.”21 Although Weber did not give any details on the confusion surrounding the libretto, he did cite a few examples of how Hoffmann emphasized important facets about the characters. For Undine, Weber admired how her music was “alternately playfully rippling and striking enough,” particularly in her second act aria, to suggest “both sides of her character.”22

20 Ibid., 295. 21 Weber, Writings on Music, 203. 22 Ibid., 204.

111

Spohr, like many of his contemporary reviewers and opera composers was critical of most German opera libretti put forth in the early nineteenth century. However, he differed from the idealism of Hoffmann’s essay by giving more practical advice. In the “Appeal to German

Composers,” Spohr suggested that libretti include subjects of broad humor or devilish incantations.23 He felt these choices would help grab audiences yet support the dramatic style of music that cultivated audience members demanded in the early nineteenth century: “If we had been happy enough to obtain such a subject, we would no longer be thinking about pleasing when we compose, we would no longer speculate prosaically about effects, as several of the modern composers do; but we ought to follow the bent of our feelings, and compose music of a true dramatic character adapted in every respect, to the subject, both in tone, style, and character.”24 The motivation behind Spohr’s essay lay with the waning popularity of comical

Italian operas, and Spohr was critical of German composers that tried to imitate the foreign conventions for mere effect. But at the same time he was aware of the financial responsibilities of theaters and did want to ignore enough of the public with a libretto that did not reach them. In this advice, Spohr favored subjects that might have seemed too base for Hoffmann. Although both composers sought inspiration for dramatic music, they differed in their suggestions for the libretti.

23 Spohr, “Aufruf,” 462. “Ein die Menge ansprechendes Opernbuch muss aber entweder derben Spass oder Teufelsppuk oder mindestens schöne Dekorationen und kleider und prächtige Aufzüge zur Befriedung der Schaulust enthalten.” Spohr does not elaborate on what subjects were suitable as “broad humor,” however he does recommend that composers stay away from the type of vulgar jokes that reside in beer halls. 24 Spohr, Aufruf,” 462–3. “Ist man so glücklich gewesen, ein solches zu erhalten, so denke man bey’m Komponiren nicht mehr an’s Gefallen, speculire nicht nüchtern auf Effekte, wie mehrere der neuesten Komponisten, sondern überlasse sich seinem Gefühl und schreibe eine ächt dramatische Musik, ganz der Handlung im Ton, Styl und Charakter angemessen.”

112

Aside from Georg Reinbeck’s defense of opera texts in creating a successful opera

(discussed below), librettist critics offered very little advice on what an ideal libretto should look like. Eduard Gehe, however, in his review of Reissiger’s Libella did issue criticism of the text, which provides some insight into his recommendations for opera libretti.25 According to Gehe, the libretto for Libella was “neither base nor senseless, as was unfortunately the case with many

[German] libretti.”26 However, he felt the text was “created in gentle sentiment, written in pretty verses, as one could expect of a women whose Muse is pure and chaste, perhaps too chaste in order to be dramatic.”27 Unlike the composer critics that took an opportunity to prescribe models in their reviews, the few librettist critics that did venture into German opera criticism had few specifics to share on writing ideal libretti.

The reviews above provide criteria, while often contradictory and vague, which reveal the writers’ commitment to developing national opera. The stories were to be captivating, but not in a superficial way, in order to engage large audiences. For Hoffmann, such stories were best found outside of ordinary life, and for Spohr that realm was in the supernatural and exotic.28 In the cases where the critics identified what made a libretto flat and uninspiring, it revolved around stock or general characterizations, suggesting their desire for libretto subjects that were not too conventional in their stories. For Weber, librettists were to make an effort to clearly present the main elements of the story so that the composer’s music could emphasize the key moments of drama. And Gehe’s description of most German opera libretti as base and senseless confirmed

25 Eduard Gehe, “Korrespondenz aus Dresden” ZeW 24 (2 February 1829): 191. 26 Ibid., “weder gemein noch sinnlos, wie leider viele unserer Operntexte.” 27 Ibid. “in sanfter Empfindung erschaffen, in hübschen Versen geschrieben, [wie] man sie von einer Dame erwarten konnte, deren Muse rein und keusch, vielleicht zu keusch ist, um je eine dramatische zu werden.” 28 At the time of the “Appeal to German Composers” (1823) Spohr was just completing his exotic rescue opera Jessonda.

113

these opinions. Although many of the reviews dwelled on the success of the music in overcoming poor libretti, the critics felt the composers were wasting their time and were yet to be inspired to their most creative compositions.

Music Over Text

The strong criticism of German opera libretti, as well as the admiration of composers that did commit themselves to a national genre, reflected an overall perception that music should dictate the role of the text. The composer critics were supported by many other writers who claimed that the text mattered little to the success of an opera and others complained that poor libretti hindered the expressive power of music; both arguments undermined the status of librettists in creating new German operas. The reviews that applauded composers for their work and ignored or heavily criticized the work of the librettist constrained any aspirations to find a balanced relationship of music and text in opera. For these writers, music had to guide the text.

Friedrich Christoph Weißer (1761–1836) was one early writer that persuaded composer critics to consider the role of music more important. He introduced this opinion in his essay “A

Word about the Relationship of Text to Music in Opera,” published in the MgS in 1813.29 He began his argument by quoting Schlegel’s “Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst”: “Poetry is only a minor concern, a medium, an afterthought to opera. It virtually drowns in its surroundings.

It doesn’t hurt that opera is usually performed for us in an unknown language. Text is already lost in such music.”30 In referring to the publications of the most significant writers in the new

29 Weißer, “Ein Wort über das Verhältnis des Texts zur Musik in der Oper,” MgS 75 (29 March 1813): 297–8. 30 August Wilhelm Schlegel, qtd. in Weisser, 298. “In der Oper ist die Poesie nur Nebensache, Mittel, das Uebrige anzuknüpfen. Sie wird unter ihren Umgebungen fast ertränkt.…

114

century, Weißer posited text’s subordinate role in the hierarchy with the analogy of the maidservant and the queen:31

The text serves the music, not the music the text. The poet provides the thread on which the pearls of the composer are arranged. An opera must also be written more out of the love for music than for poetry, and if the poetry is too proud to take over maid’s duties in any case, then the only advice for it would be to stay as far away as possible from the music by which it is eternally governed and dominated.32

Although Weißer affirmed text’s subsidiary role, he considered opera to be a complex construction in which the parts could not easily be separated. He later wrote, “the libretti is certainly only a maidservant, however in service of a queen, and given that, one cannot easily at the same time applaud admirable music and boo miserable text.”33 Rather than attempt to shape an idealized form, Weißer recognized that patrons of opera were there for music. Against all aesthetic reasoning, one could not ignore the number of foreign operas in which the unfamiliarity with the text was no hindrance to the popularity of the arias.

Es schadet nicht, daß die Oper uns in einer meist nicht verstandenen Sprache vorgetragen wird. Der Text geht ja ohnehin in solcher Musik verloren.” 31 In the second half of the eighteenth century, Mozart and Gluck offered differing viewpoints with a similar analogy. Gluck, in his letter to Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany, stated his “aim to restrict music to its true purpose of serving to give expression to the poetry.” As part of his reforms to opera seria, Gluck wished to eschew the contained song form da capo aria for musical material that better heightened the drama embedded in the text. Mozart, in reference to his German opera Die Entführung aus dem Serail, wrote to his father, Leopold, that “in opera, the poetry must be the obedient daughter of the music.” Gluck, “A Revolutionary Plan for Operatic Reform,” in The Fader Book of Opera, ed. Tom Sutcliffe (London: Faber and Faber, 2000), 146. 32 Weisser, 297–8. “Der Text dient der Musik, und nicht die Musik dem Text. Der Poet liefert den Faden, an welchen von dem Komponisten seine den Faden verbergenden Perlen gereiht werden. Eine Oper muß also mehr aus Liebe zur Musik, als zur Dichtkunst geschrieben werden, und wenn die Poesie zu stolz ist, in irgend einem Falle die Dienste einer Magd zu übernehmen; so bleibt kein anderer Rath für sie, als dass sie sich von der Musik, von welcher sie ewig beherrscht und unterdrückt wird, so weit als möglich entfernt hält.” 33 Ibid., 298. “Die Opern-Poesie ist freylich nur eine Magd, aber sie steht doch bey einer Königinn im Dienst, und da man, indem man eine vortreffliche Musik beklatscht, nicht wohl einen elenden Text zugleich auspfeifen kann.”

115

If there ever was an opera to give credence to this perspective, it was Weber’s Euryanthe.

The opera provided a suitable context for reliving the debate, since the work was both highly anticipated and poorly received. A Berlin correspondent reviewing the work’s performance for the ZeW in February of 1826 responded to the attention the work’s libretto had received in contemporary journals.34 Although the correspondent acknowledged that the text was a crucial component of opera composition, he rejected the notion that it dictated the role of the music. He cited the scathing review of Chezy’s libretto in the BS and agreed that a good text would be of great service, but he ultimately concluded that opera must follow the path of the music: “Only one must not demand from opera that it carry the plot in line with the context, as tragedy and drama. It delivers us romantic climaxes, distributes, completes, unites, and in a way it longs for the rules of music.”35 One could not equate opera with other dramatic genres. The correspondent continued this argument in the second half of the review, claiming that the opera’s seductive power was not “in the poetry, but rather in the masterly, harmonious composition.”36 Euryanthe proved a telling example of what many writers believed, that music better communicated the drama and feeling opera wished to express and should therefore guide the creation of a new opera more than the text.

Although writers were often just as critical of music as they were of the text, they still considered music more important to a work’s success than the text. The essay “Ueber

Operntexte,” signed K. Sondershausen—presumably a correspondent from the town of

34 “Korrespondenz aus Berlin,” ZeW 33 (16 February 1826): 264; Korrespondenz aus Berlin ZeW 34 (17 February 1826): 272. 35 Ibid. “Nur muß man von der Oper nicht verlangen, daß sie in eben dem Zusammenhange die Handlung vortrage, wie Trauerspiel und Drama. Sie liefert uns romantische Hauptmomente, theilt sie ein, schließt sie ab, verbindet sie, ja nachdem die Regeln der Musik es verlangen.” 36 Ibid. “Der Sirenengesang ist nicht im Gedicht, sondern in der meisterhaften harmonischen Komposition.”

116

Sondershausen northwest of Weimar—in the Gesellschafter questioned the perception that the work of librettists is subordinate to the artistic genius of the composer.37 The author addressed several of the challenges that emerged in trying to communicate and verbalize the realms of fantasy and fairy tales in opera texts, as well as the unfavorable opinion composers and audiences often harbored toward librettists:

The composer considers the poet (in fact deservingly so up until now) as his subordinate who provides him the pattern for his artwork. His [the poet’s] work disappears into that of the musician. He names the fused together whole his own, his opera, and claims the fruits of the labor if the outcome is favorable. If it is a failure, then he simply assigns his part of the blame to the common tastelessness and inconsistency of libretti.38

The author noted that music was currently held in higher esteem than the text, but contended that opera would not continue to flourish until these forces spoke the same language and worked together. He summoned the metaphor of the Tower of Babel, equating the librettist and composer as two builders that did not communicate with each other. The two creators had yet to fully collaborate and bring their expertise to a unified project: “This is the case with most operas, where word and tale only stand next to music as a foreign element, not integrated in it; although they can intermingle with it, they cannot mix.”39

The writer from Sondershausen acknowledged the prevalent attitude in the first quarter of the nineteenth century that music should guide text in German opera, and felt that it was justified

37 K. Sondershausen, “Ueber Opern-Texte” Gesellschafter 138 (25 August 1819): 552; Gesellschafter 139 (26 August 1819): 556. 38 Ibid. “Der Komponist betrachtet den Dichter (freilich verdienten es bisher die meisten) als seinen Unterarbeiter, der ihm das Holzmodell zu seinem Kunstwerke liefert. Seine Arbeit geht in der des Musikers unter. Das zum Ganzen Verschmolzene nennt dieser sein, seine Oper, und unten die Früchte davon, wenn der Erfolg günstig ist; ist er ungünstig, so trägt er gar leicht auch seinen Antheil der Schuld auf die bekannte Geschmacklosigkeit und Ungereimtheit der Opern-Texte über.” 39 Ibid., 552. “Dies ist der Fall bei den meisten Opern, wo Wort und Fabel nur neben der Musik als ein Fremdartiges, nicht in sie Uebergehendes besteht, das sich zwar mit ihr vermengen läßt, aber nicht vermischen.”

117

in the compositions written to date. And this perspective was far more common in the context of

German opera than one arguing for text’s dominance. However, some writers felt that a mutual coordination could exist to assist the aesthetic of unity. The metaphor of the Tower of Babel only illustrated the current inability of librettists and composers to speak the same language. Even if most writers considered music’s role to be more important in the current arrangement, they did not all agree that the arrangement was ideal. What hindered attempts to find a balance were those writers who argued for text’s dominance over music in the relationship.

Text Over Music

Very few critics of early nineteenth-century German opera considered the text more crucial to the mix. And the mass of examples of reviews that discouraged German opera librettists, by either criticizing their efforts or ignoring their role in writing a new opera, suggests that even the librettists had little say in the future of German opera. Yet one librettist, Georg

Reinbeck, proposed to readers of the ZeW that the libretto and text had more significance to the success of German opera than many contemporary writers were acknowledging.40

Reinbeck’s argument was shaped by a personal experience he had revising Paer’s

Sofonisba. In 1811, the year he left the MgS, the director of the Königliche Hoftheater in

Stuttgart asked him to alter a scene from the German translation of the Italian opera. As he recalled in “Die deutsche Oper,” Reinbeck then felt the softened tragic scene he substituted now misrepresented the entire picture of the opera, so he set out to rewrite the entire libretto.

40 Georg Reinbeck, “Die deutsche Oper,” Zeitung für die elegante Welt (ZeW) 12 (1812): 65–8, 75–8. The letter is followed by the “libretto to Die Karthagerin [Masinissa],” ZeW 12 (1812): 81–5, 91–5. Later in the year, an additional letter by Reinbeck to the editor was published as “Nachrichten aus Stuttgart,” ZeW 12 (1812): 287–8. This letter was soon followed by Reinbeck’s libretto “Probeszenen aus David,” ZeW 12 (1812): 321–6, 329–34, 339–43.

118

Although he kept the original music of Paer, he employed the concertmaster Wilhelm Sutor

(1774–1828), who had operatic experience from composing the music for Apollos Wettgesang

(1808), to fill any vacancies in the score with a patchwork of music from some of Paer’s lesser- known works.41 One reviewer in the MgS referred to this process as “interferences of a foreign hand in the noble composition of Paer.”42 Reinbeck claimed this approach maintained the unity of the work in the color of Paer’s music and thus left credit for improvements in the opera to his text. The newly arranged opera, Masinissa, had success in Stuttgart as well as in Frankfurt, even though the original translated Sofonisba had failed to make money in those locations.43 Crediting himself, Reinbeck made a bold assertion that the text does matter more to an opera’s success than was often acknowledged, since the music in both works was essentially the same:

The opera Sophonisbe, with the notable music from Paer (and without all the patchwork from foreign hands),44 was in a prior year given in Frankfurt with all the expenditures and grandeur in such a means it could not be repeated! All costs were lost, according to a verbal statement to me from the worthy Frankfurt director Herr Ihlen. The opera Masinissa, of similar material and similar music, makes a fortune. Until now one heard only the same argument: the text may be how it will, the music will make up for everything else in the opera. Masinissa appears to give the argument that the text must play a very important part in the work’s success.45

41 The correspondent to the MgS from Stuttgart who reviewed a performance in spring of 1811 claimed that Sutor had composed his own recitatives to frame the other arias of Paer that were interpolated into the opera. “Korrespondenz aus Stuttgart,” MgS 104 (1 May 1811): 416. 42 “…die Eingriffe fremder Hand in die vortreffliche Komposition Paers.” “Korrespondenz-Nachrichten aus Frankfurt am Main,” MgS 298 (13 Dec 1811): 1192. 43 The original German translation of Sofonisba was billed as Sophonisbe. Reinbeck chose the title Masinissa, named after a different character in the story, to reflect the changes in the libretto. 44 An explicit reference to the MgS review cited above. 45 Reinbeck, “die deutsche Oper,” 67–8. “Die Oper Sophonisbe, mit der nämlichen herrlichen Musik von Paer (und ohne alle Einmischung von fremder Hand), wurde vor einigen Jahren in Frankfurt mit allem Aufwande der Kunst und der theatralischen Pracht gegeben und— fiel durch, so dass die nicht einmal wiederholt werden konnte! Alle darauf verwandte Kosten waren, nach der eigenen mündlichen Äußerung der würdigen Frankfurter Direktors Herrn Ihlen gegen mich, verloren. Die Oper [Masinissa]—der nämlichen Stoffe die nämliche Musik—macht Glück. Nun hörte man bis jetzt immer behaupten: Mag der Text sein wie er will, die Musik macht bei der Oper Alles aus. [Masinissa] scheint den Beweis zu gegeben, dass dem wohl nicht

119

He praised his own contribution to the success and posed his work as an example against the common belief. Reinbeck continued by mocking the perspective he felt most German composers shared, that their music could carry a work without the assistance of the text: “[This prejudice] flatters the vanity of composers, especially German composers, that they could enliven a lump of wood through the magic of their musical art.”46

Reinbeck’s claim did not go unanswered. An anonymous essay, “Bemerkungen eines

Musikfreundes über Musik, Komposition, Operntexte, und über einen Aufsatz des Hrn. Hofraths,

Professors Reinbeck,” published in six parts in the MgS presented a counterargument.47 The contribution of the anonymous “friend of music” appeared not in the ZeW, where Reinbeck had placed his original essay, but in the journal Reinbeck had edited the three previous years. The author challenged Reinbeck’s thesis head on, deeming him ignorant of the behavior of the same musical culture he was challenging. For one, he was skeptical of how Reinbeck could make such a grand assertion by citing the success of one opera, his own opera, against a historical gamut of performances that had forged the stereotypes Reinbeck challenged.

Herr Hofrath, Prof. Reinbeck in Stuttgart made the bold and flashy statement in his essay that not the music, but rather the text be the principle element in an opera. But, more or less as if he had not enough heart to speak this paradox loud and decisively, he began his dissertation by saying that he will attack the sentence that, as he says, one always hears now: “the text may be as it will, the music accounts for everything in the opera.”48

so sein möchte, denn in seinem Beifall muss doch wohl der Text einen sehr wesentlichen Anteil haben.” 46 Ibid., 76. “es schmeichelt der Eitelkeit der Kompositeurs, besonders aber der deutschen, daß sie durch den Zauber ihrer Kunst auch den hölzernsten Klotz beleben könnten.” 47 I have not been able to determine if the author of this essay is the same Frankfurt correspondent to the MgS Reinbeck’s had previously addressed in “Die deutsche Oper.” 48 MgS 59 (9 March 1812): 234–5. “Herr Hofrath, Professor Reinbeck in Stuttgart, stellt in diesem Aufsatze den kühnen und auffallenden Satz auf, daß an einer Oper nicht die Musik, sondern der Text, die Hauptsache sey. Aber, gleichsam als wenn er selbst nicht Herz genug hätte, dieses Paradoxon laut und bestimmt auszusprechen, so fängt er (S. 67) seine Dissertation blos

120

The writer had no dispute with Reinbeck’s claim that the importance of the text should receive more credit, but he had perceived the essay as a means of downplaying the importance of the music. Reinbeck’s evidence—that his opera succeeded after failing in its original form and the prevalence of the music-over-text stereotype—was not enough to make general claims. The major concern to the correspondent, indeed, was that Reinbeck’s argument let a sole example inform a truth.49

The respondent continued by citing several other German operas that had failed in one city and succeeded in another, Zumsteeg’s Geisterinsel, Sutor’s Apollos Wettgesang, and

Fischer’s Ruinen von Portici, without changes to the text. Whether or not Reinbeck had intended to demote the role of music in writing a successful opera, the anonymous reviewer publicly dubbed him an enemy to all friends of music. He closed his essay by quoting Voltaire: “Your dispute against music is like the war of 1701. You are alone against all of Europe.”50 The rejection of Reinbeck’s assertion does not challenge the significance of the essay; but rather,

Reinbeck should be credited for provoking one of the most detailed discussions on the relationship of composers and librettists, music and text, and the attitudes of the audience of

German opera at the time, and for demonstrating that librettists should share interest in cultivating a national genre.

damit an, daß er den Satz angreift, den man bis jetzt, wie er sagt, immer behaupten hörte: Mag der Text seyn, wie er will, die Musik macht bey der Oper Alles aus.” 49 Ibid., 250. “Hr. R. nenne mir eine einzige Oper mit vortrefflicher Musik eines berühmten Tonsetzers, die in einigen oder auch sogar vielen Städten Deutschlands, des schlechten Textes wegen, durchgefallen ist; der Verfasser macht sich anheischig, ihm dagegen immer drey und viermal so viel andere Städte Europens, und besonders Italiens, jenes alten Wohnsitzes und jener Pflanzschule der Musik und des Geschmacks, aus welcher alle schönen Künste in das übrige Europa verpflanzt wurden, namhaft zu machen, auf deren Bühnen eben diesen Opern der unzweydeutigste, rauschendste Beyfall zu Theil wurde.” 50 Ibid., 256. “Votre dispute contre la musique est comme la guerre de 1701. Vous êtes seule contre toute l’Europe.”

121

Reinbeck retorted with “Nähere Beleuchtung des Aufsatzes: Bemerkungen eines

Musikfreundes über Musik, Komposition, Operntexte, und über einen Aufsatz des Herrn

Hofraths, Professors Reinbeck” in the ZeW to clarify his theory, as he had already expressed intent to expand his essay at the close of “Die deutsche Oper.” He tempered the original argument to one less polemic, clarifying that it was his goal that operatic texts and music stand at the same level. In glossing over each criticism of his essay, Reinbeck accused the anonymous author of mistakenly demonizing him and his attitude toward music in the same way Don

Quixote foolishly made an enemy out of a windmill. Reinbeck questioned how the anonymous author could have misunderstood his claim that Masinissa undid the old stereotype that “the text may be as it will, for the music counts for everything in opera” as an assault on music: “It happened that the disguised knight in all his madness accused me of making the proposition that in an opera not the music, but rather the text is the principal element.”51

Reinbeck spilled a lot of ink refuting the author’s false description of a war on music and of his ignorance of the behavior of opera patrons. He ended the response by clarifying his position to one more of inclusion, yet reiterated his disagreement with arguments that the text had nothing to do with whether an opera succeeded or not. Reinbeck’s debate with the “Friend of

Music” illustrates how firmly many writers held to the belief that music mattered more. Whether or not his revisions of Paer’s opera effectively proved the opposite does not eclipse how unpopular his suggestion could be with opera critics.

51 Reinbeck, ZeW 74 (13 April 1812): 585–6. “Dem verkappten Ritter ist es in seinem Wahnsinne vorgekommen, als hätte ich die Behauptung aufgestellt: Bei einer Oper sey nicht die Musik, sondern der Text die Hauptsache, und da er dies mehrmal wiederholt, so sollte man wenigstens glauben, er wähne, keinen unredlichen Kampf zu kämpfen. Nun habe ich aber jenen wahnsinnigen Satz durchaus nicht ausgesagt, sondern sogar deutlicht das Gegentheil; aber wohl behaupte ich: Bei der Oper ist weder die Musik, noch der Text die Hauptsache;…Das Verhältniß aber, in welchem nun Gedicht und Komposition gegen einander in einer Oper stehen müssen, ist von mir für nüchterne Augen zwar deutlich genug angedeutete, nicht zu fassen vermochte.”

122

Another librettist critic, Eduard Gehe, echoed Reinbeck’s argument for the importance of text to German opera in a lengthy essay “Korrespondenz und Notizen aus Dresden” published in the ZeW in 1826. Gehe had been accused of reworking texts himself, so he expressed his intent for librettists to take further responsibility in the development of German opera. Yet he felt the body of critics and the public audiences did not share in his confidence, provoking him to voice the discrepancy between his ideas and the people of Dresden in the widely circulating ZeW:

“Anyone is permitted to say here that the critic himself [Gehe] has once reworked a Lanassa into a Jessonda and yet now he takes a dig at another text! To this I have nothing to retort, other than that I support my view preferably with reason and honorably wish that a new era for opera texts will bloom in Germany.”52 Although at this point Gehe himself had written only one libretto that had amounted to a popular and critically success, Jessonda, he persuaded readers to support better texts for the sake of a national genre.53 The other main obstacle Gehe felt German opera libretti would have to overcome was the inclusion of the comic and its popular musical styles in drama: “Indeed it is for the librettist to write dignified, great dramas and tragedies, but currently in our dramatic literature such a conflict prevails so that it rarely affords pleasure to risk a great dramatic work.”54 As a critic and librettist, Gehe was well aware of the poor reputation of most

52 Gehe, “Korrespondenz und Notizen aus Dresden,” ZeW 26 (1826): 207. “Dürfte hier Jemand sagen, der Kritikus hat selbst einmal eine Lanassa in eine Jessonda umgetauft, und nun stichelt er auf andre Texte! Hierauf habe ich nichts zu erwiedern, als dass ich meine Ansicht möglichst mit Gründen belege, und herzlich wünsche, dass für Operndichtungen in Deutschland eine neue Aera erblühe.” 53 Die Bürgschaft (1823), which had a short run in Dresden as an opera with the music of Friedrich Ludwig August Mayer (1790–1829), was Gehe’s only other libretti to date. 54 Gehe, “Korrespondenz,” 207. ”Allerdings ist es für den Dichter würdiger, größer Dramen und Tragödien zu schreiben, aber in unserer dramatischen Literatur herrscht jetzt eine solche Zweitracht; dass es kaum noch Freude gewährt, sich an ein größeres dramatisches Werk zu wagen.”

123

German opera libretti. Yet he felt it was the text that would play a huge role in the development of the genre.

Gehe continued to drive these points home in his other opera criticism as well, and he also reviewed and discussed his own work with opera.55 In one lengthy essay titled “An

Excursion to Teplitz and Prague,” Gehe reminisced about the development of his relationship with the Bohemian composer Joseph Maria Wolfram, with whom he collaborated on the operas

Die bezauberte Rose (1826) and Der Norman (1828). But Gehe used the public forum to expose the challenges he had to overcome in encouraging Wolfram to think of the poetry as well when composing music:

Knowledge of form and the instruments alone still cannot make a dramatic composer, even though they are necessary requisites. Even higher abilities are required: strength that creates solid characterization from unassigned tones, spirit and mind that engage the text in all its nuances, genius that calls luminously into full life what the poet may only indicate, refined taste, nobleness, and grace of expression… I had to shout “Thus I have not thought of devising the text any other way,” more than once during this dialogue; then all the ideas came into life through him as light and lovely musical figures, which saluted me in the poetry.56

Gehe’s respect for the musical contribution to opera is confirmed earlier in the essay when he admits he usually asked composers for his texts, “Are you a white, black or gray genius?”57 Yet he believed the music could not move from routine accompaniment and song forms to its true

55 For example, Gehe, “Über die Oper der Norman von Gehe und Wolfram,” ZeW 117 (17 June 1828): 929–32; 118 (19 June 1828): 940–2; 119 (20 June 1828): 947–8; 120 (21 June 1828): 955–7; 121 (23 June 1828): 961–3; 122 (24 June 1828): 970–2; and 123 (26 June 1828): 980–1. 56 Gehe, “Ausflug,” 1154–5. “Allein Kenntniß des Satzes und der Instrumente bildet noch nicht, obschon auch ihm unerlässlich, den dramatischen Komponisten. Höhere Fähigkeiten werden verlangt: eine Kraft, die aus unbestimmten Tönen feste Charakterbilder schafft, Geist und Gemüth, die den Text in allen seinen Nüanzen erfassen, Genie, welches glänzend in das volle Leben ruft, was der Dichter nur andeuten durfte, geläuterter Geschmack, Adel und Grazie des Ausdrucks... “So habe ich es empfunden, so und nicht anders gedacht,” musste ich während seines Vortrages mehr als einmal rufen; denn als helle lieblich Tonbilder traten durch ihn in das Leben alle Ahnungen, die bei der Dichtung mich gegrüßt.” 57 Ibid., 1153. “Bist du ein weißer, schwarzer oder grauer Genius?”

124

dramatic potential until truly inspired by the poetry. The relationship Gehe described between himself and Wolfram is rather similar to Hoffmann’s theory in “The Poet and the Composer,” but rather voiced from the perspective of the librettist. Instead of describing the process as the musician needing the inspiration from the poetry in order to create the most romantic music,

Gehe suggested that the musician had to bring into life that which only the poet could utter.

Fortunately for Gehe, Wolfram did not appear to demand as large of a hand in changing the libretto as some of his contemporaries, since he continued to work in legal positions.58 The perspective of the librettist critics provided a counterargument to the number of writers that assumed music’s role over the text.

Equal Relationship

Despite the debates of whether music or text should dominate the creation of German opera, ultimately most critics longed for an ideal balance as expressed in Hoffmann’s “The Poet and the Composer.” A supportive voice in assuring the equal roles of the composer and librettist was Mosel. His treatise discussed in the previous chapters, Versuch einer Ästhetik des dramatischen Tonsatzes, not only outlined his ideas on the composition and performance of operatic music, but also provided a detailed description of the type of dramatic-lyric poetry

58 “Joseph Maria Wolfram,” Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliographie (accessed 11 January 2010), . The new edition of the ADB, as the Neue Deutsche Biographie, will be complete in 2017. The entries are hosted on this wiki site until the edition is complete.

125

suitable as libretto.59 And this description encourages a close relationship between the librettist and the composer.

First, Mosel attested to the significance of the text to a successful opera, following

Hoffmann’s idea that the poet must inspire the composer to compose truly romantic opera music:

“There can be no doubt that success of the opera, if not entirely at least for the most part, depends on the libretto, because the text should inspire the composer to the invention of song.”60

Mosel also challenged the argument several reviewers made that an opera could succeed solely on the merit of the composition, and he encouraged an equal relationship between music and text in the collaboration: “For in opera text and music, one like the other, can only function through the closest unification. Bound together, they are all powerful; if they separate their interests, then everything is lost.”61 For this understanding to be realized, Mosel put forth a reminder that they were not working alone. He asked librettists to think beyond the normal conventions of their literary trade and consider their contribution to the overall artwork: “The librettist must never forget that his work is earmarked for music, and that this requires only images and passion, not elocutionary word pageantry.”62

Likewise, Mosel also demanded that the composers have more understanding and sympathy for the complexities involved in producing a good opera text. The additional knowledge is what distinguished a good opera composer:

59 Ignaz Franz von Mosel, Versuch einer Ästhetik des dramatischen Tonsatzes (Wien: Anton Strauss, 1813), ed. Eugen Schmitz (München: Heinrich Lewy, 1910). 60 Ibid., 21. “Es unterliegt wohl keinem Zweifel, daß von dem Opernbuche wo nicht der ganze Erfolg der Oper, doch der größte Teil desselben abhängt, weil das Gedicht den Komponisten zur Erfindung des Gesanges begeistern soll.” 61 Ibid., 24. “denn in der Oper können Poesie und Musik, eine wie die andere, nur durch die engste Vereinigung wirken. Miteinander verbunden, sind sie allmächtig; teilen sie aber ihr Interesse, so ist alles verloren.” 62 Ibid. “Der Dichter darf daher nie vergessen, daß sein Werk für die Musik bestimmt ist und daß diese nur Bilder und Leidenschaften, nicht rednerische Wortgepränge fordert.”

126

It is rather a common misconception that any good instrumental composer could also set an opera in music. He, who holds the rules of composition and the knowledge of instruments cannot advance any further in the dramatic composition unless he understands the scansion of the verse in the poetry. And setting the most periodic progression of tones under the words of a poetic text has not for a long time now been called writing dramatic music.63

Like Hoffmann discussed in the “Poet and the Composer,” Mosel aspired to the unity of the words and music. Just as the character in the dialogue Theodore claimed, “It’s impossible for anyone to create a work by himself that is equally outstanding in word and music.”64

The idea that music and text work together equally in opera occurred not just in treatises, but in periodicals as well. A contributor to the WT expressed the desired balance in an essay

“Ueber das Verhältnis des Operndichters zum Compositeurs.”65 According to the author, poetry should neither play the primary part in opera nor should it be subordinate to the goals of the music composition. Poetry was to permeate the entire work in harmonic union with the music.

Composers and librettists were not qualified to play each other’s role in the creation of opera, but to the author that did not excuse them from having a voice in contributing to greater goals of the opera: “It is remarkable that our great composers are no poets and that our great poets are no musicians.”66 On the one hand, by recognizing the limitations of what composers and librettists could accomplish on their own, the writer supported Hoffmann’s belief that the composer could write truly Romantic music only if inspired by the poet. Yet on the other hand, the writer did not

63 Ibid., 34. “Es ist ein ziemlich allgemeiner Irrtum, daß jeder gute Instrumental- Komponist auch eine Oper in Musik setzen könne. Derjenige, der blos die Regeln des Tonsatzes und die Kenntnis der Instrumente besitzt, ist in der dramatischen Komposition noch nicht weiter vorgerückt, als derjenige in der Dichtkunst, welcher die Scansion der Verse versteht; und in den Worten eines Gedichts auch die allerregelmäßigste Folge von Tönen unterlegen, heißt noch lange nicht dramatische Musik schreiben.” 64 Hoffmann, “The Poet and the Composer,” 189. 65 “Ueber das Verhältnis des Operndichters zum Compositeurs,” WT 11 (12 January 1814): 41–2. 66 Ibid. “Auffallend ist es, das unsere größten Compositeurs keine Dichter, unsere größten Dichter keine Musiker sind.”

127

see the fruits of such a relationship realized alone in the musical declamation of text, as in recitative. Rather, music for the orchestra in the opera gave the composer full freedom to elevate the words of the poet with musical tones. He equated the librettist to Pygmalion, requiring only a spark to enliven his perfect form, and the composer to Prometheus, bringing the flame of inspiration.

Significantly, Gehe’s opera Die bezauberte Rose proved an example for debating the relationship of the composer to the librettist for another critic as well, a philosopher also committed to the importance of the text without discounting the significance of the music. Carl

Ludwig Seidel (1788–1844) titled his review of Gehe and Wolfram’s Die bezauberte Rose in the

BamZ “Bemerkungen über Oper und Operndichtung” to comment on the significance of the libretto to the entire work.67 Previously in the eighth treatise of the Charinomos: Beiträge zur allgemeinen Theorie und Geschichte der schönen Künste,68 Seidel had encouraged poets to cultivate a deep understanding of the aesthetic capabilities of music in their collaboration with composers. The result of this endeavor was that each individual art would sacrifice its independence for the communal world of drama. Seidel referred to Greek thought in

Charinomos: “Even the epic poems appear, at least in earlier times, together with music and orchestra.”69

Thus in his review of Die bezauberte Rose, Seidel reiterated his theory that a good opera text was one written by a librettist with a sympathetic understanding of musical composition: “A librettist must, if he wants to achieve distinction in this genre, necessarily possess a considerable

67 Carl Ludwig Seidel, “Bemerkungen über Oper und Operndichtung,” BamZ 48 (29 November 1826): 385–6; BamZ 49 (6 December 1826): 393–5. 68 Carl Ludwig Seidel, Charinomos: Beiträge zur allgemeine Theorie und Geschichte der schönen Künste (Magdeburg: Ferdinand Rubach, 1825–8). 69 Ibid., VIII: 497. “Die epische Dichtung sogar erscheint, in früheren Zeiten wenigstens, vergesellschaftet mit Musik und Orchestik.”

128

knowledge of music; the deficiency of this knowledge, however, still appears a real concern in the best new texts of this art.”70 As Mosel had indicated in his treatise, Seidel encouraged a mutual understanding of the two crafts. He cited a passage from die bezauberte Rose that he described as “no less than musical,” in order to illustrate the type of texts written with the music in mind:71

Blumen umblühet sie! Zephir in Melodie Schmeichelnd umwalle Sie! Stimmen des Waldes Wehet ihr zu Grüsse des Friedens, Segen und Ruh.72

Unfortunately, Seidel did not provide any practical guidance in proper scansion for vocal melodies. Still, his discussion of the relationship in the context of Gehe’s opera provided readers with a model for future German operas. He was encouraged by the growing audiences, and encouraged composers and librettists to capitalize on the genre’s popularity to espouse more lofty goals: “The increasing taste of the theatergoing public for opera is certainly a joyous event—at least in the sense that actual drama is not compromised by it.”73 Seidel’s subscription to the prevalent viewpoint that the role of the composer and librettist be fused together into a joint artistic collaboration led him to conclude that librettists needed to begin thinking like composers in supplying texts for song writing so that the ultimate balance could be achieved.

70 Seidel, “Bemerkungen,” 394. “Der Operndichter muss, wenn er Bedeutendes in dieser Gattung leisten will, durchaus eine mehr als oberflächliche Kenntnis von der Musik besitzen; der Mangel dieses Wissens aber zeigt sich immer noch sehr fühlbar selbst in den besten neueren Dichtungen dieser Art.” 71 Ibid. “Verse, wie z. B. die folgenden, sind in der That nicht weniger als musikalische.” 72 Ibid. “Flowers bloom everywhere, a zephyr in the melody coaxingly drops before you! The voices of the forest blow it with greetings of peace, mercy and tranquility.” 73 Ibid., 394–5. “Der wachsende Geschmack des Theater-Publikums für die Oper ist—in so fern nur der Sinn für das eigentliche Drama dadurch nicht gefährdet wird—sicher eine erfreuliche Erscheinung.”

129

Also committing to a united relationship, another anonymous critic offered a different response to Reinbeck’s essay in the ZeW.74 Rather than reject Reinbeck’s claim from the opposite vantage point of the composer—as the “friend of music” that wrote to the MgS did by identifying a body of insufficient libretti and a high premium for arias—this anonymous critic wrote of the equal contribution of music and text to opera’s overall form:

This dramatic genre [opera] has managed to fight its mixed nature with its own, not slight difficulties. It makes two demands, which are not easily fulfilled. Two arts—poetry and music—should merge in the creation of a theatrical work. In the end it is necessary that both relinquish their individuality and mutually sacrifice many of their idiosyncrasies so that a product arises, to which neither one nor the other belongs.75

Such an attitude was a reminder to critics, composers, and librettists together that there was no gain in praising an opera whose score overcame deficiencies in the text or whose text more clearly connected audiences to the dramatic mode of the story than stock dance and song forms.

And for advocates of German opera in the early nineteenth century, like Reinbeck, Weber,

Spohr, Hoffmann, and others, this was a point worth taking to heart.

Conclusion

74 “Bemerkungen über die Oper,” ZeW 57 (20 March 1812): 449–53; ZeW 58 (21 March 1812): 457–61; ZeW 59 (23 March 1812): 469–70. The writer makes no direct reference or quotation from either Reinbeck’s essay or to the response in the MgS; however, the essay appeared a month after Reinbeck’s essay in the same journal, and evidence that the author was aware of the debate is also the passing reference to “Freunde der Musik” as one-sided, recalling the essay two weeks earlier in the MgS “Bemerkungen eines Musikfreundes.” 75 Ibid., 449. “Diese dramatische Gattung [Oper] hat vermöge gemischten Natur mit eigenen, nicht geringen Schwierigkeiten zu kämpfen. Sie macht zwei Forderungen, welche sich nicht leicht erfüllen lassen. Zwei Künste—die Dichtung und Tonkunst—sollen sich zur Hervorbringung Eines theatralischen Werkes vereinigen. Zu dem Ende ist es nothwendig, daß beide auf ihre Selbstständigkeit Verzicht leisten, und wechselseitig von ihrem eigenthümlichen Vermögen so viel aufopfern, daß ein Product hervorgehe, welches weder der einen noch der andern besonders angehört.”

130

Hoffmann’s vision that a romantic fury would inspire the composer and librettist to a unified front would not reach complete realization in the early nineteenth century. Many reviews continued to bemoan the poor supply of sufficient libretti, citing non-dramatic texts, lack of clarity in the story, as well as plots that failed to excite audiences. Although many writers shared

Hoffmann’s vision that the composer and librettist should be kindred members of one church, the practical demonstration of said relationship was much more difficult to pin down. Some critics, such as Weißer and K. from Sondershausen, echoed the criticism composer critics often had toward libretti by emphasizing the important role music played in carrying the drama, and how music alone could guarantee the opera’s success. Other librettist critics, like Reinbeck and Gehe, however, challenged this opinion in defense of the text’s role. Yet in a lack of successful libretti, the majority of writers maintained a commitment to an equal relationship, optimistic that

Germany would find its national opera when good libretti were to be found.

131 CHAPTER SIX

IN SEARCH OF “EINHEIT”

Critics of early nineteenth-century German opera established multiple criteria on which to judge and evaluate new national works, criteria that ranged from the practical and objective

(proper text settings, good diction on the part of singers, etc.) to the subjective and aesthetic (the unity of the text and the music). German operas of that time often relied on traditional aria formats and techniques borrowed from other national traditions, so many critics made a special effort to promote characteristics that would distinguish German works from their French and

Italian competitors. In particular, German opera reviewers adopted the concept of unity [Einheit], a concept prevalent in eighteenth-century instrumental music criticism. Although few critics explicitly connected the idea of unity to an ideal national genre, their discussions linked the two, creating the expectation that a good German opera should not simply be a collection of songs.

The criticism of Italian opera, which often applied to new German operas, was that too much attention was given to the arias, ornamentations, and virtuosity. Critics claimed that composers and librettists considered the recitatives, plot, and setting as an afterthought. Reviews of Rossini’s operas epitomized this characterization of foreign opera. The AmZ, for example, described the makeup of his new works as “fully equipped with gimmicks, appoggiaturas, affectations, crescendos and noises [but] stripped of all the drama, setting and local color.”1 The negative criticism of this type of fragmentation in both foreign operas and some local ones in turn highlighted unity as a desirable quality.

1 “Nachrichten aus Mayland,” AmZ 5 (2 February 1820): 80. “Man kann behaupten, dass die heutige, mit allen Kniffen, Appoggiaturen, Zierereyen, Crescendo’s und Getöse ausgerüstete, von aller Dramatik, Situation und Localfarbe entblöste Rossini’sche Oper…” Discussing unity proved useful, as critics could identify it in an opera from a number of angles. On one level, thematic and motivic recurrence and signification, as well as consistency in style and feeling, gave the composition a uniform musical language. The sympathetic relationship between poetry and musical expression provided critics with another angle in which to evaluate a work’s unity. And finally, the relationship of parts to the whole, such as an overture that either encapsulated the entire drama or led seamlessly into the opening scene, could convince critics that a work was artistically bound together. Contributing further to the possibilities of recognizing unity is that the quality of “contrast” was also subsumed into conceptions of unity. This provided critics with a possibility to praise compositions of either homogenous or strikingly heterogenous makeup as long as they were satisfied with the final result. Critics never specifically defined unity, but they held it as an ideal for the new German operas that they supported.

This chapter argues that a predominant trend of German opera criticism in the early nineteenth century was one in search of unity, no matter how or why it was conceived. As reviewers described Italian operas as frivolously disjointed, they promoted many German operas as skillfully interwoven. Despite the many dissimilar interpretations of unity in the evaluation of new works, German opera criticism nonetheless pursued it consistently. And the paradox surrounding opera’s inherent lack of unity—that is through the juxtaposition of multiple arts, and the unrealistic shift from speech or recitation to song, and from realistic time to performance— renders its pursuit all the more engaging.

Finding beauty in unity is reflective of late eighteenth-century criticism. The consistent reference to the whole [das Ganze] when discussing unity resulted in a shift in thought that reiterated the emerging concept of composition as a “work” instead of a “procedure.” According

133 to Mary Sue Morrow, late eighteenth century reviewers of German instrumental music considered das Ganze as a more “internal and organic concept of unity” than the uniform or consistent “adherence to an abstract Affect” that predominated earlier in the century.2 Works were therefore viewed as uniformly built rather than consistent in affect. Judith L. Schwartz has argued that notions of unity during the eighteenth century shifted dramatically from one of wholeness to one that viewed contrasting ideas as a binding force.3 Again the attention to relationships, whether among contrasting elements or between parts and the whole, led music critics to examine elements in the musical score. This further encouraged reviewers to judge unsuccessful works by a lack of visible or aural unity.

Recent scholarship notes that through most of the eighteenth century writers considered instrumental music secondary to vocal music, and that in the nineteenth century instrumental music became the genre German critics favored.4 Yet the vocabulary developed to evaluate instrumental music seeped into opera aesthetics as well. The emphasis on unity stems from the aesthetics of Immanuel Kant at the end of the eighteenth century and was shared by influential theorists such as Johann Georg Sulzer, who defined unity as “that through which we understand many things as being parts of a single thing.”5 The identification of motivic relationships within

2 Mary Sue Morrow, German Music Criticism in the Late Eighteenth Century; Aesthetic Issues in Instrumental Music (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 72–3. 3 Judith L. Schwartz, “Conceptions of Musical Unity in the 18th Century,” The Journal of Musicology 18 (Winter 2001), 57. 4 For example see Mark Evan Bonds, Music as Thought: Listening to the Symphony in the Age of Beethoven (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 6–7, for a comparison between the discussion of instrumental music in Kant’s Critique of Judgment and E.T.A. Hoffmann’s review of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony; and find similar comparisons in Morrow, 14–15. 5 Qtd. in Mary Sue Morrow, “Of Unity and Passion: the Aesthetics of Concert Criticism in Early Nineteenth-Century Vienna,” 19th-Century Music 13 (1989–1990): 205.

134 a composition increased the work’s value for the audience, who through analysis or intent listening derived pleasure in understanding the music’s inner logic.6

In his Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste, Sulzer described desirable qualities that were common to the production of all the arts.7 And particularly in his discussion of aesthetic unity, Sulzer addressed how criticism should influence writer’s judgment of art:

It is easy to see how important to the evaluation of any work is the discovery or recognition of a work’s nature and its ensuing unity. Whoever cannot at least dimly feel what a thing should be and how its parts cohere will be able neither to recognize nor to sense its perfection. This is undoubtedly how it happens that there can be so many different opinions about the same thing. Without any doubt, we judge every object following an innate concept of the ideal, and by which we accept or reject things that are in some object as either suitable or contradictory. Whoever cannot imagine such an ideal will be incapable of judging anything that he hears or sees. He will notice only the impression of each individual part as a self-sufficient thing. If he is satisfied with these parts, he will judge the whole as beautiful. So it happens that one person might find a given speech beautiful since he is pleased by individual elements of style and expression by themselves, while another person who perceives a glaring deficiency in the plan of the whole finds the speech unbearable to listen to.8

Critics did not initially apply his theories to evaluating German opera as they did for instrumental music in the late eighteenth century, aside from some general debates on opera that revolved around connecting music and text. But by the second decade of the nineteenth century, writers began to apply these ideas to distinguish successful German operas. Observing unity in a work precipitated a broader range of criticism that motivated writers to seek and disparage what did not belong or make sense to the grand scheme.

6 Ibid. 7 Thomas Christensen, “Introduction” to Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 8 Johann Georg Sulzer, Allgemeine Theorie der Schönen Künste (2 vols. Leipzig: Weidmannschen, 1771–1774; 4th enlarged edition with supplements by C. F. von Blankenburg, 4 vols., Leipzig, 1796–1798), English selections, eds. Nancy Kovaleff Baker and Thomas Christensen in Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 46.

135 One well-known example of how writers appropriated Sulzer’s idea of unity is

Hoffmann’s essay “Beethoven’s Instrumental Music” printed in the Leipzig Zeitung für die elegante Welt in 1813, which adopted vocabulary introduced in the eighteenth century for evaluating nineteenth-century instrumental music: “Aesthetic mechanicians have often lamented the absolute lack of underlying unity and structure in Shakespeare, while the deeper glance could see the beautiful tree with leaves, blossoms, and fruit growing from one germinating seed; so it is that only through a very deep study of Beethoven’s instrumental music is that conscious thoughtfulness of composition disclosed which always accompanies true genius and is nourished by a study of art.”9 In other words the work’s unity arose out of an appreciation for the inner workings through deep listening or intense study—the work of the critic.

In the nineteenth century, philosophers described opera as an inseparable whole of poetry and music, and at times even the visual arts. The University of Leipzig professor Karl Heinrich

Ludwig Pölitz (1772–1838) addressed contemporary thought on the unification of the arts in opera in his Das Gesammtgebiet der teutschen Sprache, nach Prosa, Dichtkunst und

Beredsamkeit.10 Pölitz was certainly an ardent supporter of the development of German national music. His collection of J. S. Bach manuscripts, along with some 13,360 volumes of books, served as the basis for the holdings at the Stadtbibliothek in Leipzig.11 Although historians have criticized the bulk of his output as being highly derivative of Kantian philosophy, Das

Gesammtgebiet der teutschen Sprache provides a useful, comprehensive survey of the

9 Qtd. in Arthur Ware Lock, “Beethoven’s Instrumental Music: Translated from E. T. A. Hoffmann’s Kreisleriana,” The Musical Quarterly 3 (1917), 129. 10 Karl Heinrich Ludwig Pölitz, Das Gesammtgebiet der teutschen Sprache, nach Prosa, Dichtkunst und Beredsamkeit, theoretisch und practish dargestellt (Leipzig: J. C. Hinricsche, 1825). 11 “Karl Heinrich Ludwig Pölitz (1772–1838)” The Dictionary of Eighteenth-Century German Philosophers (New York: Thoemmes Continuum, forthcoming). A trial entry is available at .

136 intersections of German aesthetics and literature. His chapter on the dramatic forms of poetry includes a persuasive argument for the pursuit of unity in opera: “The expression of complexity and the formation of the whole must be linked to both arts at the same time. Although the binding of poetry and music [Tonkunst] constitutes the basic requirement of the aesthetic character of opera, still the remaining arts, namely painting, sculpture, and composition

[Tonkunst], are not infrequently called upon in order to strengthen the total impression of opera.”12

What made opera a unified artwork, according to Pölitz, was the ability of poets to assemble a true aesthetic whole from the individual arts:

Because these combined arts bring forth a common and compelling impression to the powers of feeling that depend on the complete unity of opera as artwork; thus the individual proclamations of the fine arts drawn into the circle of opera must be based on the law of aesthetic causal relationships, and merge with the poetic and musical achievement in form to an indissolvable whole.13

Thus there was no consistent pattern for unifying the arts in a work. Unity was to be apparent to the concert critic who identified the work’s inner relationships. The ability to recognize the construction and appreciate that all of the components contributed to the whole shaped the manner in which opera reviewers approached new works.

12 Pölitz, Gesammtgebiet, 394. “[Es] muß auch der Ausdruck der Verwickelung und Entwickelung des Ganzen an beide Künste zugleich gebunden seyn. Ob nun gleich die Verbindung der Dicht- und Tonkunst die Grundbedingung des ästhetischen Charakters der Oper bildet; so werden doch nicht selten auch die Wirkungen der übrigen Künste, namentlich der Mahlerei, der Plastik und der Tonkunst, aufgeboten, um den Gesammteindruck der Oper zu verstärken.” It is unclear what distinction Pölitz intends from the two uses of “Tonkunst.” Following the logic of the phrase, I’ve translated the first as a broad concept or understanding of music and the later as craft. 13 Ibid., 394–5. “Denn sollen diese verbundenen Künste einen gemeinschaftlichen und unwiderstehlichen Eindruck auf das Gefühlsvermögen hervorbringen, der von der vollendeten Einheit der Oper als Kunsterzeugniß abhängt; so müssen die einzelnen Ankündigungen der übrigen in den Kreis der Oper gezogenen schönen Künste auf dem Gesetzte des ästhetischen Causalzusammenhanges beruhen, und mit der dichterischen und tonkünstlerischen Vollendung der Form zu einem unauflöslichen Ganzen verschmelzen.”

137 Another Leipzig professor contributing to the discussion of unity in opera in the early nineteenth century was Christian Hermann Weisse. Unlike Pölitz, Weisse gave music the power to bring together all of the disparate parts into the unified work: “Thus opera, as an individual song work, will not express an individual feeling, or one such that is in itself the principle of a plurality of constantly developing out of itself, but rather one such plurality of feelings that are bound to unity on no other measure than just through the music.”14 As a student of Hegel,

Weisse expressed the goals of unity by identifying a dialectical step between composing instrumental music and composing song that ultimately formed the ideal opera. Only through “a negation of negation” concerning the “concepts of instrumental music and song” would “the idea of opera come about,” or simply put “a negation of the negatives.”15 In citing Hegel’s double negation, also known as sublation,16 Weisse argued that the properties of composing instrumental music and composing song were incorporated into one another in composing opera.17 The

Hegelian language of Weisse’s influential aesthetic essay helped solidify the concept of unity as an ideal German composers should aspire to in opera.

14 Christian Hermann Weisse, System der Aesthetik als Wissenschaft von der Idee der Schönheit, vol. 2 (Leipzig: C. H. F. Hartmann, 1830), 89. “So wird die Oper nicht, wie das einzelne Gesangwerk, eine einzelne Empfindung darstellen, oder eine solche, die in sich selbst das Princip einer Mehrheit von stetig aus ihr sich entwickelnden ist, sondern eine solche Mehrheit von Empfindungen, die unter sich auf keine andere Weise, als eben durch die Musik, zur Einheit verbunden sind.” 15 Ibid., 85. “Es ist eine Negation der Negation, durch welche für denjenigen, der die Begriffe der Instrumentalmusik und des Gesanges speculative durchgegangen ist, der Begriff der Oper zu Stande kommt; eine Verneinung nämlich des Negativen.” 16 Hegel’s “Aufhebung.” 17 Weisse differed from Hegel in his thoughts on instrumental music—see Berthold Hoeckner, Programming the Absolute: Nineteenth-Century German Music and the Hermeneutics of the Moment (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 165. The language he applied to opera in System der Aesthetik, however, is more congruent with his teacher’s concept of sublation.

138 Critics in the widely circulating dailies often used the same aesthetic vocabulary. It did not matter that the majority of the readers of the ZeW, Gesellschafter, and the MgS would not have understood how such concepts as Einheit [unity], Abwechselung [variation], and

Mannigfaltigkeit [diversity] applied to the composition of musical phrases and large-scale forms; the qualifiers stood as positive attributes that helped shape a discerning audience for the type of

German opera the reviewers aimed to cultivate through criticism. In a ZeW review of Der

Tyroler Waisel, for example, the critic summoned Einheit to address inconsistencies in the performances of the singers: “Herr Monhard gave several performances in the role of Herr von

Luipan quite favorably, however his depiction lacked unity: sometimes he illustrated the foppish dandy too much, and other times too little.”18 The feuilletons rarely ventured outside of this approach to Einheit in the German Opera reviews. However, a few longer essays were published in these publications that offered the more abstract language of unity. One example is in J. A. G.

Steuber’s essay “Über die Oper,” published in the Freimüthige in 1815: “A lyrical text demands unity. Feeling must be present in each lyrical text. The aesthetic unity of a text must not be confused with logical unity.”19 Steuber continued by differentiating opera from drama, claiming that a lyrical unity in a libretti demanded music. Such an essay may have addressed a specific segment of the feuilleton’s readership, but as the review of Tyrol Waisel illustrates Einheit was a favorable attributed for German opera at any level of discussion.

18 “Korrespondenz aus Weimar,” ZeW 21 (5 February 1808): 168. “Hr. Monhard gab einzelne Züge in der Rolle des Hrn. Von Luipan recht glücklich, aber seiner Darstellung fehlte die Einheit: bald zeigte er den geckenhaften Stutzer zu wenig, bald wieder zu viel.” 19 J. A. G. Steuber, “Über die Oper: Ein Aufsatz,” Freimüthige 55 (18 March 1815): 220. “Ein lyrische Gedicht verlangt Einheit. Es muß demnach in jedem lyrischen Gedichte ein Gefühl vorherrschend sein. Die ästhetische Einheit eines Gedichtes darf aber nicht mit der logischen Einheit verwechselt werden.”

139 Unity when Parts add up to a Whole

Given the pervasiveness of the concept of unity in German philosophical thought, it is not surprising that it would be applied to German opera. The different types of numbers (arias, recitative, choral sections, dances, and or instrumental interludes) that made up an opera all had to serve a unifying function. When critiquing original German operas, critics demanded that all the individual parts contributed to the unity of the work as a whole. No matter how successful a part might be in isolation, if it did not fit into the whole, it did not belong.

A Cassel correspondent to the ZeW offered a favorable discussion of the relationship of the individual parts to the whole in an 1818 review of König Siegmar: “To highlight individual pieces of this opera as particularly successful is not possible, for each has its place and has its own entity that contributes to the total effect. Even [with regard to] the music pieces, in which the poet sets the exposition of the drama, the composer knew how to outfit [them] with all the riches of his art, which induce admiration.”20 Audiences and critics alike eagerly anticipated the new opera, and it figures significantly in German opera history since the influential AmZ editor

Rochlitz had provided the libretto and the emerging conductor and composer Karl Guhr had written the music.21 Their collaboration on the project established goals for German opera, encouraging the composer and librettist alike to display a shared vision for the entire composition. Unfortunately, according to the reviewer, the opera personnel and singers were

20 “Korrespondenz und Notizen aus Kassel,” ZeW 113 (12 June 1818): 903. “Einzelne Stücke dieser Oper, als besonders gelungen hervorzuheben, ist wohl nicht gut möglich, denn es steht jedes an seinem Platze, und jedes bildet für sich ein Ganzes, das auf den Totaleindruck hinwirkt. Selbst die Tonstücke, in welche der Dichter die Exposition des Drama legte, wußte der Komponist mit einem Reichthum seiner Kunst auszustatten, der zur Bewunderung hinreißt.” 21 Although Rochlitz wrote the libretto to König Siegmar the year he stepped down as editor of the AmZ (1818), he remained more active in criticism than writing opera libretti. Guhr helped raise the profile of German opera in Cassel in the early 1820s just before Spohr’s arrival.

140 unable to execute a favorable performance of König Siegmar, suggesting that audiences likely could not recognize this unity because they were too distracted by the poor quality of singing.

Weber addressed the relationship of self-sufficient isolated musical numbers to the entire plot and whole work in many of his reviews. He felt that the self-contained numbers of Weigl’s

Das Waisenhaus did not create a sense of the whole.22 But his admiration for the makeup of

Hoffmann’s Undine led him to argue in his review of the work that all German operas should contain complete numbers that both advanced the plot and contributed to the entire work:

In no art form is this latter [number opera] so hard to avoid, and therefore so frequently encountered as in opera. Of course when I speak of opera I am speaking of the German ideal, namely a self-sufficient work of art in which every feature and every contribution by the related arts are molded together in a certain way and dissolve, to form a new work. In most cases individual numbers decide the fate of an opera. It is only rarely that such attractive individual features, which strike the listener immediately, disappear in the final impression of the work as a whole, as should ideally occur. For ideally the listener should fall in love with the whole work and only later pick out the details of which it is composed.23

Weber’s idea genre was strikingly different from the type Italian opera had enjoyed by the virtue of its arias and vocal acrobatics. By shifting the allure of opera from individual songs to the aesthetic whole he rejected operas that he felt were a mere shell for virtuosic display. The operatic whole was the goal, not the crowd-pleasing aria.

Additionally in his review of Hoffmann’s Undine, Weber honored the composer with four paragraphs about the ideal German opera that he later repeated in his Tonkünstlers Leben, a

22 Weber, Writings on Music, 232. “[His] concern with making each musical number as self-sufficient as possible melodically, so as to fulfill the scenic demands of a work in this way rather than by rigid adherence to dramatic truth in the declamation.” 23 Ibid., 201–2.

141 novella surviving in fragments.24 He championed the unity within musical numbers especially when composed in service of defining the entire work:

The very nature and inner constitution of opera—as a whole containing other wholes— has this essential drawback, which only a few heroes of the art have managed to surmount. Every musical number has its own proper architecture, which makes it an independent and organic unity, yet this should be absorbed in any study of the work as a whole. Ensembles, in particular, can and should show a number of different aspects simultaneously, a Janus-like image, whose different faces are visible at a single glance.25

Weber embraced what he felt was an ideal union of contrast and seamlessness, echoing the ideas of Sulzer on the dual features of inner development and outward unity. Weber also cited these qualities in his characterization of German opera composers and their ideal operatic form in the essay “To the Art Loving Citizens of Dresden”: “Whereas other nations concern themselves chiefly with the sensuous satisfaction of isolated moments, the German demands a self-sufficient work of art, in which all the parts make up a beautiful and unified whole,”26 again elevating the

German operatic concept above all others. He pursued this concept in his own compositions as well.27

Not all new German operas had musical unity, and it is also possible to determine what these writers thought contributed to unity by observing what they thought disrupted unity.

Heinrich Lobe’s grosse Oper Wittekind, Herzog von Sachsen had received praise in the ZeW for its attempt at recitative and presentation of continuous music; however, it did not satisfy the

24 The role of the concert critic in perceiving Unity in a heterogenous form like opera resounds Friedrich Schlegel’s description of the critic’s role in making sense of fragments. Weber’s work both survives and functions in fragments. See John Daverio, Nineteenth-Century Music and the German Romantic Ideology (New York: Schirmer, 1993), 71–3. 25 Weber, Writings on Music, 201–2. 26 Ibid., 206–7. 27 For a detailed example of how Weber developed a dramaturgical strategy for unifying German opera in the early nineteenth century, see Stephen C. Meyer’s discussion of traits Weber picked up from producing and revising Méhul’s Joseph in Carl Maria von Weber and the Search for a German Opera (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003), 73.

142 ZeW’s goals for unity. The anonymous correspondent from Weimar, where the work premiered in January 1822, was hesitant to judge the opera as a successfully composed, unified whole:

“One must also criticize [the fact] that the individual numbers often do not constitute a whole, but rather consist of isolated, incongruous parts. The disadvantage resulting from this defect is that one takes away no lasting impression from the individual lyrical pieces and seldom feels entirely satisfied.”28 The reviewer continued to dwell on the lack of unity in Lobe’s work, criticizing the frequent turnover of musical motives: “The motives are not continued and developed; new ideas continuously crowd out the previous ones.”29 Not only did the constant exchange of ideas create a distraction, they hindered the appearance of cyclicism and thus unity.

Despite the recognition critics of both the AmZ and the ZeW gave to Lobe for the ambitious composition, ultimately Wittekind failed, surviving only two performances in Weimar.30

The Overture’s Contribution to Unity

Early nineteenth-century critics often discussed the overture’s contribution to a work’s unity. Some composers followed the eighteenth century model of including themes from the opera as a potpourri overture, but not all critics approved of this practice. Many nineteenth- century writers were instead interested in how the themes of the overture prepared listeners for the overall mood of the opera. A suite of themes in an indiscriminate order often created an

28 “Korrespondenz aus Weimar,” ZeW 92 (11 May 1822): 735. “auch muß man rügen, daß die einzelne Nummer oft kein Ganzes ausmacht, sondern aus isolirten, nicht zusammenpassenden Theilen besteht. Aus diesem ermangelnden Vorzug erwächst der Nachtheil, daß man keinen vollständig bleibenden Eindruck von den einzelnen lyrischen Stücken mit hinwegnimmt und sich selten ganz befriedigt fühlt.” 29 Ibid. “Die Motive sind nicht ausreichend verfolgt und durchgeführt; neue Ideen verdrängen immer die vorigen.” 30 See Wilhelm Bode, Goethes Schauspieler und Musiker: Erinnerungen von Eberwein und Lobe, mit Ergänzungen von Wilhelm Bode (Berlin: E. S. Mittler und Sohn, 1912).

143 awkward transition into the ensuing drama. Gehe, librettist for Spohr’s Zemire und Azor and

Jessonda, argued that the overture should be consistent with the overall mood of opera’s libretto, instead of merely serving as a self-referential independent composition of memorable tunes from the scenes to follow. He voiced this opinion in a review of Reissiger’s Libella: “Shouldn’t composers map out their overtures more with a poetic view of all the elements of the text, instead of fusing together individual thoughts of the opera as a mosaic?”31 At first it seems ironic that a librettist like Gehe would issue such a strong suggestion for a component of opera that is not even found in the libretto. But as a critic, the use of recurring themes in the whole opera had to serve the overall drama.

Spohr’s autobiography, a work that doubles as a forum of criticism in its frequent evaluations of contemporary composers, reveals his impetus for using reminiscence motives in

Faust (as discussed above). In a discussion of Mozart’s overture to Die Zauberflöte, an early model for many German composers in order to make the potpourri overture more congruent with the overall mood and setting of the ensuing opera,32 Spohr confirmed that he had adopted the procedure in his own overture to Alruna, die Eulenkönigin (1808):

The Breslau correspondent said that the overture to Alruna was not free of reminiscences. He really could have suggested that it was entirely copied from the overture of the Zauberflöte because that is what I set out to do. Given my veneration of Mozart and my admiration for this overture, it seemed to me that copying it was something very natural and praiseworthy; at that time in the development of my compositional talents, I attempted many other similar imitations of Mozart’s masterworks.33

31 Gehe, “Correspondenz und Notizen aus Dresden,” ZeW 25 (1829): 199. “Sollten nicht überhaupt die Tonsetzer, statte einzelne Gedanken der Oper als Mosaik zusammenzufügen, ihre Ouvertüren mehr mit poetischer Anschauung aller Elemente des Textes ausarbeiten?” 32 Spohr was not alone in emulating Mozart’s popular overture. Himmel also modeled his overture to Die Sylphen (1806) on the overture to Die Zauberflöte. See Aubrey Garlington, “German Romantic Opera and the Problem of Origins,” Musical Quarterly 63 (1977): 256. 33 Qtd. in Gerald Killian, Studien zu Louis Spohr (Karlsruhe: M. Wahl, 1986), 16. “Von der Ouvertüre zu Alruna sagte jener Breslauer Berichterstatter, sie sei nicht frei von Reminiszenzen. Er hätte geradezu sagen können, sie sei der Ouvertüre der Zauberflöte ganz und

144

In turn, Spohr’s overtures inspired Weber to do the same, and his son, Max Weber, pointed directly toward Spohr’s Faust as the source of the inspiration: “The opera had seized on Weber’s fancy, not only on account of its own intrinsic beauties, but of the principle on which the overture had been composed. This principle, by which an overture is made an expounder of the feelings of the whole opera, and yet an independent instrumental work, was followed by Weber in all of his later operas.”34 Thus, the two major figures of early nineteenth-century German opera both continued the procedure of Mozart’s late operas in unifying the musical makeup of their own operas.

A review of Drechsler’s melodrama Der verlorene Sohn in the AmZ(W) in 1819 offered a more organic description of the process Weber had admired. For the author, overtures were akin to seeds, which sprouted themes that would continue to grow and bear fruit throughout the opera:

“The overture, as an embryo of the whole, approached; on the whole its lovely motives recur, properly distributed.”35 The success of Drechsler’s overture was only affirmed once the drama had run its full course, providing a whole new realm for evaluating overtures than just as concert pieces that included themes from the opera. The imagery evoked in the reviewer’s description of the musical themes in the overture is another example of how nineteenth century writers used organic compounds as a metaphor for describing the abstract narrative of musical works.

gar nachgebildet; denn dies war die Aufgabe, die ich mir gestellt hatte. Bei meiner Verehrung für Mozart und der Bewunderung, die ich dieser Ouvertüre zollte, schien mir eine Nachbildung derselben etwas sehr Natürliches und Lobenswertes, und ich hatte in jener Zeit der Entwicklung meines Kompositionstalentes schon mehrere ähnliche Nachbildungen Mozartscher Meisterwerke versucht.” 34 Max Maria von Weber, Carl Maria von Weber: The Life of an Artist, trans. J. Palgrave Simpson, vol. 1 (Boston: Oliver Ditson and Company, 1895), 296. 35 “Wiener-Bühnen: Theater in der Leopoldstadt,” AmZ(W) 18 (3 March 1819): 140. “Die Ouverture, als Embryo des Ganzen, sprach an; ihre lieblichen Motive kehren, gehörig vertheilt, im ganzen wieder.”

145 Mosel also defined the function of the overture and its relationship to the rest of the opera in his Versuch einer Ästhetik des dramatischen Tonsatzes. According to Mosel, “It is its business to announce the plot to a certain manner and to make the mind of the listener receptive to each impression that the librettist and composer have in mind for their work. The overture therefore must always embrace the same character that is prevalent in the opera itself.”36 Mosel continued to emphasize the significance of making each overture unique and embedded in the whole idea of the opera in his other essays as well.37

Although Mosel was restrictive in characterizing recitative as the privilege of opera alone—excluding Singspiel and other dramatic works with music—he believed that the overture should have the same role in all dramatic genres.38 A critic for the AmZ(W) agreed that the function of the overture should place the listener in the right mindset, and emphasized that this was just as important to the unity of plays and other dramatic works as well:

It begins to be generally accepted, what was already obvious long ago, that not solely in opera, but rather also in theater, the orchestra leads a language suitable to the content and character of the dramatic plot, and thus both the symphony or overture performed before the opening of the piece and the music pieces performed between the acts, should be of

36 Mosel, Versuch, 43. “Ihr Geschäft ist es, die Handlung auf gewisse Weise anzukünden und das Gemüt des Zuhörers für jene Eindrücke empfänglich zu machen, welche Dichter und Komponist in ihrem Werke zur Absicht haben. Die Ouvertüre muß daher immer denselben Charakter annehmen, welcher in der Oper selbst der herrschende ist.” 37 Mosel, “Vaudeville, Liederspiel, Singspiel, Oper,” AmZ(W) 87 (25 October 1820): 691. “So strebt der Tonsetzer, auch auf seiner Seite Einheit in das Werk zu bringen, und es, von der Ouvertüre an, die ein Vorgefühl des Inhalts der Oper gibt, bis zum Schlusschor, zu einem kunstmässigen Ganzen zu runden.” [Thus the composer, for his part, strives to bring unity into the work, and to round it out to a reasonably artistic whole, beginning with the overture, which anticipates the plot of the opera, until the closing chorus]. 38 Drechsler’s melodrama dates very early in his compositional career. The majority of his career was spent writing incidental music to the vaudevilles, fairy tales, and farces of Gleich and Bäuerle. Without a thorough investigation of the archives of the Viennese suburban theaters it is difficult to determine whether he extended the same approach to composing overtures of these other genres. Historians ought to take note of Drechsler’s association with the musical comedies of the suburban theaters, attesting to wide spectrum of musical theatrical genres to which critics extended their aesthetic standards.

146 the same character as the sense and spirit of the piece, and thus with the drama should build an integrated, well-rounded whole.39

As critics refined their opinion of how the opera overture should function in opera, they realized it could make a similar contribution to all types of narratives, and thus asked for more interaction between the opening orchestral number and the plot than was traditionally demanded of it.

The reviewer of Poissl’s Der Untersberg for the BamZ admired the manner in which the overture aided the listener in the drama, which was far more suitable than the Italian convention:

“How deep composition of our time has sunk, regrettably emerges from the overtures of newer

(especially Italian) works.”40 The author’s concern was that new composers were writing opera in the order that the works would be performed, so that the overture was completed before details of the drama were finalized—a reversal of the Italian practice of saving the overture for last.

Although the overture might contain themes from the ensuing opera, the consequence of composing opera in this order was that the “remaining plot appears as a work all its own, strictly divorced from the overture.”41 But Poissl’s overture encouraged the reviewer: “The spirit of unity rules in this musical number, which, forming the essence of the whole, could not exist without the whole, and without which would lack its artistic compass and would want a pilot that could commandingly lead the storm of feeling, which rampages in the work, to the clear peace of

39 “Über Musikstücke beym romantischen Trauerspiel” AmZ(W) 8 (20 February 1817): 58–9. “Es fängt an nachgerade allgemein anerkannt zu werden, was schon längst augenfällig war, das nicht in der Oper allein, sondern auch im Schauspiel, das Orchester eine dem Inhalte und Charakter der dramatischen Handlung zusagende Sprache führen, und folglich sowohl die vor Eröffnung des Stückes aufzuführende Symphonie oder Ouverture, als die zwischen den Aufzügen desselben vorzutragenden Musikstücke (sogenannte Entractes) mit dem Sinne und Geiste des Stückes von gleichem Charakter seyn, und so mit dem Drama ein in Eines verschmolzenes abgerundetes Ganze bilden sollen.” 40 “Die neueste Oper des Freiherrn v. Poissl: Der ‘Untersberg,’” BamZ 50 (12 December 1829): 396. “Wie tief die Tonkunst unsrer Zeit gesunken, geht leider! bei den neuern (besonders italienischen) Werken schon aus der Overtüre hervor.” 41 “Untersberg,” 396. “übriger Inhalt als ein, von diesen streng geschiedenes, eigenes Werk erscheint.”

147 a safe haven of isolation and resolution.”42 The BamZ reviewer employed the concept of unity to highlight compositional differences between German and Italian composers, echoing the journal’s overall campaign against Spontini and Italian opera in general.

Some of Hoffmann’s ideas toward a unified dramatic utterance crystallized fairly early in his compositional-critical career, while he was planning to write music for a melodrama based on the Biblical story of Joseph in Egypt.43 His review of the French melodrama Le Jugement de

Solomon by Adrien Quasin (1766–1828) contains a list of aesthetic criteria directed at the improvement of German stage works. Although Hoffmann’s discussion comes from a review of a melodrama, a few of his arguments concern components also found opera. Of particular interest to dramaturgy is the first enumerated point: “Every serious play should begin with an overture designed for it, to put the listener into an appropriate frame of mind. The effect of an introduzzione would be in proportion as it approximates to the opening scenes, thus forming a transition from the overture, which expresses the character of the play in general to the opening scenes, whose particular mood it reflects.”44 In the case of Salomon, Hoffmann admired how the overture captured the overall mood of tragedy, while the opening passage of the first scene transitioned to a lighter mood suitable for the garden setting at the beginning of the work. Thus the overture had two major functions that contributed to unity: it preserved the overall mood and initiated a feasible trajectory that carried into the story. German composers took Hoffmann’s recommendations to heart: Spohr’s Alruna and Faust both mimicked Mozart’s Don Giovanni in

42 Ibid., 399. “Der Geist der Einheit waltet in diesem Musikstück, welches, die Quintessenz des Ganzen bildend, ohne das Ganze nicht bestehen könnte, und ohne welches dieses seinen artistischen Wegweiser entbehren, den Piloten vermissen würde, der, den Sturm der Gefühle, die in dem Werke toben, beschwörend, zur klaren Ruhe, zum sichern Hafen der Abgeschlossenheit und Vollendung führt.” 43 Charlton, “Hoffmann and Opera,” 217–8. 44 Hoffmann, Musical Writings, 218.

148 another way as well, since the overtures lead seamlessly into the appropriate moods of the operas’ first scenes.45

A reviewer of B. A. Weber’s Hero for the AT in 1800 argued that the musical unity created by a successful opera was the greatest achievement of composition. “The overture places the listener fully in the mood in which he should be; and from the first aria onward the music rises until the last moment, where it brings forth the highest effect. The whole is a musical thought that stands before us clearly developed and inexorably captures the mind.”46 The reviewer argued that it was in opera that music could attain its most artistic height, placing an overture well united with its opera in favor over any other instrumental genre: “This unity of music, this gradual progression to a goal, is possible for the artist only in this genre of drama, which qualifies by this very quality for the greatest masterpiece of musical composition.”47 The critic’s description vividly portrays the presentation of an opera in performance as a dramatic trajectory with struggle, climax, and resolution. If music thoroughly contributed and enhanced this goal, it had achieved unity with the drama.

Dramatic Continuity as Unity

The manner in which critics praised overtures that led appropriately into the first scene of the opera illustrates another area where unity was valued. This connection, however, would be pointless if the drama itself lacked unity. Opera as drama required a uniform expression from

45 Brown, Critical Biography, 55, and Brown, Faust, 26. 46 “Berlin,” AT II/46 (November 1800): 323. “Die Ouvertüre setzt den Zuhörer ganz in die Stimmung, in der er sein muß; und von der ersten Arie an steigt die Musik bis auf den letzten Augenblick, wo sie den höchsten Effect hervorbringt. Das Ganze ist ein musikalischer Gedanke, der klar entwickelt vor uns da steht, und unaufhaltsam das Gemüth ergreift.” 47 “Berlin,” 323. “Diese Einheit der Musik, dieses allmählige Fortschreiten zu einem Ziele, ist dem Künstler nur in dieser Gattung der Dramen möglich, die sich gerade durch diese Eigenschaft, zu den größten Meisterwerken der Tonkunst eignen.”

149 beginning to end, and any thematic unity had to guide the listener through the process. One such obstacle was the alternation between speech or recitation and artistic song, as discussed in previous chapters.

Spohr chimed in on the debate in his “Appeal to German Composers,” offering guidance for when to use recitative to advance the drama. He recognized that one of the major hurdles

German opera faced was it roots in genres with an abundance of spoken dialogue: “If the critic rejects the opera as a product of art, and calls it monstrous, it is the sudden transition from speech to song that justifies him in so terming it.” 49 But Spohr did not feel that the use of recitative to connect the individual song numbers was the only solution, but like Weber a possible one. As in other parts of the essay, Spohr gave a practical prescription for grosse Oper with several dramatic requisites: “An opera in which all is to be sung, must in the first place, have a poetical action from the beginning to the end; secondly, it should be so simple that a spectator, without knowing the subject, should be able to guess at the content of the story; thirdly, it should be limited to a small number of characters, not exceeding five or six at the utmost.”50 Whether or not grosse Oper in its through-composition and grandiose plots was the ideal for German opera in the composer critics mind, it certainly provided a possible solution to the disparity between isolated numbers and a continuous dramatic plot.

But recitative’s role in continuous music was not the only means critics observed could contribute to the uniform presentation of the drama. The correspondent from Cassel reviewing

49 Spohr, “Aufruf an deutsche Komponisten,” AmZ 29 (16 July 1823) 463. “Wenn die Aesthetiker die Oper als Kunstwerk verwerfen und monströs nennen, so ist es hauptsächlich der Wechsel von Rede und Gesang, der sie dazu berechtigt.” 50 Ibid., 463–4. “Eine Oper in der alles gesungen werden soll, muss 1) eine vom Anfang bis zu Ende poetische Handlung haben, 2) eine so einfache, dass der Zuschauer durch das was geschieht, auch ohne den Text zu verstehen, den Inhalt errathen kann, und 3) zur Besetzung nur wenige Personen, höchstens fünf bis sechs verlangen.”

150 König Siegmar for the ZeW in 1818 discussed dramatic continuity through character development. According to the critic,“a smooth progression of the plot by well designed characters, in which not only each scene is accounted for properly, but also every character can develop positively, and whereby one always more tightens the stitches of the whole with each advance of the drama, which is then resolved in a very unusual manner for an opera.”51 Although this description parallels Weber’s observation of how each musical number in Hoffmann’s

Undine advanced the opera like the development of characters, the reviewer of König Siegmar made no reference to music’s role in dramatic unity. The opera’s recitatives, however, would certainly have provided a certain degree of continuity even if they were not discussed in the review.

The Cassel correspondent’s metaphor of sewing, the stitches tightening the whole, is also paralleled in Weber’s criticism. Weber employed such language in his discussion of thematic interplay in Spohr’s Faust, when he reviewed the work for the KPZ in August of 1816. As he had done with the themes introduced in the overture, Spohr bound the rest of the work with similar motivic connections. Weber noted Spohr’s use of recurring motives that were associated with key ideas of the story, and how they guided the dramatic progression of the entire opera: “A few melodies, felicitously and aptly devised, weave like delicate threads through the whole, and hold it together artistically.”54 Spohr had taken the use of musical motives to a whole new level and to one unusual in opera at the time. The compositional technique has gained considerable notice since the late nineteenth century, as scholars have tried to map out Spohr’s musical motives in

51 “Kassel,” 902. “einen ruhigen Fortgang der Handlung, in welcher aber nicht nur jede Scene gehörig motivirt, sondern auch jeder Charakter sich förmlich entwickeln kann, und wobei man mit jedem Fortschreiten des Drama den Knoten des Ganzen sich immer mehr zusammenziehen sieht, der dann zuletzt auf eine in Opern sehr ungewöhnliche Art gelöst wird.” 54 Weber, Writings on Music, 184.

151 the manner of Wagner’s leitmotivs.55 Their subtle recurrence after the overture in the rest of the opera is completely dependent on their suitable place in the opera, contributing to the consistent dramatic themes in Faust.

Unity of Music and Text

Summoning the theme of unity once more, the critic of König Siegmar by Rochlitz and

Guhr for the ZeW touted the work as a significant contribution to the progress of German opera:

“By this truly felicitous work the German stage has been enriched with an original opera, that could arise from no other land than in our German fatherland, and it, with regard to the music, binds Italian grace with German vigor, wherein melody, harmony, declamation merge into a beautiful whole, not one dominating, and build an impressive bouquet.”57 The merging of contrasting elements in the composition of opera, including the musical and textual features, stood as an analogy for the German opera enterprise itself, bound together with the best characteristics of foreign and local styles. Unity proved key to not only improving individual compositions but also the profile of the national genre.

In viewing opera as the unification of music and text, critics found means to judge the success of the composer and librettist by their contribution to this whole. One example of the poetry and music not contributing to a uniform whole is the case of Masinissa by Reinbeck and

55 For a detailed discussion of musical motives in Faust, see Clive Brown, “Spohr, Faust and Leitmotif,” The Musical Times 125 (January 1984): 25–7; and Brown, Critical Biography, 80–4. Brown identifies the two main musical motives Spohr employs throughout Faust as themes for “hell” and “love.” 57 Kassel, 904. “Die deutsche Bühne ist durch dieses wirklich treffliche Werk mit einer Originaloper bereichert worden, die auf keinem andern Boden so entstehen konnte, als in unserm deutschen Vaterlande, und die, was die Musik betrifft, italienische Grazie mit deutscher Kraft verbindet, worin Melodie, Harmonie, Deklamation und Mexismatik, zu einem schönen Ganzen verbunden, keines vorherrschend, einen schönen Reigen bilden.”

152 Sutor, as discussed in Chapter five. The reason for Reinbeck’s reworking of Sophonisbe was to soften the dramatic tone of the libretto to match the lighter style of Paer’s music. Although

Reinbeck did not concern himself with recitative and continuous scenes to create musical continuity, he did feel that a perfect balance of the text and music would serve the overall mood of the opera. Reinbeck’s decision to alter the libretto while preserving the music of Paer strangely responds to Hoffmann’s review of the original Sophonisbe. Hoffmann admired Paer’s skill in the comic vein and even admitted his mastery of instrumentation and counterpoint beyond what most Germans expect of Italian composers. However, Hoffmann did feel as if

Paer’s slight turn toward the serious styles of music for this serious opera was not convincing, directing Paer to continue what he excelled at in comic genres:

The tragic content of this opera is historical and sufficiently well known from Metastasio’s dramatic version. Graceful melodies, elegant workmanship, richly singable melismas, fiery brilliance of vocal writing and accompaniment everywhere, distinguish this opera from many of the insipid products of its time; but the dramatic element is so little heeded that the reviewer feels confident that if some other, even tragicomic text were put to the music, nobody on hearing it would remotely imagine the Romans, Numidians, and Carthaginians of the original.59

In other words, Reinbeck had done exactly what Hoffmann suggested; he softened the tragic tone of the drama as directed, and it complimented Paer’s lighter style of music. Although Reinbeck argued for a more important role on the part of the text and librettist, the goals outlined in his

“Die deutsche Oper” essay are quite similar to that of the composer critics. He concerned himself with the dramatic whole of the plot and desired to maintain an effective pairing of the text to the music.

Mosel believed that composers were led to neglect the text because their music was often evaluated on its own merit in reviews. His recommendation responded to the critics who

59 Hoffmann, Musical Writings, 264.

153 dedicated their discussion to the work of the composer and singers with no reference to the plot and libretto. In his essay “Ueber die Oper,” published in Cäcilia in 1825, Mosel contended that there was no true unity to be found unless both the music and text were considered:

Because in a short time one would return to the mistake of observing evaluating music in an opera only as music and not in reference to the text, and soon one would realize, or rather sense, that the first and most necessary requirement of dramatic music is its most inner connection with the text and the plot, that can be appreciated solely from this point, and [that] its worth can be determined only on the impression that it makes on the mind, and not on the empty titillation it provides the ear.60

At the most artistic level unity could not be recognized in the music alone; critics like Mosel continuously faulted reviewers for disregarding the text.

Like Mosel, Gehe blamed composers for their occupation with abstract musical ideals at the expense of the other arts. In his lengthy review of Spontini’s Olympia, he offered an extensive discussion of the opera’s text, and he encouraged librettists not to retreat to other genres just because composers were placing more emphasis on isolated musical unity than a joint dramatic expression with the text:

With this discrepancy in opinion a poet could feel tempted to look for a new occupation and perhaps would like to raise oases here and there on the previously arid steppes of opera libretti—if only the composers did not love just their art alone, but all of the arts, through whose harmonic union alone can a beautiful whole arise. I understand there are honorable exceptions and speak only of the general. But it is true that many composers sacrifice dramatic interest and honor of poetry in order to bring one single idea to an opera, even considering the initiative with the poet not as the main object of a union that keeps its eye on poetry and music, but rather as a framework required for their individual musical ideas.61

60 Mosel, “Ueber die Oper,” Cäcilia II/7 (1825): 238. “dann würde man in kurzer Zeit von dem Irrthume zurückkommen, die Musik einer Oper nur als Musik, und nicht im Bezug auf den Text zu betrachten und zu beurtheilen, und bald würde man einsehen, oder vielmehr fühlen, dass das erste und nothwendigste Bedingnis der dramatischen Musik ihre innigste Vereinigung mit dem Texte und der Handlung sey, dass sie einzig von diesem Punkte aus gewürdigt, und ihr Werth nur nach dem Eindrucke, den sie auf das Gemüth macht, nicht nach dem schlaalen Kitzel, den sie dem Ohre gewährt, bestimmt werden könne.” 61 Gehe, “Correspondenz und Notizen aus Dresden,” ZeW 27 (1826): 215. “Bei diesem Zwiespalt der Meinungen könnte sich irgend ein Dichter leicht versucht fühlen, nach einem

154

Gehe touched on an important practical issue that often put composers and librettists at odds. The spirit of drama implied some sort of change in direction, and composers that aspired to an aesthetic of musical unity had to learn to reconcile this discrepancy.

The idea of mediation addressed the challenges of this reconciliation. The influence of

Hegelian dialectics on many writers at the time pushed them to figure out how both contrast and unity could apply to German opera. A correspondent from Weimar, for example, reviewing

Marschner’s Der Vampyr for the ZeW in 1829, observed how the joint expression of contrasts in both the text and music contributed to unity:

Except for here, one cannot deny that the author brings out many interesting, musically effective situations with skillful hand and—what now is demanded of a libretto once— knew to give a quite pleasing contrast and variety to the whole; this also worked to the benefit of the music, and both the librettist and composer went here hand in hand.62

As both Mannigfaltigkeit and Abwechselung are juxtaposed, it is likely the author subscribed to a similar aesthetic philosophy as that outlined in Sulzer’s writing.

The reviewer of Poissl’s Der Untersberg for the BamZ in 1829 argued that the composer had successfully maintained unity while providing musical variation in the third act finale, even

neuen Felde zur Thätigkeit sich umzuschauen, und vielleicht möchten in der bisher so dürren Steppe der Operndichtung sich hier und dort Oasen grünend erheben, wenn nur—die Komponisten nicht blos ihre Kunst, sondern die Künste liebten, durch deren harmonischen Bund allein sich ein schönes Ganze bildet. Ehrenvolle Ausnahmen gestate ich und spreche hier blos im Allgemeinen. Aber wahr ist es, dass manche Tonsetzer, um in einer Oper eine einzelne musikalische Idee anzubringen, dramatisches Interesse und Würde der Dichtung opfern, ja schon bei der Initiative mit dem Dichter nicht als Hauptgegenstand einen Bund der Dichtkunst und Tonkunst in das Auge fassen, sondern nur einen Rahmen verlangen für ihre einseitigen musikalischen Ideen.” 62 Correspondenz aus Weimar, 1199. “Abgesehen hiervon, so ist es nicht zu leugnen, daß der Bearbeiter mit kundiger Hand manche interessante, musicalisch wirksame Situation herbeigeführt und—was nun einmal von einem Opernbuche verlangt wird—dem Ganzen eine recht angenehme Mannichfaltigkeit und Abwechselung zu geben gewußt hat; dies hat auch auf die Musik wohlthätig gewirkt, und beide, Dichter und Componist, sind hier Hand in Hand gegangen.”

155 though he did not recommend the approach of variation if composers could not execute it effectively: “We cannot abstain from actually voicing our disapproval of variation in this instance in opera. The fundamental idea of variation form by and for itself already destroys any unity of the articulated character.”63 But the reviewer felt that Poissl’s care in matching the musical variations to each change in the text was successful and did justice to the overall work:

“The composer, however, has successfully circumnavigated this obstacle [the repetition of the main subject in variation during changes in the plot], as he sets different texts to his variations

(analogous to changing the key), and thus, through the diversified designations of feelings through words, determined a diverse musical expression.”64 Concluding his evaluation of the finale, the critic marveled that “aside from the brilliant execution of each individual piece a spirit of unity runs through the whole.”65 The careful coordination of text and music in service of the plot allowed for change and variation to occur without disrupting the whole.

* * *

Early nineteenth-century German opera in its various forms and through its assortment of terminology did motivate reviewers to admire and encourage elements of unity. Although the original discussion of the ideal aesthetic did not offer any practical advice, critics in their search for unity began to introduce more specifics. On the surface level, individual components of the

63 “Die neueste Oper von Poissl, der Untersberg,” BamZ 50 (12 December 1829): 399. “Wir können uns nicht enthalten bei dieser Gelegenheit unsre Missbilligung gegen Variationen in der Oper überhaupt auszusprechen. Die Grundidee der Variationenform an und für sich zerstört schon jede Einheit des auszusprechenden Karakters.” 64 Ibid. “Diese Klippe aber hat der Komponist hier glücklich umschifft, indem er seinen Variationen verschiedene (der Veränderung der Töne ganz entsprechende) Texte unterlegte, und so, durch die verschiedenartige Bezeichnung der Gefühle durch Worte, gleichsam auch einen verschiednen musikalischen Ausdruck bedingte.” 65 Ibid., 400. “[ganz] abgesehen von den brillanten Wirkungen der einzelnen Musiksstücke weht durch das Ganze ein solcher Geist der Einheit.”

156 opera as a whole were evaluated in their contribution to the overall work, presenting an inner compositional logic. On another level, dramatic continuity assured a uniform presentation of the work, as individual scenes and uninterrupted music with recurring themes carried the audience from beginning to end. Since scholarship on German opera criticism is limited to independent reviews of specific works or by individual critics, most discussions of an ideal unity in music composition have focused primarily on instrumental music. But as a broad survey of these reviews illustrates, unity was an important aesthetic principle for opera as well; and this proved a key element for writers to distinguish their national opera from that of the French and Italians.

157

CHAPTER SEVEN

GERMAN OPERA AND NATIONAL IDENTITY

Propagating German opera was a significant expression of national identity in the early nineteenth century. As a visual, as well as an aural form, opera exhibited qualities German nationalists wanted to introduce to the growing literate public. And as an art form with a rich history, it could also reflect modern concerns and showcase the progressive talents of the best new writers and composers. As the previous chapters have demonstrated, critics addressed both audiences and artists through their reviews and essays. They reached various segments of the educated German public through various journal types, categorized and defined generic terminology, struggled with the problems of German-language recitative, campaigned to refine libretti, and sought an ideal unity in form and expression. Writers brought these features to the discussion of national opera, even though most of the features did not inherently possess anything particularly German. To advance their propagation of German opera, writers tapped into the political climate of the time and attempted to define national opera tradition and form.

The major opera centers in German-speaking territories, Vienna, Munich, Dresden,

Leipzig, Berlin, and Hamburg, had varying levels of support for opera in their own language.

How did they come to recognize German opera as a genre that represented all of their interests and reflected a shared sense of identity among them? Benedict Anderson’s definition of the nation as an “imagined community” applies not only to German history in the nineteenth century, but also to defining a national opera. For Anderson, a nation was not clearly defined, but rather it was imagined by its citizens as a limited, sovereign, and a community.1 The journals reviewed and discussed opera as a national form for and of a group of people limited by language, geography, and cultural difference from surrounding populations. The commonality of language and perceived kinship from Munich and Vienna to Hamburg and Berlin allowed for regional and local differences to dissolve into shared customs. Although the Protestant north and

Catholic south presented some challenges to a unified German culture, the pursuit of a national opera was a shared endeavor.2 In this chapter, I argue that German opera critics promoted national identity and helped shape this imagined community by establishing a pedigree and defining what a German opera should and should not be. Ultimately their discussion served national interests concurrently developing among politically minded individuals in the early nineteenth century.

There was, however, no German nation before January 18, 1871, when King Wilhelm I of Prussia was declared Emperor of a single nation-state formed by the unification of the North

German Federation with the southern German states. Yet, according to Stefan Berger, nationalism precedes and contributes to the formation of nation-states.3 The gradual dissolving of

Germany’s feudalist system following the Napoleonic Wars (1803–15) and the end of the Holy

Roman Empire (1806) both fueled the nationalism of young German writers, musicians, and artists. And although eighteenth-century contributions to opera by German composers were

1 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. ed. (New York: Verson, 1991), 7–8. 2 I have not found any explicit reference to Protestant and Catholic divides in terms of German opera in the reviews I consulted. To the contrary, German opera appears to have had a purpose for both. A similar unifying phenomenon in the early nineteenth century is the Bach Revival, which attracted interest and support from both denominations. See Celia Applegate, Bach in Berlin: Nation and Culture in Mendelssohn’s Revival of the St. Matthew’s Passion (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005), 26–8. 3 Stefan Berger, Germany, Inventing the Nation, ed. Keith Robbins (London: Arnold, 2004), 6.

159 mostly Italian, the nineteenth-century writer attempted to construct a historical narrative that connected those contributions to new operas in the local tongue.

A significant shift in the German intelligentsia’s idea of opera as a national signifier occurred around the turn of the century. Whereas German opera composers customarily composed Italian opera in the eighteenth century, the growing popularity of public theater, entrepreneurship, literacy, and a discerning middle class helped define what type of opera

German composers should create. Although debates about the merits of German and Italian opera flourished in the last few decades of the eighteenth century, the shift in power of the courts and expansion of the literate class in the early nineteenth century contributed to the nationalistic fervor that eventually closed the Italian opera companies that had dominated in Munich (1825),

Dresden (1832), and Vienna (1828).4 Berlin theaters had already abolished performances of

Italian- and French-language opera, even if German translations of Rossini and Boieldieu were still in high demand.5 Berlin’s long-standing German opera and its supporters provided a receptive audience for discussions of national identity in music journals.6 When Spontini arrived in Berlin to direct the Hofoper in 1819, his operas, old and new, were performed there in

4 According to Richard Engländer, Ludwig I, although fixated on the Italian style of music, discontinued the Italian opera ensemble in Munich in 1825; the Italian ensemble was discarded in Dresden in 1832, only after the German ensemble had integrated the most desirable attributes of the Italian tradition; and Weber’s appearance in Vienna in 1822 had the subsequent effect of eventually ceasing with the Italian opera-ensemble in 1828. See “The Struggle between German and Italian Opera at the time of Weber,” The Musical Quarterly XXXI/4 (October 1945): 479–91. 5 Engländer, 484. 6 See Sanna Pederson, “A. B. Marx, Berlin Concert Life, and German National Identity,” 19th-Century Music XVIII/2 (Fall 1994): 87–107, especially 89–96. Pederson’s discussion addresses the opposition between opera (Italian) and the symphony (German), but the criticism of the operas of Rossini and Spontini certainly contributed to the public attitude toward German national opera.

160 German. It is no surprise, then, that Berlin produced some of the more biting debates over Italian and German opera.

Constructing Histories

To provide a credible description of an ideal German national opera, writers looked to past models for guidance. Although Germany did not share the same pedigree of a national court opera as found in Italy and France, early nineteenth-century German opera required models to determine what would be included in their own national style. The survey of essays and reviews of early nineteenth-century German opera show that critics continuously made comparisons with the works of Mozart and Gluck. Although the two composers primarily wrote in Italian and

French styles, critics nevertheless portrayed a continuous development of a national style by frequently referring to them in their reviews of newer German operas. New composers that earned critical praise were discussed in connection to the revered composers. Critics even looked to the death of contemporary German opera composers to document their place in history. The obituary for Carl Maria von Weber printed in Caecilia, for example, announced that “a new period of German opera falls into beginning there [Dresden] because of him.”7 Reflections on early nineteenth-century composers like Weber, however, were rare. And since there was not an established pattern in placing opera composers into the history of German opera, critics relied primarily on drawing broad connections to Gluck and Mozart.

To highlight Germany’s contribution to the history of opera, Kanne gave Gluck and

Mozart starring roles in his “concise,” four-part history of opera published in the AmZ(W) in

7 “Carl Maria von Weber,” Caecilia V/17 (1826): 83. “mit Ihm sank eine neue Periode der teutschen Oper im Beginnen dahin.”

161 1817.8 Of the four parts, the third addressed German opera specifically. But in the final installment, Kanne put all the national opera histories together to equate Germany’s role in shaping its own national form to the development of Italian and French opera styles. Of German heritage, Kanne certainly was committed to promoting the talents of German composers in

Vienna; as a critic he was one of Beethoven’s early vocal proponents amidst a swarm of Rossini followers.9 His own compositional contributions remained in the realm of German-language stageworks, Singspiele and melodramas, and yet he also remained committed to opera’s historical relationship to Greek drama and mythology.10 He considered Italy’s historical contribution toward opera as merely one strand in the lasting influence of Ancient Greek tragedy, which allowed him to chart Germany’s role in developing the Classical model as distinct.

Kanne admitted that there was some cause to believe that Germany received its operatic traditions from Italy, since many composers had emulated the style: “In regard to music at the sovereign court, so much credit in composition has been earned in the general, and especially in the lyrical drama, and if it is agreed that the opera was transplanted to Germany through Italy, when the Germans admit freely their great geniuses clothe poet’s songs bit by bit in the smoother melodies of the Italian.”11 The great successes of German composers’ Italian works overshadowed advances they made in their local traditions in the eyes of the public: “Handel,

8 K. [Kanne] “Geschichte (gedrängte) der Oper,” AmZ(W) 23 (5 June 1817): 185–9; 24 (12 June 1817): 193–6; 25 (19 June 1817): 201–4; 29 (17 July 1817): 237–42. August Kanne, discussed in the previous chapter, was the editor of the journal and, according to RIPM, likely author of this essay. 9 Peter Branscomb, “Friedrich August Kanne,” The New Grove Dictionary of Opera. 10 For example, his first grosse Oper set to his own revised libretto of the Orpheus story. 11 K. [Kanne], 241. “Die meisten der übrigen deutschen Höfe [AmZ(W) emphasis], worunter auch besonders der fürstl. taxische Hof gehört, haben sich sehr viele Verdienst um die Tonkunst im Allgemeinen, und insbesondere um das lyrische Drama erworben, und wenn es ausgemacht ist, dass die Oper durch Italiener nach Deutschland verpflanzt wurde, wenn die Deutschen freymüthige eingestehen, dass ihre grossen Genie’s die Gesänge der Barden nach und nach in die leblicheren Melodien der Italiener kleideten...”

162 Hasse, and the immortal Gluck prepared this brilliant epoch; they did not remain alone, a great number of admirable composers—as we have already seen—came like they did on the right path, and became the brilliance and pride of the north.”12 Kanne set forth to resituate Germany’s place in the history of opera, so that as much attention was given to domestic developments as it was to successes in the Italian court style.

To characterize Germany’s historical contributions to opera in Vienna, Kanne also focused on the compositional merit of Mozart’s supernatural operas in the stage works of other

Viennese composers at the turn of the century:

What level of esteem has Italian and French music itself gained from German composers and artists? Which Italian writes a work like Die Zauberflöte, Don Juan, like Die Schöpfung? Where is the country that gave birth to a Mozart, a Haydn, and harbors a Beethoven?—These and similar German men compel Polyhymnia to leave Olympus for Germany in order to receive a crown from German hands, which appear to leave Italy to the eunuchs.13

Kanne’s history emphasizes Germany’s role in the development of Italian opera, and his interest in Greek mythology and supernatural tales led him to construct a historical narrative that was not dependent on Italy.

Although Kanne cited Gluck as an important figure in Germany’s operatic tradition, other writers credited Gluck’s role, as a German, in shaping the Italian operatic tradition. Early in the nineteenth century, many German critics prescribed a national opera that improved upon the

12 Ibid., 242. “Händl, Hasse, der unsterbliche Gluck bereiteten diese glänzende Epoche; sie blieben nicht allein, eine grosse Anzahl vortrefflicher Tonkünstler—wie wir schon gesehen haben—kamen gleich ihnen auf die rechte Bahn, und wurden der Glanz und der Stolz des Nordens.” 13 Ibid. “Welchen Grad von Achtung hat selbst die italienische und französische Musik durch deutsche Compositeurs und Künstler erhalten? Welcher Italiener schrieb ein Werk, wie die Zauberflöte, Don Juan, wie die Schöpfung? Wo ist das Land, das einen Mozart, einen Haydn gebar, einen Beethoven besitzt?—Diese und ähnliche deutsche Männer zwangen Polyhymnia, von Olymp herab nach Deutschland zu kommen, um aus der Deutschen Hände eine Krone zu empfangen, welche Italien den Eunuchen zu bestimmen schien.”

163 Italian model rather than diverging from it. For these writers, Gluck and his works were the ideal model: a German composer who perfected a historically Italian art form not only for the German opera composer but also for Italian composers. One writer contributed an essay to the MgS on music cultivation in society, arguing that all major achievements in opera in the past few decades could be traced to Gluck: “It was a German who wrote the greatest heroic opera style with sincere innocence and measure of genius, Ritter Gluck….From him onward one can date the truly great and beautiful.”14 Even though the essay’s main goal was to shape a supportive audience for German opera, the author did not discourage audiences from foreign operas completely. He also urged them to recognize that the most admirable qualities in the works of

Salieri, for example, were the product of German influence. The author continued this point by asserting that the Italian works of the Germans Winter and Weigl could still be accepted as masterpieces of the German opera tradition, if audiences would acknowledge their role in shaping the Italian style that everyone had adopted.15

References to Mozart and Die Zauberflöte permeated many reviews of early nineteenth- century German opera, since at the turn of the century Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte was enjoying more success and recognition in Vienna than it had when it premiered. New composers often had to overcome the challenge of winning over audiences and critics that were stuck on this particular work. Karl August von Lichtenstein, for example, made the unfortunate error of directing Mozart’s work before the premiere of his revised Bathmendi for audiences in Vienna.

Although the ZeW admired Lichtenstein’s conducting skills and work with the court opera orchestra, the review of Bathmendi was not so positive. Furthermore, the critic even admitted

14 “Ueber Musikpflege,” MgS 21 (24 January 1811): 83. “Ein Deutscher war es, der den großen heroischen Opernstyl mit der aechten Einfalt und Größe des Genius schrieb, Ritter Gluck.… Von ihm an kann man das wahrhaft Große und Schöne datiren.” 15 Ibid.

164 that audiences were not able to find what they were looking for—more Mozart: “Moreover, some consideration should be given to the circumstance that—unluckily—Zauberflöte was presented before Bathmendi on the same stage, [and] that our public everywhere now finds more pleasure in the Zauberflöte, or appears to demand compositions in the manner of Mozart.”17 By its performance after Zauberflöte, Bathmendi was doomed with Viennese audiences. In an indirect manner, audiences helped shape the path German opera composers might take by expecting more works like those of Mozart.

But even those works that did resemble Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte did not always succeed with critics. A reviewer of Kanne’s Schloss Theben for the ZeW framed his criticism as a comparison to Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte.18 “It was a peculiar idea to faithfully recreate the course of the plot and the resulting series of musical numbers entirely from Die Zauberflöte, which everyone here continuously has on their mind because it has been given over and over again, continuously for months.”19 By 1819 Mozart’s operas had enjoyed numerous performances and were solidified in the repertoire. The correspondent further referenced

Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte when observing a similar disconnect between the silly libretto and noble music in Schloss Theben: “If Herr Kanne could have assimilated Mozart’s spirit, as he did

Schikaneder’s poetry, then the [theater] directors would not have been open to criticism for the outlay for costume and decorations. The comment that in an opera whose subject is the struggle

17 “Wiener Hoftheater,” 436. “Ueberdies dürfte wohl auch noch der Umstand einige Rücksicht verdienen, dass unglücklicher Weise, unmittelbar vor Bathmendi die Zauberflöte auf derselben Bühne gegeben wurde, dass unser Publikum nun allenthalben nur mehr an Zauberflöten ein Behagen zu finden, oder doch Komposizionen in Mozarts Manier zu fordern scheint.” 18 F. A., “Korrespondenz aus Wien,” ZeW 32 (18 February 1819): 255–6. 19 Ibid., 256. “Es war ein sonderbarer Einfall, den Gang der Handlung und die Folgenreihe der Musikstücke ganz der Zauberflöte, die hier Jedermann im Gedachtniß behalten muß, da man sie seit Monaten wieder unausgesetzt gegeben hat, so treulich nachzubilden.”

165 of the water gods, and which stems from a composer by the name of Kanne, one must find something watery, no one can criticize as incorrect. Some musical numbers gained praise, and are of the type that the opera does not deserve to disappear from the repertoire.”20 The frequent references to Mozart in reviews of different works attests to the high esteem in which audiences and critics held Die Zauberflöte.

Gluck had likewise earned a prominent place in the repertoire, and his works were so highly thought of by early nineteenth-century German writers that newcomers to the arena were met with resistance in the press. Berlin critics in the 1820s, furious that King Friedrich Wilhelm

III had hired the foreigner Spontini as Generalmusikdirektor, wasted no time in dismissing his role in the development of German opera. Although Spontini’s first German opera, Nurmahal

(1822), failed in Berlin, he had spent time revisiting his Parisian opera Olimpie, albeit translated into German.26 Because of the mythological setting, the BamZ made an attempt to discourage any positive comparisons with Gluck’s Alceste.27 To distinguish the two styles, the author first characterized Gluck as “having realized all characters genuinely and truly while maintaining the

20 Ibid. “Kanne” can be translated as pitcher, jug, or tank. “Hätte Hr. Kanne Mozarts Geist so in sich aufnehmen können, als Schikaneders Dichtung, so wäre die Direktion nicht zu tadeln, daß sie Auslagen auf Kostüm und Dekoration machte. Die Bemerkung, daß man bei einer Oper, die den Kampf der Flußgötter zum Gegenstande hat, und von einem Komponisten, Namens Kanne, abstammt, Etwas Wasseriges finden mußte, kann wohl Niemand als unrichtig tadeln. Einige Musikstücke fanden Beifall, und sind von der Art, daß die Oper es nicht verdiente, vom Repertoir zu verschwinden.” 26 The translated opera (as Olimpia) first appeared at the Köngl. Opernhaus in Berlin on 14 May 1821. 27 “Ueber Spontini und seine Olimpia,” BamZ 7 (18 February 1824): 59–61. The review is a response to an essay in the previous two volumes “Ueber Gluck und seine Alceste.” Gluck’s opera had just been performed at Karneval, and the essay discussed Gluck’s idiosyncratic style as distinct from the Lully model. As Olimpia had already been given Berlin, the BamZ obviously wanted to point out differences, although not good differences, in Spontini’s approach to the mythological theme.

166 tone of the entire drama.”28 Spontini’s compositional approach, on the other hand, received a strikingly different assessment: “Not character development, as with Gluck, not musical representation of the entire person—but rather the representation of passion in him, that appears to us prominently as Spohr’s well-done resolution of his task.”29 The journal’s overall repudiation of Spontini in the 1820s provides a context for the essay’s negative criticism and nationalistic tone. By emphasizing stark differences between the approaches of Spontini and

Gluck,30 the BamZ effectively preserved a restrictive operatic tradition that left foreigners out:

“Gluck did not begin a period of grand opera, he concluded it. From him to Spontini the period has not traveled any further.”31

Defining a National Opera

To argue for a unified German language genre, writers had to define features that would make it culturally distinct. In addition to the concrete items addressed previous chapters (such as good libretto, use of recitative, dramatic orchestration, music-text relationships, well-trained singers, etc.), critics also tried to verbalize less tangible qualities that reinforced German identity.

A true national opera should reflect the cultural identity of its people, not just for it and of it,

28 Ibid., 59. “hat jeden Charakter wahr und true durchgeführt, den Ton des ganzen Drama fest gehalten.” 29 Ibid., 60. “Nicht Charakterbildung, wie bei Gluck, nicht musikalische Darstellung des ganzen Menschen—sondern die Darstellung der Leidenschaft in ihm erscheint uns vorstechend als wohlgelösete Aufgabe Spontini’s.” 30 Ibid. Later in the essay, the author also characterizes Mozart’s operas as having the “höchste geistige Einheit im Charakter der einzelnen Personen und Opern.” 31 Ibid., 59. “Gluck beginnt nicht eine Periode in der grossen Oper, er schliesst eine. Von ihm bis auf Spontini, ist dieselbe nicht weiter gereist.”

167 should address the distinctive German audience, should include folk songs, and should not show any signs of translation (i.e. foreign operas). The challenge in these writings, however, was that most authors could neither articulate nor agree on these national opera characterizations. What was more common—and still effective in the long run—was the desire and motivation.

For many writers, the German national opera was one truly reflective of the nation, not merely an opera in German. One journal, the Berliner Conversations-Blatt für Poesie, Literatur, und Kritik [BCB],32 discussed the relationship of a national opera to the national consciousness of its local audiences in a review of the melodrama Leonore by Carl Eberwein in 1828.33 The author claimed that the Greeks had established the dramatic stage as reflection of their nationality with the presentation of their own myths and legends. The English, according to the author, were the only folk that brought its history to the stage and remained cognizant of its own existence as a nation. The French, who prided themselves on their national theater, did not present stories that reflected the French people and a French nation. Rather, their stages reiterated the centrality of the monarch and retold tales from classical mythology. The situation for Germany was far more complicated because of its relationship to the histories of its neighbors:

In Germany, it has not gone any better with representations of the nation on the stage than at parliament; we have worried more about world history, and even our own great national dramas like Götz von Berlichingen and Wallenstein are understood more in relationship to this world history. It may be an awkward undertaking to want to have a patriotic effect on our public with general German history or with the history of the German Empire; narrow borders are involved in German lands for the patriotic feeling for the fatherland that one calls nationality.34

32 The BCB was printed by Schlesinger in Berlin and ran from 1827–1829. 33 “Königstädtisches Theater,” BCB 129 (4 July 1828): 508–10; 130 (5 July 130): 511–3. The melodrama is the play by Karl Eduard von Holtei (1798–1880) accompanied by songs by Carl Eberwein. 34 Ibid., 508. “In Deutschland, war es mit der Repräsentation der Nation auf der Bühne nicht besser bestellt, als mit der auf dem Reichstage; wir haben uns mehr um die Weltgeschichte

168

The BCB attempted to open the eyes of its readership to the notion that all the small territories and their plays were rather more interconnected to a greater national tradition than they were to the rest of Europe. The features that were particularly German (whether subject matter, musical style, etc.) remained undefined by this reviewer. However, the attempt to define them in these reviews is in its own way a significant contribution to German opera criticism.

The ideal German opera had to address an ideal listener unique in character to the

German people and devoid of stereotypes attributed to audience members of other nationalities and of their local imitators (bourgeois). A reviewer of Lindpaintner’s Timantes35 for the ZeW articulated a clear separation between the operas that served the wishes of the German and Italian operagoer: “A German is now fully present when he sits in the theater and does not allow two thirds of the opera to pass by his ears chatting, feasting, or playing [cards] as the Italian would.”36 By illustrating some of the common behaviors exhibited in Italian opera theaters, the author could then contrast them to the committed and informed German audience. The author continued by recommending the means composers and librettists could use to meet members of the public halfway: “A constant exchange of seriousness and joy is certainly necessary for the

German, because he wants to enjoy every presentation not merely as an artistic form, but as an

bekümmert und selbst nationale große Dramen, wie Götz von Berlichingen und Wallenstein sind mehr in der Beziehung zur Weltgeschichte aufzufassen. Mit der allgemeinen deutschen Geschichte, zumal mit der deutschen Reichsgeschichte auf unser Publikum patriotisch wirken zu wollen, dürfte überhaupt ein sehr missliches Unternehmen sein; dem vaterländischen Gefühl, dem, was man Nationalität nennt, sind in den deutschen Landen enge Grenzen gezogen.” 35 Timantes (1820) is a revision of Lindpaintner’s first opera, Demophoon (1811), for the Stuttgart Hoftheater. Revision of the original work, based on Metastasio’s libretto, takes the traditional opera seria in a direction more sympathetic with the expanding German interest in a national opera in the 1820s. 36 Korrespondenz und Notizen aus Stuttgart,” ZeW 91 (11 May 1820): 727. “Ein Deutscher ist nun einmal ganz dabei, wenn er im Theater sitzt, und lässt nicht, wie der Italiener, zwei Drittheile der Oper plaudernd, schmausend, spielend an seinem Ohre vorübergehen.”

169 art of real life.”37 Again, the author does not provide any details of what that opera would be that appealed to the German listener over the Italian listener. But the description of that ideal audience member, as attentive and able to maintain interest without the assistance of superficial gimmicks, provides a key to how composers ought to address the German listener in the opera’s composition.

Additionally, an interest in folk song also contributed to defining Germany’s true opera identity.38 Long a staple of Singspiel and other local stage works, the inclusion of German folk songs in early nineteenth-century German opera illustrates an attempt to develop a lofty art form that was still nationally specific. As a result there was a balancing act between the opera from the locally banal and the aristocratically cosmopolitan. Spohr addressed this concern in his “Aufruf an deutsche Komponisten”: “One feels talented enough to invent national melodies so he can, through a mixture of such songs, enliven the crowd and have joy in hearing the tunes in parades and church fairs living on in barrel organs. The dignity of the music must suffer by this, however, for no matter how estimable a folksong is as such, it does not go well with the refined music of our theater. Thus the songs of the beer halls should also be excluded, along with their foul language and jokes.”39 Spohr does not specify what the national song type would sound like,

37 Ibid. “[Einem Deutscher] ist also ein steter Wechsel des Ernsten und Heitern besonders nothwendig, da er jede Darstellung nicht sowohl als eine blos künstliche Form, sondern als eine Art wirklichen Lebens genießen will.” 38 The Volkslieder (1778–9) of Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) had their second printing in 1807 and by this date Singspiel and German operas had enjoyed a tradition of employing folk songs. For more on the influence of Herder on German folk music and the formation of national identity through the nineteenth century, see Philip V. Bohlman, “Landscape—Region—Nation—Reich: German Folk Song in the Nexus of National Identity,” in Music and German National Identity, eds. Celia Applegate and Pamela Patter, 105–27 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 108. 39 Spohr, 462, “Fühlt man in sich Talent, Volksmelodien zu erfinden, so kann man auch durch Einmischung solcher auf die Menge einwirken und vielleicht die Freude haben, sich auf Paraden und Kirchenmessen zu hören und in den Drehorgeln fortzuleben. Die Würde der Musik

170 but he warned the potential pitfall of trying too hard to please the masses at the expense of the noble opera form.

Weber’s Der Freischütz had succeeded in providing numbers that were in a German folk style, and because the opera had won over critics with its innovative orchestration and romantic themes it did not fall into the same category as the more mundane comical genres. A reviewer of

Der Freischütz for the MgS identified “the ingenious strength of the new master is in the possibility of inventing songs which carry the character of the German nationality undeniably and audibly to every ear.”40 The songs Weber supplied for the opera sounded familiar to a large segment of the population, and gave the reviewer an impression of a German national opera tradition that really had not been fully established: “Far be it for us to assert that he cannot also bring forth beauty in other genres, but the sphere of national song remains his most beautiful, well vested property. May there be a poet who could finish for him an opera that remains strictly in this sphere.”41 By expressing timeless qualities in the work and encouraging further endeavors in this area, the author identified a model national genre for readers of the MgS.

One roadblock to defining Germany’s national opera was that so many successful works were highly derivative of foreign models. Critics that attempted to define a distinctive national style often found more success in defining the features that should be eliminated. For example, a

muss aber notwendig darunter leiden; denn so schätzenswert ein Volkslied als soches auch ist, so passt es doch nicht zur veredelten Musik unserer Theater, von der die Lieder der Bierhäuser so gut ausgeschlossen sein sollten, als die Sprache und Spässe derselben.” 40 “Korrespondenz-Nachrichten aus ? [sic],” MgS 114 (13 May 1822): 452. “die genialische Kraft des neuen Meisters besteht in dem Vermögen, Gesangstücke zu erfinden, die den Charakter deutscher Nationalität unläugbar und jedem Ohre vernehmbar tragen. Bisher verstand man unter deutscher Musik, Musik die man nicht verstand, und die man daher gelehrt hieß.” 41 Ibid. “Fern sey es von uns, zu behaupten, daß er nicht auch in andern Gattungen Schönes hervorzubringen vermag; aber die Sphäre des National-Gesangs bleibt sein schönstes, wohl erworbenes Eigenthum. Möchte es daher einen Dichter finden, der ihm eine Oper verfertigte, sie streng in dieser Sphäre bliebe.”

171 reviewer of Poissl’s Wettkampf zu Olympia for the MTJ opened his assessment of the work by characterizing its un-Germaness.42 According to the author, simply translating a libretto was not enough to make an opera German: “However the translation of foreign masterworks will not sufficiently help this mischief. Racine’s Athalia, even though it is an admirable adaptation, is no

German work, and this quite successful reproduction of Metastasio’s Olympiad is despite its

German exterior, still an Italian element.”43 Yet again, however, the author could provide no details about what would make a true German libretto different from a translation: “What should the German opera be? What does the German public want? It should speak out! Still it has chosen no genre for itself.”44

Dr. Franz Rudolf Herman, who in 1819 briefly outlined the history of opera for the WZ, also noted the influence of current foreign styles that had made it difficult for a true national style to emerge.45 “Unfortunately in our modern times a decline in those pure, high styles is quite apparent; the dramatic-musical botched works of the French and Italians are doing their part to corrupt the taste of our German public more and more.”46 Admiring the plots of operas by

Mozart, Gluck, and Cherubini, which were “rich in fairy tales, fantasy, and the incredible and

42 “München: Im königl. Hof- und Nationaltheater,” MTJ 5 (May 1815): 179–83. 43 Ibid., 179. “Aber diesem Uebelstande wird durch Bearbeitungen ausländischer Meisterwerke nicht genügend abgeholfen. Racines Athalia, wenn auch trefflich nachgebildet, ist kein deutsches Werk, und diese sehr gelungene Nachahmung der Olympiade des Metastasio ist trotz ihres deutschen Gewandes, doch italienischen Ursprungs.” 44 Ibid. “Was soll die deutsche Oper seyn? Was will das deutsche Publikum? Es spreche sich aus! Noch hat es keine Gattung gewählt.” 45 Dr. Franz Rudolf Herman, “Über die Oper,” WZ 107 (7 September 1819): 874–6. 46 Ibid., 876. “Leider ist in unseren neuesten Tagen ein Sinken jenes reinen hohen Styls in der Musik sehr sichtbar, wozu auch die neuesten dramatisch- musikalischen Machwerke der Franzosen und Italiener das Ihrige beytragen, die den Geschmack unseres deutschen Publikums mehr und mehr verderben.”

172 mythical,”47 Herman cited Mozart’s Don Juan48 and Die Zauberflöte as the highest achievements of German opera, possessing the highest expression of Romanticism, and encouraged German composers to look to their roots rather than get caught up in the superficial charms of more recent Italian and French opera trends. “These farces, these hodgepodge of poetic and musical nonsense, with their heartlessness and soullessness, have too much of an affect on our young composers, while they neglect our German master school—so unique and admirable in harmony and melody—and long for those affected, sweet jingles.”49 Herman held Classical operas in high esteem, even though the majority of them were foreign. He rejected the influences of newer

French and Italian farces on German opera, and felt German composers were the ones who could bring the genre back to its original stature.

Another example in which the ideal German opera was defined by negatively characterizing foreign traits appeared as a fictional debate in the MTJ in 1816. The polemic consisted of a series of letters between two imaginary figures, signed “Ulrich Lebeschlicht,

47 Ibid., 875. “Reich des Mährchens, des Phantastischen, Wunderbaren und Mythischen… So sind die Opern eines Mozart’s, Gluck’s, Cherubini’s u. a., von Seite ihrer musikalischen Vollendung wahre Pracht-Dramen geworden.” In the context of Herman’s discussion, it is clear that he is admiring Cherubini’s older works, the opera seria like Olimpiade (1783) and tragédie lyrique like Démophon (1788) that are based on Classical mythology. He directs his negative criticism at more recent farces in Italy and France, although he does not cite any examples. 48 The author is referring to the German translation of Mozart’s Don Giovanni, reflecting an early nineteenth-century assumption of the work’s German pedigree despite its Italian upbringing. The German associations with this opera and its history are illustrated by E.T.A. Hoffmann’s short story Don Juan, published in the AmZ in 1813, which retells the story from the perspective of Mozart’s opera, not the traditional Don Juan character. According to John Warrack, Hoffmann set out to shape a new understanding of Mozart’s opera and to “enter Romantic mythology.” Warrack, German Opera, 281. 49 Herman, 876. “Diese Farcen, dieses “Rührey” von poetischem und musikalischen Unsinn wirken auch mit ihrer Herz- und Seelenlosigkeit auf unsere jüngsten Componisten nur gar zu sehr herüber, während sie unsere deutsche Meisterschule, so einzig und vortrefflich in Harmonie und Melodie, vernachlässigen, und jenem affektirten süßlichen Klingklang nachhängen.”

173 master proprietor, however neither aficionado nor contrapuntist, and always your devoted adversary,” and “Harmonikus Derbohr,” chamber- and contrapuntist in a small city, not far from a large one, yet both in Germany.”50 Lebeschlicht argued that Italian opera was unsurpassable, first “because all music that comes from Italy inevitably must be Italian” and “because only an

Italian can be a superb singer.”51 Acknowledging his colleague’s admiration for German musicians, Lebeschlicht proceeded to question Derbohr’s qualifications for evaluating performances of German singers, since Munich had far less of a German opera tradition than

Vienna or Berlin.

Lebeschlicht attempted to dissuade Germans from opera and singing and claimed that their hard work did more damage than help to music and the arts in general. In making this point at the conclusion of his own letter, he quoted another letter from a “sehr bekannten Manne,” signed K. N., that discouraged locals from engaging in the classical arts: “In addition, I mostly add the fleeting remark that it would be far better if Germans abandoned composition as well as singing; because their works depend always somewhat on climate and national character for their presentation; the German is otherwise a tolerable, two-legged animal, but he must actually keep his hands out of the arts because they lose their most beautiful blossoms as he attempts to

50 “An Derbohr,” MTJ III/9 (September 1816): 458–72 [558–72]; “An Lebeschlicht,” MTJ III/10 (October 1816): 507–20 [607–20]; “An Derbohr,” MTJ III/11 (November 1816): 576–85 [676–85.]. “Ulrich Lebeschlicht, Grundeigentümer, sonst aber weder Kenner noch Kontrapunktist, und immer Ihr eifriger Gegner” and “Harmonikus Derbohr, Kammer- und Kontrapunktist in einer kleinen Stadt unweit einer großen, jedoch beide in Deutschland.” The meaning behind the two fictional names is notable. “Lebeslicht” roughly translates as “lives simply” and “Derbohr” translates as “rough ear.” Unfortunately the author behind these two pseudonyms is unknown. 51 “An Derbuhr,” 460. “weil es jede Musik, die aus Italien kömmt, nothwendig seyn muß” and second “weil nur ein Italiener ein herrlicher Sänger seyn kann.”

174 cultivate them with unskilled hands.”52 Lebeschlicht considered this letter an endorsement of his position and all the more reason for opera to remain the bastion of the Italian artist. The mocking tone of Lebeschlicht’s characterization of German opera reflects the satirical nature of this entire exchange, and the Lebeschlicht character itself is a mere foil to allow Debohr to promote a true national opera.

Derbohr’s response, naturally, defended the musical contributions of Germany to opera, and his position represents the model German opera supporter in Munich. In response to

Lebeschlicht’s charge that German singers could not be understood, Derbohr argued from a more abstract position: “Music, he added, can not be thought of in the literal sense, but only felt so that not thoughts but feelings are expressed.”53 He believed that Italians placed too much value on the singer, leaving the beauty of the actual song behind. Derbohr also refuted any notion that

German musicians borrowed material and added that, “Indeed, we German composers sleep as well, but we are so decidedly certain of our perfection and worth that we absolutely would never presume that our dear Lord also wanted to give us something.”55 Obviously cultural borrowing was a sensitive spot in this discussion. Although Debohr did not offer any specific reference to a work that did produce a true national style, he set forth nevertheless to encourage German composers in this endeavor by refuting Lebeschlicht’s comparison of German singers to howling

52 Ibid, 470. “Dazu setze ich dann meistens noch die flüchtige Bemerkung, daß es doch besser ware, wenn die Teutschen das Komponiren sowohl als das Singen aufgäben; denn ihren Werken, wie ihren Darstellungen hänge ja doch immer etwas vom Klima und dem National- Charaktere an; der Teutsche sey sonst ein ganz erträgliches zweibeiniges Thier, aber von den Künsten überhaupt müsse er die Hände lassen; denn sie verlören ihre schönste Blüthe, indem er mit ungeschickter Hand sie pflegen wolle.” 53 “An Lebeschlicht,” 511 [611]. “Die Musik, fügte er hinzu, kann im eigentlichen Verstande nicht gedacht, sondern nur gefühlt werden, so wie sie nicht Gedanken, sondern nur Gefühle ausdrücken kann.” 55 Ibid., 509–10 [609–10]. “Wir Deutsche Kompositeurs schlafen zwar auch, aber wir sind von unserer Vollkommenheit und von unserm Werth so fest überzeugt, daß wir durchaus nichts annehmen würden, wenn uns der liebe Gott auch etwas geben wollte.”

175 wolves: “I am quite put out by those wolves [you feel howl more beautifully than a German

Tenor or Bass]. Only an unashamed foreigner would think that! They dare to howl as beautifully as if they were a dedicated members of the German opera.”57 Although German opera critics had voiced their support of a national opera and criticism of foreign influences, the exchange between the fictional characters Debohr and Lebeschlicht represents an exaggerated stereotype.

Still, the dialogue allowed the anonymous author to vocalize very strong opinions that many writers likely shared but did not venture to put into print.

Conclusion

Critics collectively built support for a national opera by illustrating its significance to the identity of the German readership. By raising awareness of successful works and composers, as well as developing a critical acumen for observing musical and dramatic qualities, the German opera critic endeavored to encourage readers to support opera that reflected the German people’s national values. Establishing historical models for emulation and evoking a tradition of certain values centered on the operas of Gluck and Mozart proved a valuable resource for promoting a distinct national style. Pointing out foreign difference, although to some not the only goal in improving German opera, was an important tool for many writers to actually define a national opera. Although critics articulated desirable compositional features for their national opera, such as dramatic recitative, a strong libretto, emphasis on Einheit, etc., they had not yet determined which musical devices were inherently German. They only knew that for Germany to have its own opera tradition, new works had to find a way to evoke the distinct national color. Many

57 Debohr, 510. “Ueber die appeninischen Wölfe bin ich ganz außer mir. Das sind doch unverschämte Ausländer! Sie wagen es so schön zu heulen, als ob sie engagirte Mitglieder der deutschen Oper wären.”

176 critics in the nineteenth century did deem absolute, instrumental music the bastion of German musical identity in contrast to opera that dwelled in the domain of the foreigner. But the visual element of dramatic presentation, as well as the traditions and advances writers had chronicled for the local stages proved too difficult to resist patriotic discussion. It did not hurt that many journals were politically and philosophically motivated by currents in the early nineteenth century, leading them to seek examples in forums—like opera criticism—shared by their readership.

177 CHAPTER EIGHT

A NEW HISTORY OF GERMAN OPERA

At the end of chapter three I suggested that Early Nineteenth-Century German Opera head the section of the historical narrative most frequently labeled by “German Romantic

Opera.” Although my proposed phrase is quite general, I feel it best reflects the terminology usage of contemporary critics and encompasses all major developments. I would like to stress that the words “German” and “Opera” held significant meaning for early nineteenth-century writers that many historical narratives overlook. In this final chapter I would like to discuss what these two words in particular meant to the German opera composer, librettist, and critic, and describe what effect my proposed change would have on our histories. The topics of recitative, word and music relationships, Einheit, and national identity explored in chapters four through seven, and discussed widespread in the journals described in chapter two, all support my alternative phrase. Furthermore, I would also like to comment on the opportunities that remain for exploring the vast body of German opera criticism of this period.

In the spectrum of periodicals publishing reviews, the phrase “deutsche” that precedes opera denotes something much more specific than a language or local institution. It is the endeavor to propagate a national tradition distinct from that of foreign neighbors. What

“deutsche” meant to a critic in Berlin versus in Vienna, however, is much less consistent. So it is the pursuit that makes the developing genre worthy of discussion. For some writers like Mosel,

German opera was an improvement of opera seria in the German language, modeled on the accomplishments of Gluck and drawing from mythological and other Classical subjects.

Reinbeck likewise considered putting the German stamp on an Italian tradition an important step in developing a local opera tradition. Others, like Spohr, argued against foreign influences and push composers to develop more national melodies. And finally, Hoffmann and his supporters encouraged composers to tap into the stories and sentiments of Germany’s own Romantic School for inspiration.

Composers, librettists, and publishers employed the word Singspiel less and less during the early nineteenth century, leaving Oper as the most common and broadly defined word for the repertoire. For many critics and correspondents, there must have been some satisfaction in reporting the happenings of the German “Opera” institutions alongside that of the Italian ones. It meant that the distinction between a court genre and a public, local genre had begun to dissipate.

Although local farces continued many traditions of the eighteenth-century suburban theaters,

Germany produced “Opera” in its own language, be it “romantic,” “grand,” “comic,” or any other form. So what would qualify a German “Opera” in the early nineteenth century? It is more difficult to enumerate what might qualify as an opera than what would not. All writers excluded

Melodramas, tableau, pantomimes, and any genre with vocal songs that did not integrate with the drama such as Schauspiele mit Gesänge. Most writers would also exclude one-act operette,

Vaudeville, Liederspiele, and the Viennese Posse. There are some unusual exceptions to consider, such as Mosel who went as far as to exclude anything with spoken dialogue on purely theoretical grounds; however, what remains from these exclusions is a much more diverse body of compositions than the phrase “German Romantic Opera” could adequately describe.

What might the historical narrative look like with the substitution of my term, “Early

Nineteenth-Century German Opera”? The five points enumerated below are my recommendations for avoiding the misrepresentations described in chapter one:

179 1. Introduce the heading “Early Nineteenth-Century German Opera.” Depending on the organizational choices of the author, this might occur in dialogue or sequence with an assortment of related topics.

2. Discuss the importance of the terms “German” and “Opera” in contemporary thought.

3. Provide examples of some of the directions German opera composers took to establish a national opera tradition, including a brief definition of romantische Oper, grosse Oper, komische Oper, etc.

4. Discuss some of the important issues composers and librettists faced in creating new types of works, such as German-language recitative, motivic coherence, coordination of music and text, etc.

5. Give a brief summary of the reception of these approaches from contemporary critics.

Obviously some narratives are more detailed than others, and most general histories may have room to cite only one work. Instead of guiding the description of early nineteenth-century

German opera by features of one sample work—as frequently occurs with Weber’s Der

Freischütz—the new historical narratives would discuss the sample in relation to the aforementioned five topics. If Weber’s work continued to serve as the lone example, the new direction would present it as one example of the various efforts to establish a national tradition, a sample that drew on Romantic themes, forewent recitative, and resulted in conflict between composer and librettist in the relationship of music to text. The narrative could conclude by citing Weber’s goals for German Opera as well as some contemporary reviews.

The proposed alternative discussion of Weber’s Der Freischütz provides a concise description of the widespread ambitions of German opera composers, lists the major directions that took place in finding a national opera, provides a sample work, and discusses the work in a broad context. It is also possible to address each of these major points as the context for Mosel’s

Salem, Kreutzer’s Cordelia, Spohr’s Jessonda, Lichtenstein’s Der Vampyr, or even Weigl’s

180 Baalssturz. Any of these works would be appropriate for reiterating the five key points, and may offer alternatives to histories that wish to make further connections, such as to Biblical or exotic themed operas. My proposed new heading is not as misleading as “German Romantic Opera,” and still allows for a concise, but adequate summary of the dynamic changes in German opera composition in the early nineteenth century. Moreover, focusing on the relationship between one or more works and the major issues German composers and librettists addressed highlights the search for a distinctly German opera.

Where does Wagner fit into this change? As shown in chapter one, histories frequently discuss the influence of Carl Mara von Weber’s works on Der fliegende Höllander and other early Wagner operas in terms of a “romantische Oper” lineage. But it is important to remember that Wagner was exposed to various opera traditions in his early theater positions, and he certainly responded to multiple traditions in the conception of his music dramas. Furthermore,

Wagner explored issues of aligning music and poetry, writing German recitative, and creating unity in Oper und Drama. Historians need not construct single goal-oriented narrative in order to contextualize the development of Wagner’s ideas for German opera, for the composer dwelled on the same issues as his predecessors and contemporaries.

In addition to encouraging a new direction for general music history surveys, I also invite scholars to consider further benefits for exploring the body of criticism. The appendix provides the citations for all of the reviews gathered for this dissertation. Although the framework of my narrative allowed for discussion of many of these reviews, hundreds of fruitful examples remain available for scrutiny. Several prolific composers treated in these reviews, such as Bierey,

Eulenstein, Guhr, and J. P. Schmidt, among others, are even absent from many nineteenth- century specialized studies. Two new online projects in particular invite opportunities for

181 scholars to discover more about these unfamiliar composers who contributed to the widespread efforts in German opera composition. Over the past few years, Google Books has scanned and uploaded several periodicals from this time period, including the AmZ(W), Caecilia, and the feuilletons MgS and ZeW. Secondly, the project “Die Oper in Italien und Deutschland zwischen

1770 und 1830” has also uploaded digital copies of many opera manuscripts that lack critical editions and survive in very few print and manuscript copies, such as Poissl’s Athalia and

Weigl’s Das Waisenhaus. These resources in conjunction with the appendix to this volume will assist in bringing much of this repertoire into scholarly discussion.

182 APPENDIX A

INDEX OF GERMAN OPERA REVIEWS BY COMPOSER

COMPOSER [ADDITIONAL NAMES/SPELLINGS] (Dates)

Opera Title [Alternate Title(s)] Given Genre Designation (Number of Acts) Librettist Name City of Premiere (Date of Premiere) Review Citation 1 [Signed] Review Citation 2 Review Citation 3 Etc.

ABEILLE, [JOHANN CHRISTIAN] LUDWIG (1761–1838)

Peter und Aennchen Singspiel (1) Stuttgart (1809) AmZ 10 (6 December 1809): 155 AmZ 65 (26 December 1810): 1052–6

AIBLINGER, JOHANN KASPAR [CASPAR] (1779–1867)

Rodrigo und Zimene Heroische Oper (2) Jakob Ignaz Sendtner München (1821) WZ 76 (26 June 1821): 641 ZeW 124 (28 June 1821): 992 AmZ(W) 55 (11 July 1821): 436–9 [Poißl] AmZ(W) 56 (14 July 1821): 441–3 [Poißl]

AIGNER, ENGELBERT (1798–1866)

Die Wunderlilie [Der Schreckensinsel Zaubergaben] Romantische Oper(3) Wien (1827) AmZ 14 (4 April 1827): 232–3

Der Angriffsplan Operette J. Hoffmann Wien (1829) WZ 84 (14 July 1829): 699

Das geheime Fenster [Ein Abend in Madrid] Operette Theodor Berling Wien (1829) WZ 7 (15 January 1829): 55–6

Das Hochzeitskonzert Singspiel Wien (1829) WT 148 (10 December 1829): 607 WZ 149 (12 December 1829): 1227–8 AmZ 51 (23 December 1829): 847

BEETHOVEN, LUDWIG VAN (1770–1827)

Fidelio [Der Triumph der ehelichen Liebe] Oper (3) Joseph Ferdinand Sonnleithner Wien (1805) BmZ 11 (1806): 42–3 AmZ 15 (8 January 1806): 237–8 Freimüthige 10 (14 January 1806): 39 JLM 5 (May 1806): 287 WT 16 (22 Octobr 1806): 55 AmZ 25 (22 June 1814): 420–1 MgS 170 (18 July 1814): 680 AmZ 33 (17 August 1814): 550 MgS 51 (1 March 1815): 203–4 AmZ 14 (5 April 1815): 242 JLM 6 (June 1815): 350–3 AmZ 24 (14 June 1815): 397–40 [A. Wendt] AmZ 25 (21 June 1815): 413–20 [A. Wendt] AmZ 26 (28 June 1815): 429–36 [A. Wendt] AmZ 46 (15 November 1815): 771 AmZ 50 (13 December 1815): 839–40 AmZ 5 (31 January 1816): 75 WT 53 (3 July 1816): 211–2 WT 21 [Beilage] (10 July 1816): 81

184 JLM 8 (August 1816): 537–8 ZeW 67 (4 April 1817): 551–2 LKgK 80 (17 March 1818): 332 [A. Wendt] LKgK 136 (11 August 1818): 555 ZeW 226 (18 November 1820): 1807–8 AmZ(W) 96 (1 December 1821): 762 AmZ(W) 90 (9 November 1822): 713–6 WZ 136 (12 November 1822): 1101–3 Gesellschafter 10 (17 January 1823): 51–2 [F. v. B.] JLM 99 (October 1823): 809–11 [B.] BamZ 3 (21 January 1824): 21–2 Gesellschafter 16 (28 January 1825): 80 [George Harrys] AmZ 44 (1 November 1826): 723 MgS 184 (2 August 1827): 736 MamZ 6 (10 November 1827): 94–6 WT 41 (3 April 1828): 163 AmZ 5 (4 February 1829): 88 AmZ 26 (1 July 1829): 432–3 BamZ 30 (25 July 1829): 237–8 BamZ 45 (7 November 1829): 357–60 [Spazier] BamZ 46 (14 November 1829): 364–7 [Spazier] WT 63 (27 May 1830): 256 WZ 84 (15 July 1830): 683–4

Egmont Trauerspiel with Incidental Music Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1810) MTZ 15 (10 January 1829): 113–5

BENDA, GEORG ANTON (1722–1795)

Ariadne auf Naxos Melodrama (1) Johann Christian Brandes Gotha (1775) AmZ 1 (1 October 1806): 13–4 AmZ 31 (2 May 1810): 489–90 AmZ 48 (27 November 1811): 808

Medea Melodrama (1) [Johann] Friedrich Wilhelm Gotter Leipzig (1775) WT 2 (8 July 1806): 21–2 [Fr. Bolthart]

185 AmZ 1 (1 October 1806): 13–4 Freimüthige 101 (21 March 1810): 404 [Müller] WT 56 (11 July 1812): 221–2 [—er—] AmZ 3 (20 January 1813): 46

Romeo und Julie Ernsthafte Oper (3) [Johann] Friedrich Wilhelm Gotter Gotha (1776) ZeW 113 (20 September 1804): 902

BENDA, FRIEDRICH [WILHELM HEINRICH] (1745–1814)

Das Blumenmädchen Singspiel (1) Friedrich Rochlitz Berlin (1806) AmZ 45 (6 August 1806): 713

BERGT, [CHRISTIAN GOTTLOB] AUGUST (1771–1837)

List gegen List Operette Christoph Friedrich Bretzner Leipzig (1779) AmZ 14 (29 December 1802): 237–9

Das Dorf im Gebirge August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue Dresden (1809) AmZ 16 (21 April 1813): 269

BIEREY, GOTTLOB BENEDICT (1772–1840)

Das Blumenmädchen Komische Oper (1) [operettchen] Friedrich Rochlitz Leipzig (1801) JLM 5 (May 1802): 274–5 JLM 5 (May 1802): 276–7 AmZ 32 (5 May 1802): 515–9 AmZ 38 (15 June 1802): 619–21 AmZ 55 (17 October 1810): 878–9

186

Rosette, das Schweizer Hirtenmädchen [Schweizermädchen] Singspiel (2) Christoph Friedrich Bretzner Leipzig (1806) AmZ 30 (23 April 1806): 471–3 AmZ 6 (4 November 1807): 89–90 AmZ 36 (2 September 1812): 591–2 AmZ 20 (17 May 1815): 341

Wladimir, Fürst von Nowgorod Opera Seria Matthäus Stegmayer Wien (1807) AmZ 12 (16 December 1807): 183–4 WT 4 (13 January 1808): 30–1 [Bäuerle] AmZ 30 (26 April 1809): 471–3 AmZ 16 (21 April 1813): 269–70 AmZ 40 (30 September 1824): 652

Gedächtnisfeier Darstellung mit Gesängen Mahlmann AmZ 25 (20 March 1805): 402–6

Die Pantoffeln [Die unglücklichen Pantoffeln] Komische Oper Matthäus Stegmayer Wien (1811) WT 6 (1811): 22–3 AmZ 33 (14 August 1811): 562

Die Gemsenjäger Oper (2) Samuel Gottlieb Bürde Breslau (1811) WT 16 (22 February 1812): 63 AmZ 13 (25 March 1812): 210 AmZ 16 (21 April 1812): 270

Die Herberge bei Parma Romantische Oper (3) Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1812) WT 88 (31 October 1812): 350–2 [F. E.] WT 89 (5 November 1812): 354–5 [F. E.]

187 AmZ 47 (18 November 1812): 770

Almazinde [Die Höhle Sesam] Komsiche Oper (3) [Romantische Oper] Heinrich Schmidt Berlin (1814) Wien (1823) AmZ 24 (15 June 1814): 405 ZeW 252 (22 December 1815): 2016

BLUM[E], CARL [KARL] LUDWIG (1786–1844)

Prinz Riquet der Haarbüschel Zauberoper BamZ 27 (8 July 1824): 237 AmZ(W) 56 (14 July 1824): 224 BamZ 28 (14 July 1824); 243–4 BamZ 29 (21 July 1824): 252–3 AmZ 30 (22 July 1824): 480–1

Karl der Zweite [Die Flucht nach Frankreich] Oper [lyrische Drama] Carl Ludwig Blum Königsberg (1812) AmZ 28 (8 July 1812): 457 AmZ 25 (21 June 1815): 420–1

Schiffskapitän [Die Unbefangenen] Vaudeville (1) [Heroisches Liederspiel] Carl Ludwig Blum Berlin (1817) AmZ 9 (1 March 1820): 149 WZ 139 (19 November 1825): 1156 [*—*] AmZ 51 (21 December 1825): 841

Zoraide [Die Mauren in Granada] Oper (3) Carl Ludwig Blum Berlin (1817) MgS 139 (11 June 1817): 556 [Gy] AmZ 38 (19 September 1821): 647–8 AmZ 3 (15 January 1823): 33–42 [Mosel]

Fortunata Liederspiel (1) Carl Ludwig Blum

188 Berlin (1818) AmZ 29 (22 July 1818): 530

Kanonikus Ignaz Schuster Kanonikus Wurm Vaudeville (1) Carl Ludwig Blum Berlin (1818) AmZ 29 (22 July 1818): 530

Das Rosenhütchen Grosse Zauberoper Georg Hoffmann Wien (1819) AmZ(W) 53 (3 July 1819): 425–7 [S.] WT 79 (3 July 1819): 319–20 WZ 79 (3 July 1819): 649–50 AmZ 30 (28 July 1819): 512–3 [Im] Gesellschafter 155 (28 September 1825): 776 [—r.] MgS 198 (19 August 1819): 791–2 WT 101 (22 August 1820): 403 [-F-] WZ 103 (26 August 1820): 843 WZ 28 (4 March 1824): 236 AmZ 42 (19 October 1825): 699–700 WT 86 (22 July 1830): 355–6 (Beilage)

Die Pagen des Herzogs von Vendôme Oper (2) Georg von Hofmann Wien (1820) AmZ(W) 1 (1 January 1820): 7–8 WT 8 (18 January 1820): 31 WZ 8 (18 January 1820): 63–4 WT 15 (3 February 1820): 59 AmZ 13 (29 March 1820): 215 AmZ 8 (19 February 1823): 130–1 AmZ 32 (19 April 1823): 253–4

Die Nachtwandlerin Singspiel (2) Carl Ludwig Blum Berlin (1822) AmZ 30 (24 July 1822): 494–5

Gänserich und Gänschen Vaudeville (1) Carl Ludwig Blum

189 Berlin (1822) AmZ 50 (11 December 1822): 814–5

Die Heirath im zwölften Jahre Singspiel (1) Carl Ludwig Blum Berlin (1823) AmZ 21 (21 May 1823): 339

Die Mäntel [Der Schneider in Lissabon] Lustspiel (2) Carl Ludwig Blum [after Eugène Scribe] Berlin (1826) AmZ 45 (8 November 1826): 740

Der Bramin Zauberoper Berlin (1826) BamZ 2 (10 January 1827): 14–5 [4. (sic)] AmZ 4 (24 January 1827): 56

Der schönste Tag des Lebens AmZ 6 (8 February 1826): 101–2 BS 9 (1826): 36 BS 23 (1826): 92

Doctor Johannes Faust, der wundertätige Magus der Nordens Melodrama Karl von Holtei Berlin (1829) BamZ 3 (17 January 1829): 23–4 [G.] BamZ 4 (24 January 1829): 28–30 [Marx] BamZ 5 (31 January 1829): 37–8 [Marx]

BLUMENRÖDER, KARL (1789)

Turandot [Die Rätsel] Tragikomische Oper (2) [Grosse Oper] München (1809) AmZ 7 (15 November 1809): 111 AmZ 10 (6 December 1809): 152–3

BLUMENTHAL, JOSEPH VON (1782–1850)

190 Der kurze Mantel [comp. with Philipp Jakob Riotte and Ignaz Ritter von Seyfried] Feenspiel Johann Gabriel Seidl Wien (1824) AmZ 95 (27 November 1824): 378–9 [S. S.]

BÖHNER, [JOHANN] LUDWIG [LOUIS] (1787–1860)

Dreiherrenstein [Die Mädchen in einsamen Mühlenthale] Oper Meiningen (1813) AmZ 21 (25 May 1814): 362–3

BOSCHA, ROBERT NICHOLAS CHARLES (1789–1857)

Der Wechselbrief Komisches Singspiel WT 50 (27 April 1819): 199 [Mpr] AmZ(W) 34 (28 April 1819): 271–2 WZ 52 (1 May 1819): 420 AmZ 21 (26 May 1819): 359 AmZ(W) 69 (28 August 1824): 275 [S. S.]

BRANDL, JOHANN EVANGELIST (1760–1837)

Nanthild, das Mädchen aus Valbella Oper (3) Ferdinand von Biedenfeld Karlsruhe (1813) AmZ 42 (19 October 1814): 703–6

BRAUN, JOSEPH

Die Wünsche [Der Prüfungstraum] Heroische Zauberoper Dechant zu Badajoz WT 132 (3 November 1821): 527–8 [E. L. S.] AmZ 19 (11 May 1825): 316

BUCHWIESER, BALTHASAR (1765–1815)

Numa Pompilius

191 Grosse-heroische Oper (2) Anton Joseph Feneris Guttenberg Wien (1808) AmZ 17 (25 January 1809): 264

CRAMER, FRANZ (1772–1848)

Hidalan der Harfner Oper (2) München (1813) AmZ 25 (23 June 1813): 419 JLM 7 (July 1813): 421–2

Die Verbannten Oper (2) München (1815) MTJ 11 (November 1815): 393–6

DANZI, FRANZ [IGNAZ] (1763–1826)

Die Mitternachtsstunde Komische Oper (3) [Singspiel] Matthias Georg Lambrecht München (1798) AmZ 12 (16 December 1801): 188–90 MTJ 7 (July 1815): 253–5

Der Kuß Tragikomische Oper (3) Matthias Georg Lambrecht München (1799) MTJ 6–7 (June-July 1800): 251–2

Iphigenie in Aulis Ernsthafter Oper (3) [tragische Oper] Karl Reger München (1807) AmZ 23 (4 March 1807): 366–71 ZeW 38 (6 March 1807): 304 AmZ 35 (27 May 1807): 564

Camilla und Eugen [Der Gartenschlüssel] Singspiel (1) Franz Karl Hiemer

192 Stuttgart (1812) AmZ 11 (13 March 1816): 178

DEINHARDSTEIN, JOHANN LUDWIG (1794–1859) (Playwright)

Hans Sachs ZeW 75 (17 April 1828): 599–600 [r.] ZeW 76 (18 April 1828): 607–8 [r.] ZeW 128 (3 July 1828): 1023–4 [Gehe]

Der Wittwer Posse (1) MTZ 3 (1828–9): 21–3

DITTERSDORF, CARL DITTERS VON [DITTERS, CARL] (1739–99)

Der Apotheker und der Doktor [Doktor und Apotheker] Komisches Singspiel (2) Johann Gottlieb Stephanie Wien (1786) AmZ 55 (17 October 1810): 878 MTJ 1 (January 1814): 3–4 AmZ 32 (9 August 1815): 539 AmZ 7 (17 February 1819): 113 AmZ 52 (24 December 1823): 860 BamZ 35 (1 September 1824): 304–5 [M.]1 BamZ 36 (8 September 1824): 306–8 [Marx] BamZ 38 (22 September 1824): 332 [G.] AmZ 39 (23 September 1824): 635 BamZ 39 (29 September 1824): 338–9 [G.] JLM 133 (December 1824): 1061 AmZ 4 (28 January 1829): 61

Hieronimus Knicker Komisches Singspiel (2) Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf Wien (1789) MTJ 6–7 (June-July 1800): 235–9 BamZ 46 (17 November 1824): 397–8 [X.] WT 153 (21 December 1824): 611 AmZ 52 (23 December 1824): 858–9

1 A. B. Marx

193 Der Schiffspatron [Der neue Gutsherr] Singspiel (2) Johann [Heinrich] Friedrich Jünger Wien (1789) NadB 4 [Anhang] (1799): 102–7 [Ps.] WT 48 (22 April 1819): 192 WT 132 (2 November 1822): 544

Das rothe Käppchen [Hilft’s nicht, so schadt’s nicht] Komisches Singspiel (2) Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf Breslau (1790) Gesellschafter 94 (7 June 1817): 375–6

Der Mädchenmarkt Komisches Singspiel (3) Karl [Carl] Alexander Herklots Oeles (1797) NadB 1 [Anhang] (1797): 203–4

DORN, HEINRICH LUDWIG EGMONT (1804–1892)

Rolands Knappen Komische Oper (2) Heinrich Ludwig Egmont Dorn Berlin (1826) BamZ 29 (19 July 1826): 236 [Marx] BamZ 30 (26 July 1826): 239–42 [Marx] BS 88 (1826): 351–2 [G. b.] Gesellschafter 118 (26 July 1826): 595–6 [St...] AmZ 37 (13 September 1826): 609 AmZ 23 (9 June 1830): 374

Der Zauberer und das Ungethüm Melodrama (3) Heinrich Ludwig Egmont Dorn and J von Minutuoli Berlin (1827) BamZ 17 (24 April 1827): 135–6 [Girschner] BCB 84 (28 April 1827): 335–6 [F.] MamZ 3 (1827–8): 41–6 [R. B...... k.]

DRECHSLER, JOSEPH (1782–1852)

Die Feldmühle

194 Singspiel Wien (1812) WT 84 (17 October 1812): 331–2

Der Berggesit [Die drei Wünsche, Die ubereilten Wünsche] Komisches Zauberspiel (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1819) WT 73 (19 June 1819): 292 [W.] WZ 73 (19 June 1819): 597–8 WT 188 (28 December 1819): 619 WT 17 (8 February 1821): 67 [v. Z...ch] WZ 17 (8 February 1821): 140 AmZ 51 (20 December 1826): 841

Der verlorene Sohn Melodrama (4) Ferdinand Rosenau Wien (1819) AmZ(W) 18 (3 March 1819): 140–1 WT 27 (4 March 1819): 108 AmZ 12 (24 March 1819): 198 WT 152 (21 December 1819): 607 AmZ(W) 102 (22 December 1819): 819–20 WT 153 (23 December 1819): 612 WZ 156 (30 December 1829): 1291–2 AmZ 4 (26 January 1820): 55

Der Wunderdoktor Komische Operette (1) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1820) WT 12 (27 January 1820): 47 WZ 12 (27 January 1820): 96

Ydor, der Wanderer aus dem Zauberreiche [Wasserreiche] Exotische Pflanze (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1820) WZ 25 (26 February 1820): 199–200 WZ 36 (23 March 1820): 292 WT 123 (13 October 1821): 491–2 [-b-] AmZ 49 (5 December 1821): 823–4

Pauline [Mut und Liebe] Militärische Oper

195 Ebersberg Wien (1821) WT 25 (27 February 1821): 99 [N–o] AmZ(W) 18 (3 March 1821): 138–40 WZ 27 (3 March 1821): 476 AmZ 13 (28 March 1821): 202–3

Das Vergissmeinnicht Zauberspiel (2) Wien (1821) WZ 96 (11 August 1821): 816

Die Schauernacht im Felsenthale Romantisch-Musikalisches Schauspiel (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1822) WT 141 (23 November 1822): 562–3 AmZ(W) 98 (7 December 1822): 777–80 DB 101 (30 June 1823): 4032

Der Zauberschlaf [die 100-jährige Träumerin] Feenmärchen (2) G. Stiller Wien (1824) WT 55 (16 May 1824): 219 [S. S.]

Frühling, Sommer, Herbst und Winter Zauberspiel (4) J. Willmann Wien (1824) WT 75 (22 June 1824): 299–300

Der Diamant des Geisterkönigs Zauberspiel (2) Ferdinand Raimund Wien (1824) WT 155 (25 December 1824): 619 AmZ 3 (19 January 1825): 44–5 WZ 11 (25 January 1825): 92

Die Wunderbrille im Zauberwalde [Comp. with Wenzel Müller] Zauberspiel (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1825)

2 The DB identified this work “als Gegenstück zum Freischützen (!).”

196 AmZ 12 (23 March 1825): 194

Gisperl und Fisperl [Alle Minuten etwas Anderes] Parody Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1825) AmZ 43 (26 October 1825): 723 WT 129 (27 October 1825): 526–7

Oskar und Tina [Der Kampf um die Schönheit im Reiche der Lügen] Phantasie-Gemälde (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1826) WZ 18 (11 February 1826): 144

Das grüne Männchen [Der Vater von 13 Töchtern] Zauberspiel (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1826) WZ 52 (2 May 1826): 416

Die Abenteuernacht Komisches Singspiel Josef Lang Wien (1826) WT 126 (21 October 1826): 511–2 AmZ 45 (8 November 1826): 740 WT 147 (9 December 1826): 600 WT 148 (12 December 1826): 603–4

Das Mädchen aus der Feenwelt [Der Bauer als Millionär] Romantisch-Musikalisches Original Zauber-Märchen Ferdinand Raimund Wien (1826) WZ 140 (23 November 1826): 1127–8 WT 141 (25 November 1826): 571 AmZ 165 (21 April 1830): 252

Cabale und Liebe [Kabale und Liebe] Parodistisches Zauberspiel (2) Adolf Bäuerle Wien (1827) WT 40 (3 April 1827): 162–3 [Walter von Berge] WZ 41 (5 April 1827): 332 WZ 72 (16 June 1829): 590–1

197 Die Benefizvorstellung [composed with Ignaz Schuster and Wenzel Müller] Posse (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1827) WT 54 (5 May 1827): 219–20

Fee Sanftmuth und Fee Gallsucht Allegorisches Märchen (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1827) AmZ 22 (30 May 1827): 371

Sir Armand und Miss Schönchen Zaubermärchen (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1827) WT 123 (15 October 1827): 504 [Eduard] AmZ 50 (12 December 1827): 850

Sylphide, das Seefräulein Zauberspiel (2) Therese Krones Wien (1828) WT 83 (10 July 1828): 331–2 WZ 120 (4 October 1828): 980

Die Giraffe in Wien Modernes Gemälde (2) Adolf Bäuerle Wien (1828) AmZ 27 (2 July 1828): 444–6

Die Entdeckung der Chinarinde Historisches Schauspiel (2) Wien (1828) WT 150 (13 December 1828): 598–9 [Oe—r]

Die unheilbringende Zauberkrone [Herrscher ohne Reich] Tragisch-Komisches Zauberspiel (2) Ferdinand Raimund Wien (1829) AmZ 7 (17 February 1829): 110

DRIEBERG, FRIEDRICH VON (1780–1856)

198 Don Tocagno Komisches Singspiel (1) Berlin AmZ 19 (6 May 1812): 320–1 AmZ 21 (20 May 1812): 347–8 [Melos]

Der Sänger und der Schneider [Die Macht der Tonkunst] von Voss Berlin (1814) ZeW 88 (2 May 1812): 704 LKgK 4 (1817): 19 [R.] ZeW 174 (6 September 1817): 1407 AmZ(W) 60 (28 July 1824): 237 AmZ 39 (23 September 1824): 638

EBELL, HEINRICH CARL (1775–1824

Anacreon in Ionien H. W. Loest Breslau (1800, rev. 1810) AmZ 33 (16 May 1810): 524

Das Fest im Eichthale [Das Hochzeitfest im Eichthale] (3) J. C. Bock Breslau (1807) AmZ 16 (21 April 1813): 269

EBERL, ANTON [FRANZ JOSEF] (1765–1811)

Die Königin der schwarzen Inseln Oper (2) Johann Schwaldopler Wien (1801) JLM 8 (August 1801): 415–9 AmZ 48 (26 August 1801): 797–8 ZeW 100 (20 August 1801): 803–6

EBERWEIN, [FRANZ] CARL [ADALBERT] (1786–1868)

Der Graf von Gleichen Romantische Oper (2) Weimar (1824)

199 JLM 15 (February 1824): 118 AmZ 26 (24 June 1824): 423–5 ZeW 8 (10 January 1829): 63–4

Leonore (3) Karl von Holtei Weimar (1829) BCB 129 (4 July 1828): 508–10 [F. F.] BCB 130 (5 July 1828): 511–3 [F. F.] AmZ 9 (4 March 1829): 151–2 AmZ 32 (12 August 1829): 534

ELSLER, JOHANN (–1843)

Der Waldfrevel Liederspiel (2) [Ernst Friedrich] Ludwig Robert BamZ 14 (2 April 1828): 111 [Marx] 3BCB 60 (24 March 1828): 239–40 [A.]

EULE, CARL DIEDRICH

Der Unsichtbare Singspiel (1) [kleine Oper] Carl Ludwig Costenoble Hamburg (1809) AmZ 17 (24 January 1810): 269–72 AmZ 22 (28 February 1810): 351 AmZ 21 (22 May 1822): 342

EULENSTEIN, ANTON HEINRICH EDLER VON (1772–1821)

Thaddädl in der Fremde Meister Wien (1802) AmZ 44 (1 August 1804): 743–4

Die Wanderschaft Xaverl in der Fremde Singspiel (3) Meister

3

200 Wien (1802) AmZ 44 (1 August 1804): 743–4 WT 17 (9 February 1814): 65–6

Der Perückenmacher Posse (1) Anton Hasenhut Wien (1806) WT 1 (1 July 1806): 9–10

Vetter Damian Posse (3) Joachim Perinet Wien (1812) AmZ 27 (1 July 1812): 441

Der gebesserte Lorenz [Diesmal fehlt immer der Herr] Posse mit Gesang (1) [Operette] Joseph Franz Karl Gewey Wien (1813) WT 126 (22 October 1813): 491–2 AmZ 47 (24 November 1813): 772

FAISTENBERGER, JOSEPH (1763–1835)

Die Zauberras Grosse Pantomine BamZ 22 (31 May 1826): 175–6

Der Schutzgeist treuer Liebe Pantomime Wien (1826) WT 71 (15 June 1826): 287

FESCA, FRIEDRICH [ERNST] (1789–1826)

Cantemire Alexander von Dusch Karlsruhe (1820) AmZ 21 (24 May 1820): 356–8 AmZ 43 (25 October 1820): 729–32 AmZ 51 (18 December 1822): 832–4 Caecilia 9 (1825): 57–60

201 Omar und Leila Ludwig Robert Karlsruhe (1823) Caecilia 9 (1825): 57–60

FISCHER, ANTON (1778–1808)

Die Verwandlungen [Die Verwechslung] Operette (1) Joseph Baber Wien (1805) WT 35 (10 May 1808): 277–8 Wage 8 (18 May 1820): 374 [Ludwig Börne] WZ 131 (31 October 1820): 1076–7

Swetards Zauberthal Grosse Zauberoper (2) Emanuel Schikaneder Wien (1805) AmZ 43 (24 July 1805): 690–1 Freimüthige 49 (27 July 1805): 79–80 WZ 92 (15 November 1817): 346–8

Die Festung an der Elbe Singspiel (3) Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1806) AmZ 6 (6 February 1811): 103–4 JLM 3 (March 1811): 161–2

Das Singspiel auf dem Dache Singspiel (1) Georg Friedrich Treitschke [after Théophile Marion Dumersan] Wien (1807) WT 6 (8 February 1807): 94–5 AmZ 25 (21 March 1810): 393–4 AmZ 31 (31 July 1822): 512

Der Hausgesinde [Das Kleeblatt] Singspiel (1) Josef Benedikt Koller Wien (1808) MgS 276 (17 November 1810): 1104 LKgK 43 (1817): 184

202 Das Milchmädchen von Bercy Singspiel (2) Georg Friedrich Treitschke [after Charles Augustin Sewrin] Wien (1808) AmZ 39 (23 June 1808): 621–2

Theseus und Ariadne Romantische Oper (2) (3) Matthäus Stegmayer Wien (1809) AmZ 42 (19 July 1809): 670

FRÄNZEL [FRÄNZL], FERDINAND (1767–1833)

Carlo Fioras [Romaldi/Der Stumme in der Sierra Morena] Oper (3) [Singspiel, Melodrama] Wilhelm Vogel München (1810) AmZ 4 (27 January 1813): 57 [G. Weber] Freimüthige 35 (18 February 1813): 140 AmZ 9 (3 March 1813): 162 AmZ 13 (29 March 1815): 225 AmZ 7 (14 February 1827): 111 AmZ 39 (26 September 1827): 665–6

Hadrian Barbarossa Romantische Oper (3) Gottfried Wohlbrück München (1815) MTJ 4 (April 1815): 148–9 MgS 127 (29 May 1815): 508 AmZ 22 (31 May 1815): 375 AmZ 41 (14 October 1818): 722

FRIEDBERG, KARL (1736–1816)

Malvina, Das Schloß von Greifenstein Ritterschauspiel (3) Karl Friedberg Wien (1812) AmZ 34 (19 August 1812): 563–4

FRÖHLICH, JOSEPH (1780–1862)

203

Scipio [Eroberung von Neukarthago] Grosse Heroische Oper (2) AmZ 45 (6 November 1816): 777–85 [S. C. Maier]

FUSZ [FUSS], JÁNOS [JOHANN EVANGELIST] (1777–1819)

Isaak Historisches Melodrama Joachim Perinet Wien (1812) WT 69 (26 August 1812): 273–4 [-l-]

Judith [Belagerung von Bethulien] Melodrama [Revised as a Biblicalische Oper (Wien 1814)] Georg Anton Meister Wien (1813) AmZ 21 (25 May 1814): 352–3

GEBEL [GÖBEL], FRANZ XAVER (1787–1843)

Aschenschlögel Gross travesirte Oper (3) Joachim Perinet Wien (1812) WT 57 (15 July 1812): 224–5

GERL [GÖRL], FRANZ XAVER (1764–1827)

Der dumme Gärtner aus dem Gebirge [Die beyden Antons] [Comp. with Benedikt Schack] Emanuel Schikaneder Wien (1789) NadB 37 (1798): 448 [Aw.] WT 14 (3 October 1807): 28–9 [L. Kanner]

GIRSCHNER, CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH JOHANN (1794–1860)

Undine [after Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué] Berlin (1830) AmZ 25 (23 June 1830): 408–9

204

GLÄSER, FRANZ [JOSEPH] (1798–1861)

Drahomira Historisches Schauspiel Wien (1818) WT 120 (6 October 1818): 479

Der traurige Fritz Posse (2) F. Wimmer Wien (1818) WZ 90 (29 July 1819): 742 WT 91 (31 July 1819): 363

Die echte Prima Donna in Hirschau Posse (3) F. Wimmer and Ferdinand Rosenau Wien (1819) WT 33 (18 March 1819): 132

Das Mädchen ohne Zunge Melodrama Ferdinand Rosenau Wien (1819) WZ 131 (2 November 1819): 1069–70 WT 133 (6 November 1819): 531–2 [mm]

Das Jahre 1722, 1822, 1922 [1727, 1827, 1927]4 Phantastisches Zeitgemälde (3) Karl Meisl Wien (1822) WZ 136 (12 November 1822): 1103–4 AmZ 52 (25 December 1822): 843–3 WT 81 (7 July 1827): 330 AmZ 35 (29 August 1827): 605–6

Timur, der Tartar-Chan [Die Cavallerie zu Fuss] Karrikatur-Gemälde (3) J. A. Gleich Wien (1822) BCB 124 (29 June 1829): 487–8

Der rasende Roland

4 The title of the work changed for its performance five years later.

205 Melodrama F. X. Told Wien (1823) AmZ 23 (4 June 1823): 358

Stumme Liebe die Holzhauer im Ardennen Walde Romantisches Melodrama August Eckschläger Wien (1823) AmZ 23 (4 June 1823): 363

Der Bär und das Kind Melodrama Ferdinand Rosenau Wien (1823) AmZ 43 (26 October 1825): 721

Der Erlenkönig das Gelübte Romantisches Zauberspiel als Melodrama Franz Xaver Told von Toldenburg Wien (1824) WT 75 (22 June 1824): 298–9 AmZ 28 (8 July 1824): 451

Die kurzen Mäntel Natürliches Zauber-Singspiel (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1824) AmZ 3 (19 January 1825): 44

Die Rettung durch die Sparkasse Lokales Gemälde mit Gesang (3) Karl Meisl Wien (1824) AmZ(W) 37 (2/3 June 1824): 147–8 WT 75 (22 June 1824): 299 WZ 75 (22 June 1824): 647–8 AmZ 28 (8 July 1824): 452

Liebe aus Hass [Arsena und Arsenius, Der Weiberfeind Arsenius] Romantisches Märchen (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1824) WT 84 (13 July 1824): 335 AmZ 3 (19 January 1825): 45 WZ 43 (9 April 1825): 359–60

206

Sauertöpfchen Der Ritter mit der goldenen Gans Grosse romantische Oper (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1824) WT 47 (17 April 1824): 187 [S. S.]

Frühling, Sommer, Herbst, Winter Komisches Zauberspiel Joseph Willmann Wien (1824) AmZ 28 (8 July 1824): 453

Ismanns Grab [Die Zauberinstrumente] Komisches Feenmärchen Wien (1824) WT 139 (18 November 1824): Beilage

Der Brief an sich selbst Komische Oper (1) Karl Meisl Wien (1825) WZ 85 (16 July 1825): 711–2

Die Zauberin Armida [Armida, die Zauberinn im Orient] Grosses Zaubermärchen (2) Wien (1825) AmZ 24 (15 June 1825): 403

Die Weiber in Uniform [Belagerung von Hammelburg] Posse (2) Wien (1825) AmZ 2 (10 January 1827): 21–2

Sieben Mädchen in Uniform Operettchen Louis Angely Wien (1825) WT 82 (9 July 1825): 340

Heliodor, Beherrscher der Elemente [Bild des Glückes] Grosse Romantische Feenoper (2) [Komische Feenoper] [after C. Gozzi] Wien (1825) WT 16 (7 February 1826): 64 [Fr. Gläser] WZ 17 (9 February 1826): 136

207 WT 29 (9 March 1826): 118–9 WZ 30 (11 March 1826): 240 AmZ 13 (22 March 1826): 215

Menagerie und optische Zimmerreise in Krähwinkel Posse (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1825) AmZ 12 (21 March 1825): 194

Die seltsame Laune [Die sonderbare Laune, Sie sind dennoch verheiratet] Komische Oper (1) Georg von Hofmann Wien (1825) WT 92 (2 August 1825): 378–9 WZ 93 (4 August 1825): 780

Die Krähwinkler in der Reisidenz Posse [Volksstück] Wien (1825) AmZ 43 (26 October 1825): 722

Die steigerne Jungfrau Feenspiel (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1826) WZ 115 (26 September 1826): 924 WT 120 (7 October 1826): 487 [Msl] WZ 124 (17 October 1826): 999–1000 AmZ 45 (8 November 1826): 739–40

Peterl und Paulerl Komisches Singspiel Wien (1827) WT 90 (28 July 1827): 367 [Walther von Thale] AmZ 35 (29 August 1827): 607

Abu, der schwarze Wundermann Melodrama (4) Wien (1828) WZ 116 (25 September 1828): 947–8 WT 123 (11 October 1828): 490–1 AmZ 45 (5 November 1828): 752–3

Armida, die Zauberin im Orient Romantische Oper (2)

208 Karl Meisl Wien (1825) WZ 88 (23 July 1825): 735–6 AmZ 41 (8 October 1828): 689

Herma WZ 128 (23 October 1828): 1042–3

Elsbeth [Die Brautschau auf Kronstein] Romantisch-Komische Oper (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1828) WT 58 (13 May 1828): 230–1 AmZ 27 (2 July 1828): 443

Der falsche Virtuos [Das Conzert auf der G-Saite] Posse (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1828) WT 68 (5 June 1828): 270 AmZ 28 (9 July 1828): 461

Die Abentheuer des Ritters Flaremund [Gerichtshof der Liebe] Grosse romantische Schaugemälde Wien (1828) WT 52 (29 April 1828): 207

Der Leopoldstag Lustspiel Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1830) WT 51 (29 April 1830): 207

GÖTZE, JOHANN NIKOLAUS KONRAD [CONRAD] (1791–1861)

Alexander in Persien Grosse Oper Weimar (1819) Gesellschafter 89 (31 May 1819): 356 [A. Seltersheim] Gesellschafter 98 (16 June 1819): 392 [A. Seltersheim] AmZ 22 (30 May 1821): 387 AmZ 16 (16 April 1828): 262–3

GUHR, KARL [WILHELM FERDINAND] (1787–1848)

209

Das Gespenst [Revised as Deodata (Kassel 1815)] August von Kotzebue Nuremberg (1808) AmZ 35 (30 August 1815): 594–5

Feodora Oper (1) August von Kotzebue Nuremberg (1811) AmZ 35 (30 August 1815): 594

Die Vestalin Oper (3) Ignaz von Seyfried Kassel (1814) AmZ 39 (28 September 1814): 641–51 AmZ 40 (5 October 1814): 662–8

König Siegmar [Sigmar] Oper (3) Friedrich Rochlitz Kassel (1818) ZeW 113 (12 June 1818): 902–4 [t. r. t.] MgS 256 (25 October 1822): 1024 MgS 257 (27 October 1822): 1027–8 AmZ 4 (22 January 1824): 57–9

Aladin [Die Wunderlampe] Oper (3) Karl Gollmick Frankfurt am Main (1830) AmZ 20 (19 May 1830): 330

GÜRRLICH, JOSEF AUGUST (1761–1817)

Hanns Max Giesbrecht von der Humpenburg Komische Operette (1) August von Kotzebue Berlin (1815) AmZ 15 (12 April 1815): 255

GYROWETZ, ADALBERT (1763–1850)

210 Selico Singspiel (2) Johann Hummel Wien (1804) Freimüthige 220 (1804): 360 AmZ 7 (14 November 1804): 113–5

Mirana, die Königin der Amazonen [Mirina] Melodrama (3) Franz Holbein Wien (1806) AmZ 37 (11 June 1806): 587–8 WT 1 (1 July 1806): 10–11 [—er] AmZ 50 (13 December 1826): 828

Agnes Sorel Opera seria (3) [Singspiel] Joseph Ferdinand Sonnleithner Wien (1806) AmZ 15 (7 January 1807): 232–3 WT 3 (16 January 1807): 35–7 [Bened. v. Möser] WT 7 (16 February 1807): 107 [N. N.] MgS 41 (17 February 1807): 164 AmZ 29 (13 April 1808): 456–7 AmZ 7 (15 November 1809): 105 AmZ 47 (24 November 1813): 769 MTJ 1 (January 1816): 4–6 MTJ 4 (April 1816): 217–8 AmZ 5 (3 February 1819): 67–8 WZ 144 (30 November 1820): 1184

Ida, die büssende Schauspiel (4) Franz Holbein Wien (1807) MgS 84 (8 April 1807): 336 WT 21 (6 June 1807): 142–3 [C. Gr. P.] AmZ 25 (16 March 1808): 397–8 AmZ 50 (11 December 1816): 864

Die Junggesellen-Wirtschaft Singspiel (1) Georg Friedrich Treitschke Wien (1807) WT 6 (10 August 1807): 89–90 [D. A.—H.] AmZ 29 (13 April 1808): 459–60

211

Emericke [Emerico] Komische Oper (2) Joseph Ferdinand Sonnleithner Wien (1807) WT 1 (2 January 1808): 5–6 AmZ 15 (6 January 1808): 237–8

Die Pagen des Herzogs von Vendome Komische Oper (1) Joseph Ferdinand Sonnleithner [Blum] Wien (1808) ZeW 68 (1820): 543–4

Das zugemauerte Fenster Singspiel (1) [Komisches Singspiel] August von Kotzebue Wien (1811) AmZ 5 (30 January 1811): 83

Der Augenarzt Singspiel (2) Johann Emanuel Veith Wien (1811) MgS 250 (18 October 1811): 1000 WT 22 (16 October 1811): 86–7 AmZ 47 (20 November 1811): 793–4 AmZ 53 (30 December 1812): 855–64 AmZ 16 (21 April 1813): 269 AmZ 47 (24 November 1813): 769 WT 40 (4 April 1814): 156–7 MgS 214 (7 September 1815): 856 AmZ 38 (20 September 1815): 641 AmZ 50 (11 December 1816): 864 MgS 87 (11 April 1820): 351–2 [A. W.] AmZ 15 (12 April 1820): 253

Das Winterquartier in Amerika Singspiel Wien (1812) WT 89 (5 November 1812): 354

Die Prüfung [Robert] Singspiel (2) [Original Oper] Leopold Huber

212 Wien (1815) WT 87 (22 July 1813): 337–8 AmZ 34 (25 August 1813): 559–60

Helene Oper (3) Wien (1816) WT 17 (28 February 1816): 65–7 [Löw] WT 18 (2 March 1816): 70–1 [Löw] AmZ 12 (20 March 1816): 193–4 AmZ 14 (3 April 1822): 224–5

Aladin [Das Notwendige und das Überflüssige] Singspiel [Operette] Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1819) AmZ(W) 12 (10 February 1819): 94–6 WZ 18 (11 February 1819): 146 Gesellschafter 43 (15 March 1819): 172 AmZ 12 (24 March 1819): 196–7

Deodata [Der Burggeist auf Rüdenfels] Schauspiel (5) August von Kotzebue Wien (1819) WT 142 (27 November 1819): 567–8

Das Ständchen Oper (1) [Singspiel] Georg Hoffmann Wien (1823) WZ 19 (13 February 1823): 151–2 AmZ(W) 14 (15 February 1823): 108–10 WT 20 (15 February 1823): 78 AmZ 39 (23 September 1824): 636

Der blinde Harfner Singspiel (1) [Operette] Johann Blum Wien (1827) WT 156 (29 December 1827): 643 WZ 2 (3 January 1828): 15 AmZ 7 (13 February 1828): 109 WZ 129 (25 October 1828): 1050–1

213 HAIBEL [HAIBL, HEIBEL], [JOHANN PETRUS] JAKOB [JACOB] (1762–1826)

Der Tyroler Wastel Komische Oper (3) Carl Schikaneder Wien (1796) ZeW 99 (18 August 1801): 793–9 ZeW 21 (5 February 1808): 167

HAUPTMANN, MORITZ (1792–1868)

Mathilde Grosse Tragische Oper (3) Cassel (1826) AmZ 31 (2 August 1826): 506

HEIDEMANN

Piedro und Elmira Singspiel NadB 55 (1800): 53–4 [Rw.]

HELLWIG, KARL LUDWIG (1773–1838)

Die Bergknappen (1820) [Karl] Theodor Körner Dresden (1820) Gesellschafter 21 (6 February 1822): 100 [—r.] AmZ 7 (13 February 1822): 117 ZeW 75 (18 April 1822): 598–9

HENNEBERG, JOHANN BAPTIST

Der wohltätige Derwisch [Die Schellenkappe] Zauberoper (3) [komische Zauberoper] Emanuel Schikaneder Wien (1793) AmZ 13 (27 March 1811): 225–6

HENNING, CARL WILHELM (1784–1867)

214 Der alte Feldherr Heroisches Liederspiel (1) Carl von Holtei Berlin (1825) AmZ 2 (11 January 1826): 25–6 AmZ 25 (23 June 1830): 416

HILLER, JOHANN ADAM (1728–1804)

Die Jagd Singspiel (3) Christian Felix Weisse Weimar (1770) ZeW 57 (12 May 1803): 452–3 JLM 7 (July 1805): 458

HIMMEL, FRIEDRICH HEINRICH (1765–1814)

Fanchon [Das Leyermädchen] Lustspiel mit Gesäng (3) [Vaudevillestück] August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue Berlin (1804) Freimüthige 100 (1804): 397–8 AmZ 30 (24 April 1805): 488–9 AmZ 34 (22 May 1805): 548 ZeW 71 (13 June 1805): 564–6 [v. Falk] AmZ 41 (10 July 1805): 661–2 Freimüthige 83 (26 April 1806): 331–2 AmZ 28 (8 April 1807): 443–4 JLM 11 (November 1808): 804 Freimüthige 17 (24 January 1809): 67 AmZ 17 (25 January 1809): 262–4 AmZ 29 (19 April 1809): 454 AmZ 30 (27 July 1814): 503 AmZ 15 (12 April 1815): 259–60 Wage 5 (23 October 1819): 221–3 [Ludwig Börne] AmZ 9 (1 March 1820): 150 AmZ 15 (11 April 1821): 248 Gesellschafter 62 (18 April 1821): 288 [V. Mehr] AmZ 20 (16 May 1821): 348 MamZ 25 (22 March 1828): (394) 396–7

Die Sylphen Zauberoper (3) Ludwig Robert

215 Berlin (1806) Freimüthige 79 (21 April 1806): 315–6 ZeW 52 (1 May 1806): 423–4 AmZ 32 (7 May 1806): 511–2 ZeW 16 (27 January 1807): 127 AmZ 19 (4 February 1807): 289–91

Der Kobald Komische Oper (4) [Komische Singspiel] [Johann] Friedrich Wilhelm Gotter Wien (1813) WT 63 (27 May 1813): 243–4 WamZ 22 (29 May 1813): 333–7 AmZ 25 (23 June 1813): 414–5 MgS 98 (25 April 1814): 391–2 [Schleisinger] AmZ 18 (4 May 1814): 303

HOFFMANN, E[RNST] T[HEODOR] A[MADEUS] (1776–1822)

Undine Zauberoper (3) Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué Berlin (1816) ZeW 174 (5 September 1816): 1391–2 AmZ 38 (18 September 1816): 665 AmZ 12 (19 March 1817): 201–8 [Carl Maria von Weber] AmZ 41 (9 October 1822): 669

HOFFMEISTER, FRANZ ANTON (1754–1812)

Telemach, Königssohn aus Ithaka [Telemach auf der Insel Ogygia] Heroisch-komische Oper (2) Emanuel Schikaneder Wien (1795) NadB 46 (1799): 316–9 [Gd.] AmZ 25 (17 June 1824): 405

Rosalinda [Die Macht der Feen] Zauberoper (3) Friedrich Sebastian Mayer Wien (1796) WT 140 (24 November 1813): 548 AmZ 52 (29 December 1813): 842

216

HOLZBAUER, IGNAZ (1711–1783)

Günther von Schwarzburg (3) Anton Klein Mannheim (1777) AmZ 17 (25 January 1804): 273–4

HUBER, F. X.

Die Prüfung WamZ 30 (24 July 1813): 455–9

HUMMEL, JOHANN NEPOMUK (1778–1837)

Mathilde von Guise Heroisch-komische Oper (3) Wien (1810) AmZ 31 (2 May 1810): 491–2 AmZ 22 (30 May 1821): 386–7 BamZ 14 (2 April 1828): 108–10 [G.] BamZ 15 (9 April 1828): 118–20 [G.]

Die Eselshaut [Die blaue Insel] Feenspiel (3) Joseph Franz Karl Gewey Wien (1814) AmZ 17 (27 April 1814): 284 ZeW 191 (29 September 1818): 1546–7 [F. R. Hermann] WT 70 (12 June 1827): 286–7 [Walther von Thale] AmZ 35 (29 August 1827): 603

Die gute Nachricht [Comp. with Ludwig van Beethoven] Oper Georg Friedrich Treitschke Wien (1814) WT 43 (11 April 1814): 167–8

Die Rückfahrt des Kaisers Singspiel (1) Johann Emanuel Vieth Wien (1814) AmZ 28 (20 July 1814): 490–1

217

HÜTTENBRENNER, ANSELM (1794–1868)

Armella [Die beiden Viceköniginnen] Komische Oper Graz (1827) WT 26 (1 March 1827): 107

KANNE, FRIEDRICH AUGUST (1778–1833)

Deutscher Sinn Schauspiel mit Chören Johann Ludwig Deinhardstein AmZ 47 (24 November 1813): 771–2

Anakreon und Sappho Monodrama D. Nöller Wien (1805) AmZ 41 (10 July 1805): 657–61

Orpheus Grosse Oper (2) [Heroische Oper] Friedrich August Kanne Wien (1807) AmZ 9 (25 November 1807): 138–40 MgS 291 (5 December 1807): 1164 WT 19 (18 November 1807): 104–6 [v. Möser] ZeW 185 (19 November 1807): 1471 ZeW 188 (24 November 1807): 1499 JLM 10 (October 1808): 714

Miranda [Das Schwert der Rache] Heroisch-komische Oper (3) Friedrich August Kanne Wien (1811) AmZ 30 (24 July 1811): 507 [Wagner] MgS 250 (18 October 1811): 1000 AmZ 43 (23 October 1811): 723–4

Die Belagerten Militärisches Schauspiel Ludwig Wieland Wien (1813)

218 WT 152 (22 December 1813): 596–7

Schloss Theben [Der Kampf der Flußgötter] Zauberoper (2) Friedrich August Kanne Wien (1817) AmZ 30 (24 July 1811): 507 [Wagner] WT 1 (2 January 1819): 3–4 WZ 1 (2 January 1819): 7–8 AmZ 5 (3 February 1819): 71 ZeW 32 (13 February 1819): 255–6 [F. A.] AmZ(W) 2 (6 January 1819): 12–4

Die eiserne Jungfrau Melodrama (4) Ferdinand von Biedenfeld Wien (1822) AmZ(W) 54 (6 July 1822): 431–2 [Kanne] AmZ(W) 56 (13 July 1822): 447–8 [Kanne] AmZ(W) 57 (17 July 1822): 455–6 [Kanne] AmZ(W) 58 (20 July 1822): 462–3 [Kanne] AmZ 19 (11 May 1825): 314

Malvina [Putzeri’s Abenteuer] Zauberspiel (2) Albin Pfaller Wien (1823) WT 35 (25 March 1823): 142 WZ 36 (25 March 1823): 299–300 Gesellschafter 68 (28 April 1823): 324–5 [F. v. B.]

Lindane [Die Fee und der Haarbeutelschneider] Zauberspiel (3) [Feenoper] Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1824) WT 45 (13 April 1824): 179–180 WT 44 (10 April 1828): 175 WT 75 (24 June 1830): 302

Die Zauberschminke [Das Lande der Erfindungen] Feenoper (3) Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1825) AmZ 47 (23 November 1825): 783

Der Untergang des Feenreiches [Comp. with Ferdinand Kauer]

219 Romantisches Tongemälde Karl Meisl Wien (1826) WZ 51 (29 April 1826): 408 WZ 61 (23 May 1826): 487–8 WT 65 (1 June 1826): 263

KAUER, FERDINAND (1751–1831)

Das Donauweibchen Romantisch-komisches Volksmärchen (3) [Oper] Hensler Wien (1798) JLM 5 (May 1801): 271–2 WZ 31 (12 March 1822): 255–6 WZ 58 (16 May 1826): 463

Das Sternenmädchen im Meidlinger Walde [Sternenkönigin/strahlende Jungfrau im Meidlingerwalde] Romantisch-Komisches Volksmärchen (3) [Oper, Specktakelstück] Leopold Huber Wien (1801) AmZ 5 (30 October 1805): 72–3 AmZ 15 (8 January 1806): 233 AmZ 16 (17 April 1811): 277

Wilhelm Griskircher, der edle Wiener Schauspiel Karl Meisl Wien (1804) WT 49 (27 May 1815): 194–5

Dorfrichterin und ihre Liebhaberb Komische Oper (2) Leopold Huber Wien (1806) WT 17 (1 November 1806): 75–6

Heinrich der Stolze, Herzog von Sachsen (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1806) WT 11 (23 September 1806): 172–3 [L. Kanner]

Erwine von Steinheim

220 Parodie (3) Gewey Wien (1806) WT 18 (8 November 1806): 104–6 [Bäuerle]

Inkel und Yariko Singspiel (1) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1807) WT 14 (16 April 1807): 31 [††]

Brüder von Stausenberg [Wundersträuschen] Volksmährchen [Also music by Friedrich Starke] Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1811) AmZ 43 (23 October 1811): 725 WT 125 (17 October 1818): 499 [Ph. M—r]

Hainz von Geyersburg Schauspiel (3) Wien (1811) AmZ 47 (20 November 1811): 794

Die Zauberin aus Liebe Komische Zauber-Oper als Quodlibet (3) Joachim Perinet Wien (1812) WT 99 (10 December 1812): 394–5 [S. Eckler]

Orpheus und Euridice [So geht es im Olympus zu] Mythologische Karikatur (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1813) WT 23 (23 February 1813): 92

Prinzessin Eigensinn und König Bröselbart Heroisch-komische Oper (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1814) WT 137 (15 December 1814): 545

Die Musikanten am hohen Markt Posse (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1815) WT 34 (6 April 1815): 133–4 [A. B.]

221

Der neue Kampf für Freiheit und Recht Militärisches Zeitstück (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1815) WT 59 (18 July 1815): 234

Herr von Hannsdampf [Die Zusammenkunft in der anderen Welt] Posse (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1816) WT 27 (3 April 1816): 107–8

Herr Kratzerl und seine Familie [Der Pudel als Kindsweib] Posse (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1816) WT 27 (4 March 1816): 108 [Rochler]

Amor und Psyche Mythologische Karikatur (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1817) WZ 82 (11 October 1817): 262 [Y]

Die Frau Mahm aus dem Pustertale Posse (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1826) AmZ 45 (8 November 1826): 738

KESSLER, ERASMUS (1800–)

Klothilde, die Sprachlose Grosses Melodrama (3) Ferdinand Rosenau Wien (1824) WZ 59 (15 May 1824): 507–8 AmZ 28 (8 July 1824): 450–1

Laurina [Gang nach der Zauberquelle] Märchen (2) AmZ 50 (13 December 1824): 829

Der Stock im Eisen

222 Romantische Sage mit Chören Karl [Carl] Meisl Wien (1828) WT 125 (16 October 1828): 499–500 WZ 128 (1828): 1043–4

KIENLEN, JOHANN CHRISTOPH (1783–1829)

Claudine von Villa Bella Singspiel (3) Johann Wolfgang Goethe München (1810) AmZ 24 (17 June 1818): 438

Petrarca und Laura Oper (3) August Eckschläger Pressburg (1816) AmZ 43 (25 October 1820): 729

KINSKY, JOSEF (1790–1853)

Der Fürst und der Rauchfangkehrer Singspiel Wien (1817) WT 51 (29 April 1817): 204

Lorenz als Räuberhauptmann Posse Joseph Franz Karl Gewey Wien (1818) WT 13 (20 January 1818): 52 WZ 13 (29 January 1818): 104

Fortunats Wunschhütlein Musikalisches Zauberspiel (4) Matthäus Stegmayer Wien (1819) WT 18 (11 February 1819): 71–2 AmZ 12 (24 March 1819): 197

KLEIN, BERNHARD [JOSEPH] (1793–1832)

Ariadne

223 Oper (1) Berlin (1823) BamZ 3 (21 January 1824): 22–4 AmZ 7 (12 February 1824): 107

Dido [Grosse] Oper (3) Ludwig Rellstab Berlin (1823) AmZ 46 (12 November 1823): 754–5 Gesellschafter 173 (29 October 1823): 839–40 [**] JLM 104 (November 1823): 849–50 JLM 105 (November 1823): 861–2 ZeW 236 (2 December 1823): 1895–6 JLM 7 (January 1824): 50 MgS 43 (19 February 1827): 172

KLEINHEINZ, FRANZ XAVER (1772–1832)

Harald, der Kronen-Räuber Historische Oper (3) [Grosse Heroische Oper] Matthäus Stegmayer WT 43 (11 April 1814): 168–70 [J. O—.] WT 44 (13 April 1814): 172–4 [J. O—.] WT 57 (14 May 1814): 227–8 [b...] AmZ 21 (25 May 1814): 361–2 WT 66 (26 August 1815): 264 MgS 245 (13 October 1815): 980 AmZ 43 (25 October 1815): 719–20

Käfig Operette [Komische Oper] August von Kotzebue Pest (1816) MgS 127 (27 May 1816): 508

KOCHER, KONRAD (1786–1872)

Der Elfenkönig MgS 138 (10 June 1818): 552 ZeW 127 (2 July 1818): 1016

KÖHLER, KARL-HEINZ

224

So geht’s den alten Freyern Komische Oper (1801) NadB 72 (1802): 88–90 [Pl.]

KREUTZER, CONRADIN (1780–1849)

Aesop in Phrygien [Lydien] Oper (1) Pius Alexander Wolff [Stegmayer] Wien (1808) ZeW 11 (15 January 1822): 87 AmZ 2 (8 January 1823): 24–5 JLM 35 (May 1823): 294 ZeW 46 (6 March 1823): 367–8

Jery und Bätely Singspiel (1) Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Wien (1810) AmZ 38 (20 June 1810): 605

Feodora Operette (1) August von Kotzebue Stuttgart (1812) AmZ 4 (26 January 1814): 73

Die Insulanerinnen Oper (2) J. F. Schlotterbeck [after Metastasio] Stuttgart (1813) WT 23 (23 February 1829): 91

Der Taucher Romantische Oper (2) Samuel Gottlieb Bürde Stuttgart (1813) Freimüthige 100 (20 May 1813): 399–400 MgS 108 (6 May 1813): 432 WT 13 (29 January 1824): 1–2 [M–t.] WZ 15 (3 February 1824): 123–6 WT 18 (10 February 1824): 70–1 AmZ 8 (19 February 1824): 122–4

225 WT 24 (26 February 1824): 99 [G-g-r] AmZ(W) 24 (24 April 1824): 93–5 [R—g]

Alimon und Zaide [Der Prinz von Katanea] (3) Stuttgart (1814) MgS 57 (8 March 1814): 228 AmZ 28 (13 July 1814): 469–70

Die Alpenhütte Singspiel (1) [Operette] August von Kotzebue Stuttgart (1815) AmZ 48 (29 November 1820): 809–10 WZ 94 (6 August 1822): 756–7 AmZ 36 (4 September 1822): 586

Libussa Romantische Oper (3) Joseph Carl [Karl] Bernard Wien (1822) AmZ(W) 99 (11 December 1822): 790–1 WZ 151 (17 December 1822): 1221–4 AmZ(W) 101 (18 December 1822): 804–8 AmZ(W) 102 (21 December 1822): 811–4 WZ 156 (28 December 1822): 1268 AmZ(W) 1 (1 January 1823): 5–6 AmZ(W) 2 (4 January 1823): 16 WT 5 (11 January 1823): 19 AmZ 4 (22 January 1823): 49–50 AmZ 8 (19 February 1823): 122 WT 24 (25 February 1823): 95 [Mpr} AmZ 36 (3 September 1823): 590–1 Gesellschafter 205 (24 December 1823): 1008 JLM 23 (March 1823): 183 JLM 26 (April 1823): 202 DB 101 (30 June 1823): 403 JLM 102 (November 1823): 835–8 [A. Wendt] JLM 103 (November 1823): 841–5 [A. Wendt] MgS 176 (17 November 1823): 1100 AmZ 1 (1 January 1824): 11 AmZ 2 (8 January 1824): 18–9 ZeW 6 (8 January 1824): 54–6 WZ 18 (10 February 1824): 150–1 AmZ 9 (26 February 1824): 138 AmZ 13 (25 March 1824): 208

226 WZ 49 (22 April 1824): 417–8 JLM 5 (January 1825): 39 WZ 22 (19 February 1825): 182 [A. .] WT 10 (22 January 1829): 538–9 [M. K.] WZ 13 (29 January 1829): 103–4

Cordelia [Kordelia] Lyrisch-tragische Oper (1) Pius Alexander Wolff Wien (1823) WZ 23 (23 February 1823): 183–4 AmZ(W) 17 (26 February 1823): 129–35 DB 47 (24 March 1823) AmZ 13 (26 March 1823): 208–9 DB 64 (24 April 1823): 255–6 WZ 87 (20 July 1824): 752 BamZ 32 (8 August 1827): 259–60 [L. Rellstab] BCB 150 (31 July 1827): 600 [K.] BCB 151 (2 August 1827): 604 [K.] WZ 101 (23 August 1827): 832–3

Sigune Nordisches Mährchen A. Schumacher Wien (1823) WZ 144 (2 December 1823): 1191–2 WT 145 (4 December 1823): 582

Die lustige Werbung Komische Oper (2) C. B. Wien (1826) WZ 83 (13 July 1826): 667–8 AmZ 34 (23 August 1826): 559–60

Luna Grosse Romantische Oper Wien (1826) WT 4 (9 January 1827): 19

Das Mädchen von Montfermeuil [Denise, das Milchmädchen] Komische Oper (5) [Singspiel] Andreas Schumacher Wien (1829) WT 123 (13 October 1829): 502 WZ 125 (17 October 1829): 1026–7

227 AmZ 51 (23 December 1829): 843–4

KUHLAU, FRIEDRICH [DANIEL RUDOLPH] (1786–1832)

Lulu Romantische Oper (3) C. C. F. Güntelberg (after A. J. Liebeskind) Hamburg (1824) WZ 17 (8 February 1825): 141

KUNZ, THOMAS ANTON (1756–1830)

Die Bezauberten Singspiel Prag (1779)

KUNZEN, FRIEDRICH LUDWIG AEMILIUS (1761–1817)

Winzerfest [Das Fest der Winzer/Die Weinlese] Komische Oper (3) Johann Jakob Ihlée Frankfurt am Main (1793) AmZ 31 (3 August 1825): 526

LANNOY, HEINRICH EDUARD JOSEF VON

Ein Uhr [Der Zauberbund um Mitternacht/Ritter und die Waldgeister] Zauber-Melodrama (3) Wilhelm Vogel [after Matthew Gregory Lewis] Wien (1822) WZ 144 (30 November 1822): 1166–8 AmZ 29 (19 July 1826): 476–7

Emmy Teels Melodrama (3) Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1823) WZ 62 (24 May 1823): 511

Kettly [Kätli] Operette (1) [Singspiel] Georg von Hofmann Wien (1827)

228 WZ 53 (3 May 1827): 435–6

LAUER, BARON ADOLPH VON

Rose, die Müllerin Ländlisches Singspiel Adalbert vom Thale [Karl von Decker] Wien (1820) AmZ 20 (17 May 1820): 338

LEBRUN, LOUIS-SÉBASTIAN (1764–1829)

Pachter Robert [Marcelin] Komisches Singspiel (1) [Komische Oper] Bernard Valville Berlin (1805) AmZ 7 (13 November 1805): 109 JLM 12 (December 1808): 880–1 WT 14 (17 February 1816): 53–4 WZ 118 (1 October 1822): 955–6

LICHTENSTEIN, KARL AUGUST [LUDWIG] FREYHERR VON (1767–1845)

Bathmendi Grosse allegorisch-komische Oper (2) Ernst Wolfgang Behrisch Dessau (1798) AmZ 15 (9 January 1799): 239–40 JLM 2 (February 1799): 85–7 JLM 8 (August 1799): 400–1 ZeW 54 (5 May 1801): 435–8 JLM 6 (June 1801): 307–9

Die steinerne Braut Singspiel Karl August [Ludwig] Freyherr von Lichtenstein Dessau (1799) JLM 5 (May 1799): 251 AmZ 33 (15 May 1799): 511–4 [Spazier]

Der Kaiser als [und der] Zimmermann [Frauenwerth] Grosse Komische Oper (3) Karl von Lichtenstein [after Jean Nicholas Bouilly] Strassburg (1814)

229 AmZ 32 (10 August 1814): 531–2

Singethee und Liedertafel [Der falsche Rossini] Singspiel (2) Karl August [Ludwig] Freiherr von Lichtenstein Berlin (1825) JLM 28 (5 April 1825): 222–3 AmZ 15 (13 April 1825): 247

Zur guten Stunde [die Edelknaben] Singspiel (2) Karl August [Ludwig] Freiherr von Lichtenstein Berlin (1823) AmZ 26 (25 June 1823): 418 BamZ 19 (12 May 1824): 170–1 [N.] AmZ 20 (13 May 1824): 331

Der Mauer BS 35 (1826): 139–40

LINDPAINTNER, PETER JOSEPH VON (1791–1856)

Die Pflegekinder Komische Oper (2) [Operette, Singspiel] K. Thienemann München (1812) MTJ 12 (December 1814): 359–61 JLM 12 (February 1823): 94–5

Der blinde Gärtner [Die blühende Aloe] Singspiel (1) August von Kotzebue München (1813) AmZ 6 (7 February 1821): 94–6

Friedrich der Siegreiche Schauspiel (4) München (1813) AmZ 12 (23 March 1814): 203–4

Die Prinzessin von Cacambo Komische Oper (2) August von Kotzebue München (1814) MgS 141 (14 June 1815): 563–4

230

Die Sternkönigin Romantische Komische Volksmährchen [Feenoper] Julius von Voss München (1815) AmZ 44 (1 November 1820): 737–9

Moses Errettung Melodrama (3) München/Berlin (/18131816) MgS 162 (8 July 1813): 648 AmZ 20 (15 May 1816): 334

Kunstsinn und Liebe [Das Christusbild] Oper (2) [Singspiel] Zahlhaus München (1816) MTJ 5 (May 1816): 282–3 AmZ 32 (7 August 1816): 539–40

Hans Max Giesbrecht von der Humpenburg [Die neue Ritterzeit] Singspiel (1) August von Kotzebue München (1816) MTJ 6 (June 1816): 356–9 WT 75 (18 September 1816): 298–9

Das erwachte Gewissen Dramatisches Phantasiegemälde [Melodrama] Wilhelm Urban Berlin (1817) ZeW 196 (7 October 1817): 1583–4

Die Rosenmädchen Singspiel (3) [Komische Oper] Peter Joseph von Lindpaintner and August von Kotzebue Wien (1818) WZ 67 (4 June 1818): 543–4 WZ 68 (6 June 1818): 550 WT 70 (11 June 1818): 279 AmZ 25 (24 June 1818): 453

Timantes Grosse heroische Oper (3) [Revision of Demophoon] Franz Karl Hiemer Stuttgart (1820)

231 ZeW 91 (11 May 1820): 726–8

Sulmona Oper (3) Peter Joseph von Lindpaintner and Franz Karl Hiemer Stuttgart (1823) AmZ 28 (9 July 1823): 451 ZeW 199 (9 October 1824): 1599–1600 [R...dt]

Der Bergkönig Romantische Oper (3) K. Hanisch Stuttgart (1825) AmZ 9 (2 March 1825): 153–4 AmZ 39 (28 September 1825): 651–2

Der Vampyr Romantische Oper (3) Cäsar Max Heigel Stuttgart (1828) AmZ 35 (29 August 1827): 608 AmZ 41 (10 October 1827): 699 MamZ 48 (30 August 1828): 766–8 WT 122 (9 October 1828): 487 [m.] AmZ 42 (15 October 1828): 712 MTZ 4 (25 October 1828): 25–30 WT 130 (28 October 1828): 519 [m.] WT 131 (30 October 1828): 524 [m.] MTZ 5 (1 November 1828): 33–6 MTZ 6 (8 November 1828): 41–3 AmZ 6 (11 February 1829): 95–9 AmZ 7 (18 February 1829): 114–7 AmZ 8 (25 February 1829): 131–2 AmZ 11 (18 March 1829): 182–6 AmZ 19 (13 May 1829): 312–6 [Fink] AmZ 20 (20 May 1829): 321–6 [Fink] WZ 113 (19 September 1829): 931–2 AmA 39 (26 September 1829): 154 WT 116 (26 September 1829): 478 AmA 41 (10 October 1829): 164 BCB 225 (17 November 1829): 884 AmZ 46 (18 November 1829): 778 BamZ 9 (7 February 1830): 70–1 BamZ 17 (24 April 1830): 136 [Spazier] BamZ 18 (1 May 1830): 141–4 [Spazier] BamZ 20 (15 May 1830): 160 [Spazier]

232 BamZ 49 (4 December 1830): 385–9

LOBE, JOHANN CHRISTIAN (1797–1881)

Wittekind [Herzog der Sachsen] Grosse ernsthafte Oper AmZ 35 (28 August 1822): 574–5 ZeW 92 (11 May 1822): 735–6

Die Flibustier Oper (3) Eduard Heinrich Gehe Weimar (1829) ZeW 28 (7 February 1829): 217–20 [Gehe] AmZ 40 (7 October 1829): 662–5 BamZ 10 (6 March 1830): 74–8 [22 (sic)] BamZ 11 (13 March 1830): 81–4 [22 (sic)] BamZ 12 (20 March 1830): 89–91 [22 (sic)] Caecilia 45 (1830): 69–70 Iris 37–8 (5 November 1830): 3–4

MARSCHNER, HEINRICH (1795–1861)

Heinrich IV Grosse Oper (3) August Gottlieb Hornbostel Dresden (1817/18) AmZ 77 (23 September 1820): 611–3

Schön Ella Volkschauspiel mit Gesang (5) Johann Friedrich Kind Dresden (1823) BamZ 42 (20 October 1824): 357–61

Der Holzdieb Komische Oper (1) [Singspiel] Friedrich Kind Dresden (1823) AmZ 20 (18 May 1825): 334

Der Vampyr Grosse Romantische Oper (2) Wilhelm August Wohlbrück

233 Leipzig (1828) BamZ 31 (30 July 1828): 246–8 [A. Wendt] BamZ 32 (6 August 1828): 256–7 [A. Wendt] BamZ 33 (13 August 1828): 265–7 [A. Wendt] BamZ 34 (20 August 1828): 271–5 [A. Wendt] AmZ 34 (20 August 1828): 552–6 BamZ 35 (27 August 1828): 282–3 [A. Wendt] AmZ 40 (1 October 1828): 672–3 WZ 91 (29 July 1828): 748 MgS 122 (21 May 1828): 488 [W.] MgS 123 (22 May 1828): 492 [W.] MgS 124 (23 May 1828): 495–6 [W.] AmZ 15 (9 April 1828): 248 AmZ 16 (16 April 1828): 253–9 [Fink] ZeW 75 (17 April 1828): 599–600 [r.] ZeW 76 (18 April 1828): 607–8 [r.] AmZ 17 (23 April 1828): 269–74 [Fink] BamZ 21 (23 May 1829): 167–8 WZ 156 (29 December 1829): 1288 ZeW 150 (3 August 1829): 1199–1200 ZeW 151 (4 August 1829): 1207–8 ZeW 152 (6 August 1829): 1215–6 ZeW 153 (7 August 1829): 1224 AmZ 32 (12 August 1829): 534 WT 123 (13 October 1829): 504 ZeW 213 (30 October 1829): 1703 [R.] AmZ 9 (3 March 1830): 140–1 WZ 27 (4 March 1830): 222–3 BamZ 41 (9 October 1830): 321–6 [M.]

Der Templar und die Jüdin Grosse Romantische Oper (3) Wilhelm August Wohlbrück Leipzig (1829) AmZ IBXIII (August 1829): 49 [Marschner] AmZ 1 (6 January 1830): 12–3 Iris 4 (23 April 1830): 1 WT 57 (13 May 1830): 231 AmA 27 (3 July 1830): 105–6 AmZ 40 (6 October 1830): 645–60 BamZ 42 (16 October 1830): 333–6 [M.]

MAYER, [FRIEDRICH LUDWIG] AUGUST (1790–1829)

234 Die Burgschaft Oper (2) Eduard Heinrich Gehe Breslau/Dresden (1822/1823) WZ 84 (13 July 1822): 679

MARX, ADOLF BERNHARD

Jery und Bätely Komische Operette [after Johann Wolfgang von Goethe] Berlin (1825/1827) AmZ 24 (15 June 1825): 404

Die Rache Wartet Melodrama Berlin (1829) BCB 39 (24 February 1829): 156

MAURER, LUDWIG [WILHELM] (1789–1878)

Heinrich und Angoline Oper AmZ 8 (21 February 1821): 130

Aloyse [Aloise] Historische-romantische Oper (2) Franz Holbein Hannover (1828) MgS 68 (19 March 1828): 271–2 [G.H.] WT 86 (18 July 1829): 353

Theanor [Der Feuerbung] Romantische Zauberoper (3) AmZ 4 (28 January 1829): 61–2

MENDELSSOHN-BARTHOLDY, FELIX (1809–47)

Die Hochzeit des Camacho Singspiel (2) Friedrich Voigt Berlin (1827) WZ 83 (12 July 1827): 684

235 MamZ 3 (20 October 1827): 41–6 [R.B...... k.] AmZ 22 (3 June 1829): 353–6

MEYERBEER, GIACOMO (1791–1864)

Jephtas Gelübde Biblicalische Oper (3) Alois Schroeber München (1812) AmZ 7 (17 February 1813): 112

Wirth und Gast [Aus Scherz wird Ernst, Die beyden Kalifen, Alimelek] Lustspiel (2) [Komische Oper] Gottfried Wohlbrück Stuttgart (1813) WT 114 (21 October 1814): 453–4 WT 116 (27 October 1814): 461–2 AmZ 47 (22 November 1815): 785–8 [Carl Maria von Weber] MgS 86 (10 April 1820): 348

MILLER, JULIUS (1782–1851)

Der Kosakenoffizier Singspiel [kleine Oper] Dessau (1809) AmZ 29 (19 April 1809): 456

MILTITZ, CARL BORROMÄUS VON (1781–1845)

Wie man lieben muss Romantisches Singspiel Berlin (1815) AmZ 3 (17 January 1816): 45–6

MOSEL, IGNAZ FRANZ EDLER VON (1772–1844)

Die Feuerprobe Singspiel (1) Joseph Sonnleithner Wien (1811) AmZ 21 (22 May 1811): 356–7 AmZ 25 (19 June 1811): 427

236 Salem Lyrische Tragödie (3) Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1813) WT 29 (9 March 1813): 113–5 MgS 82 (6 April 1813): 327–8 WamZ 11 (13 March 1813): 160–3 WamZ 12 (20 March 1813): 174–84 AmZ 22 (2 June 1813): 367–8

MOZART, WOLFGANG AMADEUS (1756–91)

Die Entführung aus dem Serail Singspiel (3) Johann Gottlieb Stephanie Wien (1782) AT Vol. 2 Nr. 34 (September 1800): 143–4 JLM 4 (April 1801): 211–4 [l] JLM 8 (August 1805): 548 AmZ 39 (23 June 1808): 622–3 WT 46 (1808): 361–5 JLM 10 (October 1808): 709–10 AmZ 17 (25 January 1809): 266 AmZ 19 (8 February 1809): 295–7 MgS 51 (1 March 1809): 204 MgS 147 (20 June 1810): 588 AmZ 51 (19 September 1810): 822–3 Freimüthige 54 (16 March 1811): 216 ZeW 240 (2 December 1811): 1918 MgS 110 (7 May 1812): 440 AmZ 40 (5 October 1814): 669 AmZ 50 (11 December 1816): 864 LKgK 44 (1817): 188 LKgK 45 (1817): 189–91 [A. Wendt] LKgK 46 (1817): 193–4 [A. Wendt] WT 81 (7 July 1818): 323 WZ 83 (11 July 1818): 676 AmZ 29 (22 July 1818): 527–8 AmZ 18 (5 May 1819): 305 WZ 59 (18 May 1819): 476–7 WZ 68 (8 June 1819): 554–5 Wage 4 (5 October 1819): 181–3 [Ludwig Börne] WZ 68 (7 June 1821): 580 WZ 85 (17 July 1821): 727 WT 15 (5 February 1824): 58–9 [S. S.]

237 AmZ 8 (19 February 1824): 120–1 AmZ 77 (25 September 1824): 307–8 AmZ 15 (12 April 1826): 252 BCB 88 (7 May 1829): 346–7 BCB 89 (8 May 1829): 349–52

Der Schauspieldirektor Singspiel [Komische Oper] Johann Gottlieb Stephanie Wien (1786) AmZ 39 (23 September 1824): 633–5

Die Zauberflöte Singspiel (2) Emanuel Schikaneder Wien (1791) JLM 10 (October 1798): 636–7 NadB 4 [Anhang] (1799): 90–4 [Fh.] MTJ 3 (March 1800): 88–92 ZeW 40 (2 April 1801): 315–8 JLM 6 (June 1801): 299–302 Eunomia II/10 (October 1802): 370–81 [Gh.] JLM 10 (October 1802): 569–70 JLM 11 (November 1803): 603–4 AmZ 13 (26 December 1804): 208–9 Freimüthige 133 (4 July 1808): 532 [OH] ZeW 178 (13 October 1808): 1423 [A. G. Müller] JLM 4 (April 1809): 245–6 AmZ 29 (19 April 1809): 453–4 AmZ 30 (26 April 1809): 473–4 ZeW 182 (12 September 1809): 1454–5 MgS 110 (7 May 1812): 440 JLM 6 (June 1812): 381–3 WT 53 (1 July 1812): 209–10 [—z] MgS 166 (11 July 1812): 664 WT 56 (11 July 1812): 220–1 [—z] AmZ 34 (19 August 1812): 558–61 WT 91 (12 November 1812): 362–3 [F. E.] WT 97 (3 December 1812): 385–7 [Karl Linde] MgS 83 (7 April 1813): 332 [.....r] WT 48 (27 April 1814): 189–90 AmZ 33 (17 August 1814): 551 WT 54 (22 June 1815): 214–6 WT 55 (24 June 1815): 217–8 AmZ 34 (23 August 1815): 571–2 AmZ 7 (14 February 1816): 105

238 AmZ 43 (23 October 1816): 735–6 JLM 11 (November 1816): 768 WT 102 (25 August 1818): 407 WZ 102 (25 August 1818): 836 WZ 103 (27 August 1818): 844 WT 107 (5 September 1818): 427 [W. C. P.] AmZ(W) 36 (5 September 1818): 332–5 [A†B] LKgK 145 (1 September 1818): 592 WT 134 (7 November 1818): 535 [v. B. M.] WZ 135 (10 November 1818): 1102 WZ 141 (24 November 1818): 1154 AmZ 48 (2 December 1818): 839–41 AmZ 1 (6 January 1819): 7 AmZ 3 (20 January 1819): 52–4 AmZ 3 (20 January 1819): 58 AmZ 5 (3 February 1819): 65–7 WZ 24 (25 February 1819): 194 WT 47 (20 April 1819): 187–8 [-l-] WT 57 (13 May 1819): 227 [Mpr] AmZ 21 (26 May 1819): 369–70 Gesellschafter 117 (19 July 1819): 468 [R. St.] AmZ 34 (25 August 1819): 577–9 Wage 5 (17 October 1819): 216–7 [Ludwig Börne] ZeW 91 (10 May 1819): 727–8 [Ernst Krieger] WZ 47 (20 April 1819): 380 WZ 59 (18 May 1819): 476 WZ 68 (8 June 1819): 55 Wage 1 (14 June 1820): 18–20 [Ludwig Börne] WZ 80 (4 July 1820): 651–2 WT 88 (22 July 1820): 351–2 AmZ(W) 62 (2 August 1820): 493–5 AmZ 40 (4 October 1820): 675 WZ 151 (16 December 1820): 1247 WZ 11 (25 January 1821): 86–7 AmZ(W) 7 (29 January 1821): 54–5 [**] WZ 13 (30 January 1821): 106–7 AmZ 14 (4 April 1821): 222–3 AmZ 15 (11 April 1821): 247 AmZ 16 (18 April 1821): 276–7 WZ 59 (17 May 1821): 507 WZ 85 (17 July 1821): 727 AmZ 36 (5 September 1821): 618 Gesellschafter 166 (17 October 1821): 775 [Ernst Woldemon] AmZ 15 (10 April 1822): 245–7 AmZ(W) 65 (14 August 1822): 513–5 WZ 135 (9 November 1822): 1091–2

239 AmZ 23 (4 June 1823): 359–60 DB 94 (17 June 1823): 375 WT 84 (13 July 1824): Beilage BamZ 39 (29 September 1824): 335–6 [] (sic) BamZ 40 (6 October 1824): 345–7 [] (sic) JLM 72 (July 1824): 576 WT 127 (22 October 1825): 519–20 [J. G.] AmZ 18 (3 May 1826): 303 WT 62 (25 May 1826): 251–2 WZ 63 (27 May 1826): 503 MgS 129 (31 May 1826): 515–6 [Herr Blume] MgS 130 (1 June 1826): 519–20 [Herr Blume] WZ 67 (6 June 1826): 535 WT 70 (12 June 1827): 288 WT 74 (21 June 1827): 302–3 AmZ 27 (5 July 1826): 433 [*] WZ 128 (25 October 1827): 1057–8 WZ 146 (6 December 1827): 1210 AmZ 50 (12 December 1827): 850 MamZ 48 (1827–8): 766–8 WT 71 (13 June 1829): 288–9 WZ 73 (17 June 1829): 600 WT 82 (9 July 1829): 338 BCB 197 (9 October 1829): 772 [R. W.] AmZ 12 (24 March 1830): 187–8 Iris 17 (23 July 1830): 2–3

MÜLLER, ADOLF (1801–86)

Die schwarze Frau Parodistische Posse (3) Karl Meisl Wien (1826) WT 147 (9 December 1826): 600 [G—h] WZ 150 (16 December 1826): 1208

Der Gutsherr und der Schuster [Der nächtliche Spuk im Schlosse Kornbach] Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1827) WT 31 (13 March 1827): 126–7 [Walter von Berger]

Die erste Zusammenkunft Operette (1) [Singspiel] Wien (1827) WZ 45 (14 April 1827): 367–7

240

Asträa die Geisterfürstin Zauberspiel (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1827) AmZ 7 (13 February 1828): 109

Seraphine [Die Kriegesgefagene] Romantisch-Komische Oper (3) M. Schmid [after August von Kotzebue] Wien (1828) WT 132 (1 November 1828): 527 [Oe—r] AmZ 47 (19 November 1828): 785–6

Der Barbier von Sievering Parodirende Posse (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1828) AmZ 5 (4 February 1829): 75

Fortunatus Abenteuer zu Wasser und zu Lande Komische-Zauber-Posse mit Musik (3) Johann Wilhelm Lembert Wien (1829) WZ 143 (28 November 1829): 1176–7

Othellerl, der Mohr von Wien [Die geheilte Eifersucht] Posse (3) Karl Meisl Wien (1829) WT 78 (30 June 1829): 321

Die elegante Bräumeistern Posse (2) Josef Schickh Wien (1830) WT 36 (25 March 1830): 147

MÜLLER, WENZEL (1759/1767–1835)

Der Geisterseher (5) Joachim Perinet Wien (1790) MgS 101 (26 April 1816): 403–4

241

Kaspar der Fagottist [Die Zauberzither] Singspiel (3) Joachim Perinet Wien (1791) JLM 11 (November 1800): 574–5

Das Neusonntagskind Singspiel (2) Joachim Perinet Wien (1793) AmZ 19 (8 February 1809): 298–9

Die Schwestern von Prag Singspiel (2) [Faschings Posse] Joachim Perinet Wien (1794) AmZ 30 (26 April 1809): 478 WT 73 (19 June 1813): 281–2 WamZ 27 (3 July 1813): 420–2 AmZ 30 (28 July 1813): 496–7 WZ 98 (17 August 1819): 806 AMZ 22 (30 May 1821): 383 WZ 13 (28 January 1825): 107–8 [*—*]

Die [schöne] Marketenderin Militärisches Singspiel (2) Karl Friedrich Hensler Wien (1795) WT 4 (10 January 1814): 14–5

Der Lustig-Lebendig [Die Schlittenfahrt] Komisches Singspiel (1) Joachim Perinet Wien (1796) AmZ 12 (20 March 1816): 195

Das Schlangenfest in Sangora [Grosse] Heroisch-komische Oper (2) Karl Friedrich Hensler Wien (1796) AmZ 30 (26 April 1809): 477

Die lustige Beylager Singspiel (2) [burlesque Oper] Joachim Perinet

242 Wien (1797) WT 142 (29 November 1813): 555–8 WT 9 (31 January 1816): 33–4

Thaddädl [Der 30-jährige A. B. C. Schütz] Komische Oper (3) [Posse] Karl Friedrich Hensler Wien (1799) WT 136 (15 November 1813): 533 MTJ 3 (March 1814): 47–8

Der Teufelsstein von Mödlingen [Teufelsmühle am Wienerberg, Die Zauber-Rose] Historisch-romantisches Volksmärchen mit Gesang (3) Karl [Carl] Friedrich Hensler Wien (1800) Gesellschafter 183 (16 November 1818): 732 [–o–] AmZ 13 (22 March 1826): 213–4 WT 107 (6 September 1827): 439 [Walther von Thale]

Der lustige Schusterfeierabend Singspiel (3) [Komische Oper] Karl Meisl [Karl Friedrich Hensler] Wien (1801) WT 6 (14 January 1813): 23–4 MTJ 1 (January 1815): 23

Der eiserne Mann [Die Drudenhöhle im Wienerwald] Österreicheses Volksmärchen (3) Leopold Huber Wien (1801) WZ 64 (29 May 1819): 521–2

Die musikalische Tischlerfamilie [Die unruhige Nachbarschaft] Komische Oper (2) Karl Friedrich Hensler Wien (1803) WT 36 (25 March 1813): 143–4

Evakathel und Schnudi [Die Belagerung von Ypsilon] Carricatur-Oper (2) [Posse] Joachim Perinet Wien (1804) AmZ 43 (26 October 1825): 718–9 AmZ 50 (13 December 1826): 829

Belino und Rosaura

243 Matthäus Voll Wien (1807) WT 4 (24 January 1807): 53–4 [L. Kanner]

Der Tanzmeister [Comp. with Joseph Schuster and Ferdinand Kauer] Posse Joseph Ferdinand Kringsteiner Wien (1807) WT 6 (8 February 1807): 95–6 [L. K.]

Die Wunderlampe Zauberoper (4) Joseph Alois Gleich Prag (1810) AmZ 25 (19 June 1811): 427–8

Der Schlossgärtner und der Windmüller Komische Oper (1) Josef Benedikt Koller Wien (1813) WT 81 (8 July 1813): 313–4 AmZ 43 (21 October 1824): 696 AmZ 39 (26 September 1827): 663

Der österreichische Grenadier [Der baierische Grenadier] Singspiel (1) [Operette] Karl Meisl Wien (1813) MTJ 9 (September 1814): 260–1 AmZ 7 (14 February 1816): 103–4

Die Jungfrau von Wien Posse (2) H. Herzenskron Wien (1813) WT 132 (5 November 1813): 516–7

Der Kosak in London Singspiel (1) [Operette] D. Wohl Wien (1813) AmZ 4 (26 January 1814): 69–70

Die Kosaken in Wien Singspiel (3) Adolph Bäuerle

244 Wien (1814) WT 31 (14 March 1814): 121–2 [Eckler]

Fee Zenobia [Die Zauber-Ruinen] Grosse komische Pantomime (2) K. Hampel Wien (1814) WT 35 (23 March 1814): 140 [D. J.] WT 36 (25 March 1814): 142 [D. J.]

Die Weihe der Zukunft Allegorische Dramatische Dichtung Joseph Ferdinand Sonnleithner Wien (1814) WT 89 (16 July 1814): 334–6 AmZ 29 (20 July 1814): 489–90

Hans Max Giesprecht von der Humpenburg [Die neue Ritterzeit] Komische Operette (1) C. Grünbaum [after August von Kotzebue] Wien (1814) WT 112 (16 October 1814): 445–6

Die Bekanntschaft im Leopoldstädter Theater Posse H. Wille Wien (1815) WT 15 (11 February 1815): 57–8

Maria Stuttgartin Posse (1) Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1815) AmZ 25 (21 June 1815): 423

Der lebendigtote Hausherr Posse (3) W. Schmitt Wien (1815) WT 79–80 (5 October 1815): 299–300

Das Badhaus bei Wien Komische Oper (3) Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1815) WT 121–22 (23 December 1815): 382

245

Der Fiaker als Marquis [Die neue Alceste] Komische Oper (3) Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1816) WT 13 (14 February 1816): 51 WT Beilage (17 February 1816): 14 [Ch-st-b] AmZ 12 (20 March 1816): 196 WT 41 (5 April 1817): 164 WZ 49 (22 April 1820): 400

Die unvermutete Hochzeit Singspiel (1) [Oper] K. Schikaneder Wien (1816) WT 83 (11 July 1820): 332

Vizliputzli Romantisch-komische Volkssage Ferdinand Rosenau Wien (1817) WT 25 (27 February 1817): 100

Der Tiger im Zaubergebirge Grosse komische Pantomime (2) Rainoldi Wien (1817) WT 39 (1 April 1817): 156

Mai, Juni, Juli [Leopoldstad, Jägerzeile und Prater] Posse (3) Ferdinand Rosenau Wien (1817) AmZ 25 (18 June 1817): 429

Doktor Fausts Mantel [Staberl im Floribus] Zauberspiel mit Gesang (2) Adolf Bäuerle Wien (1817) WT 18 (11 February 1819): 71–2 AmZ 43 (26 October 1825): 721

Ritter Matthias von Bimsenstein und seine Trudel [Die Erlösung Herrn Vetters und der Frau Mahm] Parodie (3) Wiedemann

246 Wien (1818) WT 23 (21 February 1818): 91–2

Der verwunschene Prinz [Der bezauberte Prinz] Parodie (2) Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1818) WT 139 (18 November 1820): 555–6 [-l-] WZ 140 (21 November 1820): 1151–2 AmZ 1 (3 January 1821): 8

Der Schatten von Fausts Weib Zauberspiel Adolf Bäuerle Wien (1818) WZ 68 (6 June 1818): 550 WT 143 (30 November 1819): 571–2 ZeW 30 (12 February 1820): 239–40 [..y..]

Die Schlafenden im Walde [Die Abenteuer Klian Wuchtels] Zauberposse (3) J. Welling Wien (1818) WT 86 (18 July 1818): 343–4

Die travestierte Zauberflöte Posse (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1818) WT 99 (18 August 1818): 395–6

Die Zwillingsbrüder von Krems Singspiel (3) Karl Meisl [after C. Goldoni] Wien (1819) WT 49 (24 April 1819): 195–6 [J. R—r]

Tischl deck dich! Locales Zauberspiel (2) Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1819) WT 32 (16 March 1819): 127 WT 106 (3 September 1825): 434–5 AmZ 43 (26 October 1825): 719

Der Bräutigam als Korsar [Das Kanonen-Duell]

247 Pantomime (1) Rainoldi Wien (1819) WZ 59 (18 May 1819): 477–8

Der Hölle Zaubergaben Allegorische Gemälde Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1819) WZ 143 (30 November 1819): 1166 AmZ 1 (1 January 1820): 7–8

Die alte und die neue Schlagbrücke Schauspiel (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1819) WZ 81 (8 July 1819): 665–6

Der Kirchtag in Petersdorf [Das Kirchweinfest in Petersdorf] Posse (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1819) WZ 122 (10 October 1819): 1004

Die Brüder Liederlich Zauberposse (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1820) WT 34 (18 March 1820): 135 WZ 34 (18 March 1820): 275–6

Bartels Traumbuch [Das Schlossgespenst] Posse (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1820) WZ 67 (3 June 1820): 543

Die Ausspielung des Theaters Posse (2) W. Blum Wien (1820) WT 107 (5 September 1820): 427 [-F-]

Moderne Wirthschaft und Don Juans Streiche Posse (2) Adolph Bäuerle

248 Wien (1821) WT 129 (27 October 1821): 514–5 [Ferdinand Bingen] WZ 131 (1 November 1821): 1116

Die Fee aus Frankreich [Liebesqualen eines Hagestolzen] Feenmärchen [Zauberspiel] mit Gesang (2) Karl [Carl] Meisl Wien (1821) WZ 144 (1 December 1821): 1216 WT 20 (14 February 1822): 79 WT 80 (4 July 1822): 320 WT 83 (11 July 1822): 331 DB 46 (21 March 1823): 184 AmZ 13 (26 March 1823): 207–8 BamZ 42 (20 October 1824): 364 [G. N.] BamZ 43 (27 October 1824): 369–70 [G. N.] AmZ 47 (18 November 1824): 761

Apollo und der Dichter [Die Fahrt nach der verkehrten Welt] Zauberposse (2) Herzenskron Wien (1822) WZ 115 (24 September 1822): 931–2

Aline [Wien und Baden in einem anderen Weltteil] Zauberoper (3) [Parody of Berton Aline, reine de Golconde] Adolf Bäuerle Wien (1822) ZeW 193 (3 October 1822): 1544 [H. v. M.] WZ 125 (17 October 1822): 1011–2 MgS 274 (15 November 1822): 1096 AmZ 49 (4 December 1822): 794 WT 51 (29 April 1823): 195 AmZ 8 (19 February 1824): 121 BamZ 22 (31 May 1826): 173–4 [Marx] BamZ 23 (7 June 1826): 182–4 [Marx] AmZ 24 (14 June 1826): 391 BamZ 24 (14 June 1826): 187–9 [Marx] BamZ 25 (21 June 1826): 199 [Marx] BamZ 26 (19 July 1826): 232–6 [Marx] WT 77 (26 June 1828): 306–7 AmZ 32 (12 August 1829): 534

Sechzig Minuten nach zwölf Uhr Parodie-Posse (2) Meisl

249 Wien (1823) AmZ 23 (4 June 1823): 363

Wien, Paris, London und Constantinopel Adolf Bäuerle Wien (1823) AmZ 17 (23 April 1823): 267

Der Barometermacher auf der Zauberinsel Zauberposse (2) Ferdinand Raimund Wien (1823) WT 21 (17 February 1824): 84

Der rote und der blaue Geist Zauber-Hexen-Gesepnster-Kömodie Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1824) AmZ 50 (9 December 1824): 817

Die Fee und der Ritter Feenmärchen Karl Meisl Wien (1824) AmZ 12 (18 March 1824): 186–7

Amönine [Der dramatische Einblaser] Komisches Feenspiel Friedrich Joseph Korntheuer Wien (1826) WZ 45 (15 April 1826): 359 AmZ 19 (10 May 1826): 309

Der erste Mai im Prater Pantomime (2) [Parodie] Rainoldi Wien (1826) WT 52 (2 May 1826): 210–11 AmZ 22 (31 May 1826): 363–4

Fido savant, der Wunderhund Posse (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1826) WT 98 (17 August 1826): 399

250 Glück in Wien! [Armidens Zaubergürtel] Feen-Zauber-Spiel Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1826) WT 118 (3 October 1826): 480 [Mgr] WZ 118 (3 October 1826): 951–2 WT 119 (5 October 1826): 482–3 [Mgr]

Die Braut aus dem Zauberbrunnen [Die goldene Kugel] Grosses Feenmärchen (2) Wien (1826) AmZ 38 (20 September 1826): 623

Die Fee in Krähwinkel Zauberspiel (2) Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1826) AmZ 50 (13 December 1826): 829

Moisasurs Hexenspruch Parodie (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1827) WT 142 (27 November 1827): 582–3 [Sans. Gene] AmZ 2 (9 January 1828): 26–7

Harlekin als Taschenspieler Grosse Zauber-Pantomime Adolph Bäuerle and Rainoldi Wien (1827) AmZ 8 (21 February 1827): 136

Die Benefizvorstellung [composed with Ignaz Schuster and Josef Drechsler] Posse (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1827) WT 54 (5 May 1827): 219–20

Der Hahn im Korbe Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1827) AmZ 44 (31 October 1827): 744–5

Die Begebenheiten zur Mahlzeit Posse (2) Joseph Alois Gleich

251 Wien (1828) AmZ 24 (11 June 1828): 393

Der Alpenkönig und der Menschenfeind Romantisch-komisches Zauberspiel Ferdinand Raimund Wien (1828) WZ 135 (8 November 1828): 1102–3 WZ 136 (11 November 1828): 1111–2 AmZ 47 (19 November 1828): 782–5 WT 64 (29 May 1830): 260

Sieben Mal anders [Langohrs Verwandlungen] Komisches Feenspiel (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1828) AmZ 41 (8 October 1828): 690

Frau von Drescherl [Die verlorene Brieftasche] Posse (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1829) AmZ 7 (17 February 1830): 113

Alcidor Die Ruinen auf dem Harzgebirge Romantisch-komisches Zauberspiel Johann Eduard Gulden Wien (1830) WT 62 (25 May 1830): 250–1

NEUGEBAUER

Die Fee an der Als Zauberoper AmZ 30 (28 July 1813): 497

NEUNER, KARL BORROMÄUS (1778–1830)

Arlequin’s Hochzeit Pantomime (2) Adam Schlotthauer München (1811) JLM 8 (August 1811): 498

252

PAYER, HIERONYMUS (1787–1845)

Die musikalische Akademie Singspiel Wien (1822) WZ 58 (14 May 1822): 471–2

Hochlands Fürsten Grosse romantische Oper Schütz Wien (1825) WT 89 (26 July 1825): 366–7

PIXIS, JOHANN PETER (1788–1874)

Almazinde, Die Höhle Sesam Romantische Oper Heinrich Schmidt Wien (1820) AmZ(W) 31 (15 Apri 1820): 241–5 WZ 47 (18 April 1820): 384 [J. P. Pixis] WT 48 (20 April 1820): 191–2 WZ 50 (25 April 1820): 408 AmZ 20 (17 May 1820): 331 AmZ 22 (29 May 1822): 355–6

Der Zauberspruch Oper (2) [after Carlo Gozzi] Wien (1822) AmZ 22 (29 May 1822): 355

Bibiana [Die Kapelle im Walde] Louis Lax Aachen (1829) ZeW 219 (7 November 1829): 1751–2 [D.] WZ 84 (15 July 1830): 682–3 AmZ 39 (29 September 1830): 637–8

PLATZER, JOSEPH (1751–1806)

Joko, der brasilianische Affe Schauspiel (2)

253 Karl Meisl Wien AmZ 43 (26 October 1825): 721

POISSL, JOHANN NEPOMUK FREIHERR VON (1783–1865)

Die Opernprobe Komische Oper (2) Fr. Danzi/Poissl München (1806) ZeW 43 (10 April 1806): 351

Antigonus Grosse Oper (3) Johann Nepomuk Freiherr von Poissl [after Metastasio] München (1808) AmZ 27 (30 March 1808): 426 JLM 9 (September 1808): 615–7

Aucassin und Nicolette Singspiel (3) Franz Karl Hiemer [after Michel Jean Sedaine] München (1813) MgS 144 (17 June 1813): 576 AmZ 25 (23 June 1813): 419–20 JLM 8 (August 1813): 499

Athalia Grosse Oper (3) Gottfried Wohlbrück/Poissl München (1814) AmZ 26 (29 June 1814): 441–4 MTJ 7 (July 1814): 187–90 MgS 173 (21 July 1814): 692 JLM 8 (August 1814): 547–9 AmZ 22 (31 May 1815): 375–6 MgS 204 (26 August 1815): 815–6 Freimüthige 126 (27 February 1817): 504 Freimüthige 127 (1 March 1817): 507–8 [F.] Gesellschafter 35 (1 March 1817): 140 [S.] Freimüthige 129 (4 March 1817): 515 [F.] Gesellschafter 38 (7 March 1817): 152 Gesellschafter 44 (17 March 1817): 176 [Poissl] AmZ 12 (19 March 1817): 211–3 AmZ 15 (9 April 1817): 258–63 [Z]

254 ZeW 56 (20 March 1817): 463–4 ZeW 60 (25 March 1817): 495–6 LKgK 18 (1817): 79–80 MTZ 10 (6 December 1828): 75–7

Wettkampf zu Olympia [Die Freunde] Grosse Oper (3) Johann Nepomuk Freiherr von Poissl München (1815) MgS 127 (29 May 1815): 508 AmZ 22 (31 May 1815): 377–80 LKgK 108 (2 June 1818): 444 ZeW 195 (5 October 1818): 1578–9 AmZ 15 (11 April 1821): 248 Gesellschafter 87 (1 June 1821): 408 [C.]

Nittetis Grosse Oper (3) Johann Nepomuk Freiherr von Poissl Darmstadt (1817) AmZ 32 (6 August 1817): 547–8 Gesellschafter 198 (6 December 1819): 792 [Journ. d. Par.] Gesellschafter 199 (7 December 1819): 796 [Journ. d. Par.] ZeW 1 (3 January 1820): 7–8 AmZ 3 (19 January 1820): 49 ZeW 14 (21 January 1820): 111–2

Die Prinzessin von Provence Original-Zauberoper (3) Johann Nepomuk Freiherr von Poissl München (1825) WZ 8 (18 January 1825): 65 AmZ 8 (23 February 1825): 137–9 WZ 27 (3 March 1825): 227–8 MgS 55 (5 March 1825): 220 AmZ 38 (20 September 1826): 624–6 AmZ 8 (21 February 1827): 139–40 BamZ 35 (29 August 1827): 282–4 [Dr. F. Stoepel] MamZ 17 (26 January 1828): 265

Der Untersberg Romantische Oper (3) Johann Nepomuk Freiherr von Poissl München (1829) BamZ 50 (12 December 1829): 396–400 AmZ 4 (27 January 1830): 59–64

255 AmZ 5 (3 February 1830): 69 Iris “Probeblatt” (13 March 1830): 4 WZ 146 (7 December 1830): 1182

REICHARDT, JOHANN FRIEDRICH (1752–1814)

Herkules auf Oeta Melodrama (1) JLM 6 (June 1802): 340

Die Geisterinsel Singspiel (3) [Johann] Friedrich Wilhelm Gotter Berlin (1798) JLM 79 (30 September 1825): 638–9

Lieb’ und Treue Liederspiel (1) Johann Friedrich Reichardt Berlin (1800) AT Vol. 1 Nr. 13 (April 1800): 203–8 AmZ IntBVI (February 1808): 21–5

Jery und Bätely (1) Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Berlin (1801) AmZ 16 (13 January 1802): 257–61

Hercules Tod [Herkules Tod] Melodrama (1) Sophocles Berlin (1802) ZeW 79 (3 July 1802): 629 [l.] JLM 8 (August 1802): 470–2

Die Kreuzfahrer Incidental Music August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue Berlin (1802) Eunomia I/2 (February 1802): 170–77

Das Zauberschloss Singspiel (3) August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue

256 Berlin (1802) Eunomia I/2 (February 1802): 170–77

Der Taucher Singspiel (2) Samuel Gottlieb Bürde Berlin (1811) Freimüthige 61 (26 March 1811): 244 AmZ 16 (17 April 1811): 275–6 MgS 92 (17 April 1811): 368 MgS 94 (19 April 1811): 376

REINECKE, LEOPOLD CARL (1774–1820)

Adelheit von Schroffeneck [Scharfeneck/Die Rückkehr] Grosse Oper Franz Graf von Waldersee Dessau/Leipzig (1806/1807) AmZ 28 (8 April 1807): 449–52

REISSIGER, KARL [CARL] GOTTLIEB (1798–1859)

Libella Grosse Oper (2) Pauline von Brochowska Dresden (1829) WZ 25 (26 February 1829): 205 WZ 78 (30 June 1829): 646 ZeW 24 (2 February 1829): 191 [Gehe] ZeW 25 (3 February 1829): 199 [Gehe] ZeW 26 (5 February 1829): 207 [Gehe] ZeW 27 (6 February 1829): 215–6 [Gehe] Iris 11 (11 June 1830): 1–2 AmZ 28 (14 July 1830): 449–51

REMDE, JOHANN CHRISTIAN HEINRICH (1786–1850)

Die Pfirsichdiebe Komische Oper Weimar ZeW 85 (1 May 1818): 679 [Remde]

Der Zaubersee [der weiße Hirsch]

257 JLM 26 (March 1824): 208

RIES, FERDINAND (1784–1838)

Der Räuberbraut Frankfurt am Main (1828) AmZ 44 (29 October 1828): 735 AmZ 48 (26 November 1828): 799–805 AmZ 50 (10 December 1828): 836–7 ZeW 175 (7 September 1829): 1399–1400 ZeW 176 (8 September 1829): 1407–8 AmZ 51 (23 December 1829): 839–40

RIOTTE, PHILIPP JAKOB (1776–1856)

Das Grenzstädtchen Singspiel (1) [kleine Oper] August von Kotzebue Brunswick (1808) AmZ 31 (3 May 1809): 492

Kasem Die Launen des Glückes Allegorische Oper (1) Ernst August Friedrich Klingemann Wien (1818) WZ 81 (7 July 1818): 659

Der Berggeist-Rübezahl Zauber-Pantomime Wien (1818) WT 57 (12 May 1818): 227

Elisene, Prinzessin von Bulgarien Pantomime Wien (1819) WT 39 (1 April 1819): 155–6 [-l-]

Azondai [Azondar] Komisches Melodrama Ferdinand Biedenfeld Wien (1819) WT 94 (7 August 1819): 375 WZ 94 (7 August 1819): 772 AmZ 38 (22 September 1819): 630

258

Der hölzerne Säbel [Comp. with Philipp Röth] Singspiel (1) [Operette] Ferdinand Rosenau [after August von Kotzebue] Wien (1820) AmZ 35 (29 August 1827): 606

Die Witwe und ihre Freier Komische Oper (2) Ferdinand Biedenfeld Wien (1820) AmZ(W) 63 (5 August 1820): 499–501 WT 94 (5 August 1820): 375 WZ 94 (5 August 1820): 765–6 WT 95 (18 August 1820): 380 AmZ 40 (4 October 1820): 671 [Im.]

Staberl als Freischütz [Staberl in der Löwengrube/Parodie der Freischütz] [Comp. with Philipp Röth] Parodie (3) [Zauberspiel] Karl Carl [Pseud., Karl Freiherr von Bernbrunn] München (1822) MgS 7 (8 January 1823): 28 WT 15 (4 February 1826): 59 AmZ 7 (15 February 1826): 119–20 MgS 56 (7 March 1826): 224

Welche ist die beste Frau Zauberposse (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1823) AmZ 40 (1 October 1823): 648–50

Euphemie von Avogara Grosse Oper (3) Wien (1823) WT 124 (16 October 1823): 495 WZ 124 (16 October 1823): 1018–20 AmZ 47 (19 November 1823): 761–2

Der Leopard und der Hund Romantisches Schauspiel Wien (1823) WT 145 (4 December 1823): 583–4

Der kurze Mantel [comp. with Josef Blumenthal and Ignaz Ritter von Seyfried] Feenspiel

259 Johann Gabriel Seidl Wien (1824) WZ 137 (13 November 1824): 1183–4 AmZ 95 (27 November 1824): 378–9 [S. S.]

Die Gaben des eisernen Königs Komisches Feenmärchen Wien (1824) WZ 53 (1 May 1824): 454–5 WT 54 (4 May 1824): 215–6 [–hir.]

Der Kopf von Eisen Der Flüchtling Drama Karl Schall Wien (1825) WZ 116 (27 September 1825): 968 [*—*]

Die Fee und der Harlequin Grosse Pantomime (2) Baron von Püchler Wien (1824) WT 72 (15 June 1824): 286–7 WZ 72 (15 June 1824): 623–4

Nurredin, Prinz von Persien Tragisch-komische Feenoper (3) Joseph Franz Karl Gewey Wien (1825) WZ 13 (29 January 1825): 108 WT 17 (8 February 1825): 67–8 [G.] WZ 22 (19 February 1825): 183–4 [*—*]

Pansalvyn Grosses militärisches Schauspiel (3) [after Pigault-Lebrun] Wien (1826) AmZ 22 (31 May 1826): 363

Der Felsenthurm auf Rabenhorst Romantisches Spectakelstück (3) Wien (1826) WZ 144 (2 December 1826): 1160 AmZ 2 (10 January 1827): 25

König Richard in Palästina [Englands Reichspanier] Heroisch-romantisches Schauspiel (4)

260 Johann Wilhelm Lembert [after Sir Walter Scott] Wien (1827) AmZ 39 (26 September 1827): 666

Moisasurs Zauberfluch Tragisch-komisches Zauberspiel (2) Ferdinand Raimund Wien (1827) AmZ 44 (31 October 1827): 745–8

Zwei Uhr Melodramatisches Spectakel-Schauspiel (3) Wien (1827) AmZ 50 (12 December 1827): 852

Vetter Lucas von Jamaika Komische Oper (2) Wien (1828) AmZ 41 (8 October 1828): 686

RITTER, PETER (1763–1846)

Der Zitherschläger Singspiel (1) [Operette] Karl Ludwig Seidel Mannheim (1810) MgS 39 (14 February 1812): 155 AmZ 9 (26 February 1812): 138 AmZ 30 (28 July 1813): 503–4 AmZ 5 (3 February 1819): 68

Feodore Singspiel (1) August von Kotzebue Mannheim (1811) AmZ 21 (20 May 1812): 349–50

ROMBERG, ANDREAS [JAKOB] (1767–1821)

Die Grossmut des Scipio Heroische Oper AmZ 7 (12 February 1817): 132 Gesellschafter 38 (7 March 1818): 152 [Gtz] AmZ 16 (22 April 1818): 297

261 AmZ 41 (14 October 1818): 723 Wage 4 (13 September 1819): 168–9 [Ludwig Börne]

ROMBERG, BERNHARD HEINRICH (1767–1841)

Rittertreue Grosse ernsthafte Oper (3) Friedrich Wilhelm Trautvetter Berlin (1817) Freimüthige 113 (4 February 1817): 451–2 AmZ 7 (12 February 1817): 132–3

ROSER, FRANZ DE PAULA (1779–1830)

Minva und Oneyo Grosse heroische Oper Vereb (1809) WT 4 (10 January 1814): 16

Der unterirdische Gang Rolindo und Elwira Oper Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1812) WT 53 (1 July 1812): 210–11 [—er—] WZ 143 (30 November 1819): 1165–6

Die Prinzessin Farakunkel Märchen (2) K. Wiedemann Wien (1814) WT 66 (4 June 1814): 261–2

Die Heimkehr ins Vaterland Patriotisches Schauspiel Wien (1814) WT 77 (30 June 1814): 306–7

Der Kampf fürs Vaterland Militärisches Schauspiel (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1815) WT 44 (9 May 1815): 175–6

Xaverls Schelmereien

262 Posse (2) W. Schmitt Wien (1815) WT 51 (8 June 1815): 203

Die Abentheuer eines Haarbeutels Faschingsspiel (1) [Faschingsposse] Rollbach Wien (1816) WT 18 (2 March 1816): 71

Fausts Narrheit, und Wagners letzter Tag [Alle Mausetodt] Tragische Posse J. Nissl Wien (1818) WT 23 (21 February 1818): 92 WZ 22 (19 February 1818): 180 [Ph. Millauer]

Pervonte [Die Wünsche] Farce [Oper] Wien (1818) AmZ(W) 15 (19 February 1820): 119–20

Die Schreckensnacht im Heustadl Posse [Romantische Volkssage] Wien (1818) WZ 144 (1 December 1818): 1178–9 WZ 88 (24 July 1819): 724–5

Christoph Munkel [Giez, Hunger & Schelmerey] Posse (3) Wien (1819) WT 6 (14 January 1819): 23

Der Unglücksvogel Singspiel (3) Wien (1819) AmZ 12 (24 March 1819): 197

Der vazirende Lorenz [Der vacierende Lorenz] Posse Wien (1819) WT 58 (15 May 1819): 231 WZ 59 (18 May 1819): 477

Die Geschwister auf dem Lande

263 Komische Oper (2) Wien (1819) WT 71 (15 June 1819): 283 WZ 73 (19 June 1819): 597 AmZ 30 (28 July 1819): 511

Die Reise durch die Luft Zauberposse (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1821) WT 86 (19 July 1821): 343 [E. St.] WZ 88 (24 July 1821): 751–2

Die Zigeunerin von Derneleucht Melodrama Ferdinand Biedenfeld Wien (1822) WT 7 (15 January 1822): 26 [Z.] AmZ(W) 10 (2 February 1822): 73–5 AmZ 9 (27 February 1822): 142

Kupfer, Silber und Gold [Drei Zauberschlüssel] Romantisches Feenmärchen (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1823) WT 5 (11 January 1823): 19 WZ 6 (14 January 1823): 47–8

Schwarzbart Melodramatische Pantomime (2) Lewin Wien (1823) WZ 31 (13 March 1823): 255

Die Vorstellung ohne Probe [Musikalische Diener] Lustspiel (3) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1823) WT 49 (24 April 1823): 195

Der Wolfsbrunnen Melodrama [Zauberspiel] Wien (1823) WZ 130 (30 October 1823): 1071–2

Die Elfeninsel

264 Komisch-Tragisches Zauberstück Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1824) WZ 6 (13 January 1824): 51–2 AmZ(W) 7 (17 March 1824): 26–7

Der Schact zu Asshorn Schauspiel (3) Wien (1824) WT 98 (14 August 1824): 391 [M. lr.] WZ 100 (19 August 1824): 875–6

Die blaue Katze Grosse Feenoper (2) Wien (1824) WT 116 (25 September 1824): Beilage

Die Höhle Soncha Grosses melodramatisches Schauspielspektakel (3) Louis Grois Wien (1828) WZ 16 (5 February 1828): 128

Yelva, die russische Waise Drama (2) A. Prix Wien (1828) WT 7 (15 January 1829): 26–7

RÖSSLER [RÖSLER], JOHANN JOSEPH [JAN JOSEF] (1771–1813)

Elisene, Prinzessin von Bulgarien Ignaz Franz Castelli Prag (1805) [1807] ZeW 177 (1807): 1415 AmZ 12 (16 December 1807): 188–92 MgS 109 (8 May 1809): 436 AmZ 7 (15 November 1809): 110 WT 52 (1 May 1819): 207 [l]

Die Rache [Das Räuberschloss in Sardinien/Das Zauberschloss] Romantisches Singspiel Prag (1808) AmZ 30 (26 April 1809): 474–5 AmZ 7 (15 November 1809): 110

265

Clementine [Die Felsen bei Arona] Oper Prag (1809) AmZ 24 (14 March 1810): 379–81

RÖTH, PHILIPP (1779–1850)

Holnara (3) München (1809) AmZ 44 (2 August 1809): 699–704

Der Dichter und der Tonkünstler [Wo nehme ich einen Plan her] Komische Operette (3) Matthias Georg Lambrecht München (1813) AmZ 4 (26 January 1814): 73

Der hölzerne Säbel [Comp. with Philipp Riotte] Singspiel (1) [Operette] Ferdinand Rosenau [after August von Kotzebue] Wien (1820) AmZ 35 (29 August 1827): 606

Staberl als Freischütz [Staberl in der Löwengrube/Parodie der Freischütz] [Comp. with Philipp Riotte] Parodie (3) [Zauberspiel] Karl Carl [Pseud., Karl Freiherr von Bernbrunn] München (1822) MgS 7 (8 January 1823): 28 AmZ 7 (15 February 1826): 119–20 MgS 56 (7 March 1826): 224

Die weisse Frau [Ludlams Höhle] Melodrama (5) [Romantisches Schauspiel] Adam Gottlob Oehlenschläger Wien (1826) AmZ 13 (22 March 1826): 215

Das graue Männchen Zauberpantomime (2) Wien (1829) MgS 76 (30 March 1829): 303–4 MgS 77 (31 March 1829): 308 MgS 79 (2 April 1829): 316

266 MgS 80 (3 April 1829): 320

RUMMLER, JOH.

Die Walpurgisnacht Romantsiche Oper (3) E. J. Prochaska Prag (1827) AmZ 52 (26 December 1827): 891–2

RUNGENHAGEN, KARL FRIEDRICH (1778–1851)

Die Fischer bei Kolberg Schauspiel (2) Konrad Levezow Berlin (1814) AmZ 39 (28 September 1814): 652

SALZMANN, M

Die Metallschmelze in Venedig Historische Schauspiel (2) AmZ 32 (6 August 1828): 524

SCHACK, BENEDIKT [EMANUEL] (1758–1826)

Die beiden Antone [Der dumme Gärtner aus dem Gebirge; Die zweien Anton] Komische Oper (2) [Singspiel] Emanuel Schikaneder *music also by Franz Xaver Gerl Wien (1789) NadB 37 (1798): 448 [Aw.] WT 14 (3 October 1807): 28–9 [L. Kanner]

SCHENK, JOHANN BAPTIST (1753–1836)

Der Dorfbarbier Singspiel (2) Paul Weidmann Wien (1796) JLM 11 (November 1800): 571–3 AmZ 2 (12 January 1825): 34–5

267

SCHMIDT, JOHANN PHILIPP SAMUEL (1779–1853)

Feodore Singspiel (1) August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue Berlin (1812) Freimüthige 121 (18 June 1812): 483–4

Kyffhäuserberg [Kieffhäuserberg] Volksmärchen mit Gesang (1) August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue Berlin (1816/7) Gesellschafter 112 (7 July 1817): 448 [S.**] AmZ 29 (16 July 1817): 495

Die Alpenhütte Singspiel (1) August von Kotzebue Berlin (1816) AmZ 25 (19 June 1816): 428

Fischermädchen [Haß und Liebe] Lyrisches Drama (1) [Karl] Theodor Körner Leipzig (1818) LKgK 137 (13 August 1818): 560 [R.] AmZ 50 (16 December 1818): 871 AmZ 3 (20 January 1819): 59 Gesellschafter 34 (27 February 1819): 136 [F.] AmZ 20 (19 May 1819): 343 ZeW (16 October 1819): Intelligenzblatt 30 Wage 6 (28 March 1820): 286 [Ludiwg Börne] JLM 4 (April 1820): 217–70

Das verborgene Fenster [Ein Abend in Madrid] Singspiel (3) M. Tenelli [Millenet] [F. von Tenelli] Berlin (1824) BamZ 6 (14 February 1824): 58 [A-Z] AmZ 11 (11 March 1824): 170 AmZ 10 (9 March 1825): 170 AmZ 18 (4 May 1825): 296 AmZ 20 (18 May 1825): 334–5

Alfred, der Grosse König von England

268 Oper (2) [Karl] Theodor Körner Berlin (1830) Gesellschafter 198 (10 December 1830): 988

SCHMITT, ALOYS (1788–1866)

Der Doppel Process [Der Doppelgänger] Iris 17 (23 July 1830): 1–2

SCHNEIDER, GEORG ABRAHAM (1770–1839)

Hero Lyrisches Monodrama (1) Karl Alexander Herklots Kassel (1817) WZ 86 (18 July 1818): 700

Kardillak [Cardillak] Melodrama BamZ 50 (15 December 1824): 425–6 [B.]

Maskerade Divertissment Gesellschafter 81 (1819): 324 [R. St.]

Der Verschwornen Singspiel BamZ 2 (14 January 1824): 16 [N. G.]

Aucassin und Nicolette [Liebe aus der guten alten Zeit] Romantische Oper AmZ 11 (13 March 1822): 176 Gesellschafter 41 (13 March 1822): 196 [—*.] WZ 33 (16 March 1822): 270–2 AmZ(W) 28 (6 April 1822): 217–9

SCHOBERLECHNER, FRANZ (1797–1843)

Der junge Onkel Operette [kleine Oper] H. Blangini Wien (1823)

269 AmZ(W) 8 (25 January 1823): 61–4

SCHRÖDER, FRIEDRICH LUDWIG (1744–1816)

Die Heirath durch ein Wochenblatt Musikalische Posse (1) MTZ 21 (21 February 1829): 161–3 [Krause]

SCHUBERT, FRANZ (1797–1828)

Die Zauberharfe Melodrama (3) [Zauberspiel] Georg Hoffmann Wien (1820) AmZ(W) 69 (26 August 1820): 548 WZ 104 (29 August 1820): 855 AmZ 40 (4 October 1820): 671–2 [Im.]

Die Zwillingsbrüder Posse (1) Georg Hoffmann Wien (1820) AmZ(W) 49 (17 June 1820): 385–8 AmZ 33 (16 August 1820): 560–1 WT 103 (26 August 1820): 411

Rosamunda, Fürstin von Zypern [Cypern] Grosses romantisches Schauspiel (4) Helmina von Chézy Wien (1823) WZ 151 (18 December 1823): 1248 WZ 2 (3 January 1824): 19–20 WZ 6 (13 January 1824): 50–1

SCHUSTER, IGNAZ (1779–1835)

Werthers Leiden Posse (1) Kringsteiner Wien (1806) WT 15 (15 October 1806): 44 [L. Kanner]

Romeo und Julie

270 Quodlibet Wien (1808) WT 41 (22 May 1816): 163

Die verkehrte Welt Posse Wien (1814) WT 138 (17 December 1814): 552

Die falsche Prima Donna in Krähwinkel Posse (2) Adolf Bäuerle Wien (1818) AmZ(W) 9 (20 January 1819): 70–1 AmZ 5 (3 February 1819): 71 AmZ 2 (12 January 1820): 25 AmZ 29 (19 July 1820): 500

Die Abenteuer eines echten Shawls in Wien Gemälde Wien (1820) WZ 7 (15 January 1820): 56

Die Benefizvorstellung [composed with Wenzel Müller and Josef Drechsler] Posse (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1827) WT 54 (5 May 1827): 219–20

SEIDEL, FRIEDRICH LUDWIG (1765–1831)

Lila Johann Wilhelm von Goethe Schauspiel mit Gesang Berlin (1818) Gesellschafter 11 (18 January 1819): 44 AmZ 3 (20 January 1819): 62

SEYFRIED, IGNAZ RITTER VON (1776–1841)

Cyrus in Persien Grosse heroische Oper (3) Ignaz Ritter von Seyfried Wien (1803)

271 AmZ 11 (14 December 1804): 180

Idas und Marpissa Romantische Oper (3) [Grosse Zauberoper] Matthäus Stegmayer Wien (1807) AmZ 6 (4 November 1807): 86–8

Mitternacht Singspiel (1) Wien (1807) WT 18 (23 May 1807): 90

Zum goldenen Löwen [Gasthof zum goldenen Löwen] Singspiel (1) Joseph Ferdinand Sonnleithner Wien (1807/8) WT 14 (8 October 1806): 20–1 [Bäuerle] AmZ 15 (7 January 1807): 233 AmZ 40 (1 October 1817): 691 BamZ 41 (11 October 1826): 327–8 [Obertus ab Orto] AmZ 42 (18 October 1826): 685

Alamar, der Maure Oper (3) Franz Castelli [after Cuvier] Wien (1807) JLM 3 (March 1807): 187

Das Wirthshaus im Walde Singspiel (1) Arnold JLM 8 (August 1809): 528 AmZ 49 (4 December 1811): 825

Rochus Pumpernickel Musikalisches Quodlibet Matthäus Stegmayer Wien (1809) JLM 6 (June 1809): 373–4 JLM 3 (March 1810): 169–75 [Sp.] AmZ 23 (7 March 1810): 367–8 JLM 9 (September 1810): 564–5 [tz.] JLM 10 (October 1810): 630–1 JLM 12 (December 1810): 788–9

272 WT 115 (25 September 1813): 449–50 AmZ 5 (3 February 1819): 65–7 WZ 34 (18 March 1824): 291–2

Bertha von Werdenberg Historische Oper (2) Matthäus Stegmayer Wien (1809) ZeW 220 (4 November 1809): 1758 AmZ 19 (7 February 1810): 297

Saul, König von Israel Melodrama (3) [Oper] Ignaz Ritter von Seyfried Wien (1810) AmZ 35 (30 May 1810): 554–5 AmZ 60 (21 November 1810): 962–3 MTJ 3 (March 1814): 43–5 Wage 7 (19 April 1820): 337–8 [Ludwig Börne]

Feodore Singspiel (1) August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue Wien (1811) AmZ 43 (23 October 1811): 722–3 AmZ 45 (5 November 1828): 755

Das lebendige Weinfaß Posse Matthäus Stegmayer Wien (1812) AmZ 9 (26 February 1812): 142

Die kluge Frau im Walde [Der stumme Ritter] Zaubermelodram (5) August von Kotzebue Wien (1813) AmZ 4 (24 January 1813): 57

Preciosa, das Zigeunermädchenb Schauspiel Pius Alexander Wolff Wien (1812) WT 85 (21 October 1812): 335–7 [Adolf Bäuerle]

Moses

273 Melodrama (5) [Schauspiel mit Chorus] August Klingemann Wien (1813) AmZ 25 (23 June 1813): 415–6

Montag, Dienstag, Mittwoch Wien, St. Pölten und Krems [Comp. With Josef Kinsky] Komisches Singspiel (3) Wien (1814) AmZ 25 (18 June 1817): 428

Der Hund des Aubri de Mont-Didier Heroisch-romantisches Drama (3) Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1815) WZ 108 (9 September 1819): 885–6

Er hält wahrhaftig Wort Komisches Singspiel (2) Joseph Franz Karl Gewey Wien (1815) WT 54 (24 June 1815): 215–6 AmZ 29 (19 July 1815): 493–6 [*] MgS 281 (22 November 1816): 1124

Der süße Brei Zauberspiel Franz Carl Grüner Wien (1816) WT 13 (14 February 1816): 50 [A. Bäuerle] AmZ 12 (20 March 1816): 194–5

Drei Treppen Hoch Posse Wien (1816/7) WZ 62 (2 November 1817): 584 [W. Hebenstreit] AmZ 1 (1 January 1817): 15

Abraham Melodrama (4) [biblisches Drama] Wien (1817) WZ 97 (3 December 1817): 391–2 [W. Hebenstreit] WZ 98 (6 December 1817): 399–400 [W. Hebenstreit] AmZ 1 (7 January 1818): 12–7 LKgK 64 (7 February 1818): 266 Wage 3 (18 December 1820): 44–5 [Ludwig Börne]

274 Amors Triumph Musikalisches Festspiel [Allegorisches Gemälde] Karl Meisl Wien (1817) AmZ 34 (20 August 1817): 582–3

Die Waise und der Mörder Melodrama (3) Wien (1817) AmZ 12 (19 March 1817): 209 MgS 69 (21 March 1817): 276 WT 106 (3 September 1818): 423–4 AmZ 42 (20 October 1819): 714 AmZ 15 (12 April 1820): 253

Undine, die Braut aus dem Wasserreiche Zauberspiel Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué Wien (1817) WZ 68 (23 August 1817): 141–3 [W. H.] Gesellschafter 159 (27 September 1817): 636 AmZ 40 (1 October 1817): 692

Die Thronfolge Schauspiel Wien (1818) WZ 88 (23 July 1818): 716 WZ 89 (25 July 1818): 728

Salmonea und ihre Söhne [Die Makkabäer] Biblicalisches Drama (4) Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1818) WT 142 (26 November 1818): 567–8 WZ 142 (26 November 1818): 1162–4 WZ 143 (28 November 1818): 1171–2 AmZ 1 (6 January 1819): 8–12 AmZ 2 (16 January 1822): 47

Noah Melodrama (3) August Eckschläger Wien (1819) WZ 128 (26 October 1819): 885–6 AmZ 48 (1 December 1819): 825–8 MgS 10 (12 January 1820): 39–40 [B. C. D.]

275

Ugolino der Hungerturm Melodrama (4/5) Ferdinand Biedenfeld Wien (1821) WZ 120 (6 October 1821): 1019–20 AmZ 41 (8 October 1828): 689

Mangadola [Die Wunderperle] Indisches Märchen (4) Wien (1822) WZ 12 (31 January 1822): 95–8 AmZ 9 (27 February 1822): 142–5

Timur, der Tartar Chan Romantisches Melodram (3) Ignaz von Seyfried (after M. G. Lewis) Wien (1822) WZ 114 (21 September 1822): 922–4 WZ 123 (12 October 1822): 995–6

Ahasverus, der nie Ruhende Der ewige Jude Melodrama Franz Carl Weidmann Wien (1823) WZ 50 (26 April 1823): 412 WZ 54 (6 May 1823): 443–4 WZ 55 (8 May 1823): 451–2 MgS 156 (1 July 1823): 624

Der unsichtbare Prinz Melodramatisches Zauberspiel Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1823) WZ 106 (4 September 1823): 868

Sintram Nordische Sage (3) Andreas Schumacher Wien (1823) WZ 126 (21 October 1823): 1035–6

Der kurze Mantel [comp. with Philipp Jakob Riotte and Josef Blumenthal] Feenspiel Johann Gabriel Seidl Wien (1824)

276 AmZ 95 (27 November 1824): 378–9 [S. S.]

Meister Martin [Der Küfner und seine Gesellen] Romantische Gemälde E. T. A. Hoffmann Wien (1824) WT 150 (14 December 1824): 599 WZ 151 (16 December 1824): 1299–1300

Bozena [Die Macht des Augenblicks] Historisch romantisches Schauspiel (5) Friedrich Reil Wien (1826) WZ 61 (23 May 1826): 487

Der Rache Fluch [Die Blume von Mull] Romantisches Drama (4) Lembert Wien (1827) AmZ 2 (10 January 1827): 21

Der hölzerne Säbel (1830) arrangement of Mozart music Singspiel WZ 105 (2 September 1830): 851–2

SPECH, JOHANN [JÁNOS] (1767–1836)

Ines und Pedro [Der Geist bei Montegalva, Die Johannisnacht] Grosse Romantische Oper (2) Sándor [Alexander] Kisfaludy Pest (1814) WT 41 (6 April 1814): 162 [J. O—.] WT 42 (8 April 1814): 166 [J. O—.] WT 43 (11 April 1814): 168 [J. O—.]

SPOHR, LUDWIG [LOUIS] (1784–1859)

Alruna, die Eulenkönigin Grosse Romantische Oper (3)

Composed (1808) AmZ 13 (27 December 1809): 201–2 AmZ 18 (31 January 1810): 285

277 Faust Romantische Oper (2) [Singspiel] Joseph Carl [Karl] Bernard Prag (1816) AmZ 18 (6 May 1818): 335–40 WT 83 (11 July 1818): 331–2 WZ 84 (14 July 1818): 683–4 [E. Th. Hohler] WZ 85 (16 July 1818): 690–2 [E. Th. Hohler] AmZ(W) 29 (18 July 1818): 258–63 ZeW 161 (18 August 1818): 1307–8 [F. A....] AmZ 35 (2 September 1818): 623–4 WZ 7 (15 January 1820): 54–5 AmZ 2 (9 January 1822): 26 JLM 11 (November 1822): 669–70 MgS 242 (9 October 1823): 967–8 MgS 243 (10 October 1823): 972 AmZ(W) 104 (27 December 1823): 825–6 AmZ 12 (23 March 1825): 197–8 MgS 213 (6 September 1826): 852 [—tz.] MgS 16 (18 January 1827): 64 [Georg Harrys] AmZ 28 (11 July 1827): 488 WZ 98 (16 August 1827): 810 WT 101 (23 August 1827): 414 AmZ 39 (26 September 1827): 664–5 [*] BamZ 47 (21 November 1829): 373–4 [Marx] BamZ 48 (28 November 1829): 378–83 [Marx] BamZ 49 (5 December 1829): 385–6 BamZ 49 (5 December 1829): 387–8 [Marx] AmZ 50 (16 December 1829): 827–8 BCB 227 (20 November 1829): 891–2 WZ 43 (10 April 1830): 349

Zemir und Azor Romantsiche Oper (2) Eduard Gehe Frankfurt (1819) AmZ 20 (19 May 1819): 343 AmZ 21 (26 May 1819): 349–58 ZeW 236 (30 November 1819): 1887–8 MgS 86 (10 April 1820): 348 [A. W.] Wage 6 (4 April 1820): 286–8 [Ludwig Börne] AmZ 21 (23 May 1821): 360–1 WT 154 (25 December 1821): 615 AmZ(W) 104 (29 December 1821): 824–6 WZ 3 (5 January 1822): 23–4 AmZ(W) 3 (9 January 1822): 17–8 [N—n.]

278 WZ 9 (19 Janury 1822): 73–4 AmZ 4 (23 January 1822): 58–60 [Im] MgS 20 (23 January 1822): 80 AmZ 9 (27 February 1822): 149 AmZ(W) 32 (20 April 1822): 255–6 AmZ 14 (2 April 1823): 224–5 MgS 242 (9 October 1823): 967–8 MgS 243 (10 October 1823): 972 ZeW 238 (5 December 1823): 1911–2 AmZ 14 (1 April 1824): 232 AmZ 6 (8 February 1826): 96–7 MgS 73 (27 March 1826): 291

Jessonda Grosse Oper (3) Eduard Heinrich Gehe Kassel (1823) AmZ 39 (24 September 1823): 629–36 JLM 79 (September 1823): 652–4 [E.] JLM 98 (October 1823): 805–6 JLM 99 (October 1823): 814–6 JLM 100 (October 1823): 818–24 MgS 242 (9 October 1823): 967–8 MgS 243 (10 October 1823): 972 ZeW 182 (18 September 1823): 1462–4 BamZ 9 (3 March 1824): 82–3 [Giusto] BamZ 25 (23 June 1824): 219–22 Gesellschafter 35 (1 March 1824): 171–2 [—r.] JLM 81 (July 1824): 646 MgS 94 (19 April 1824): 375–6 [Wendt] MgS 95 (20 April 1824): 380 [Wendt] ZeW 33 (14 February 1824): 265–8 [A. Wendt] ZeW 34 (16 February 1824): 275–8 [A. Wendt] ZeW 35 (17 February 1824): 281–4 [A. Wendt] ZeW 36 (19 February 1824): 291–4 [A. Wendt] ZeW 47 (5 March 1824): 383–4 AmZ 24 (10 June 1824): 390–5 Caecilia 9 (1825): 53–7 WZ 16 (5 February 1825): 132 Gesellschafter 71 (4 May 1825): 351–2 [—**] MgS 14 (17 January 1825): 56 [Guido] ZeW 15 (21 January 1825): 113–6 ZeW 16 (22 January 1825): 123–6 AmZ 4 (26 January 1825): 65 ZeW 44 (3 March 1825): 350–1 ZeW 45 (4 March 1825): 358–60

279 ZeW 46 (5 March 1825): 367 AmZ 20 (18 May 1825): 335 WZ 64 (28 May 1825): 535 BamZ 42 (18 October 1826): 336–8 BamZ 43 (25 October 1826): 343–6 BS 14 (1826): 55–6 MgS 57 (8 March 1826): 227–8 MgS 180 (29 July 1826): 719–20 AmZ 11 (14 March 1827): 187 MgS 183 (1 August 1827): 732 AmZ 39 (30 September 1829): 644 Iris 1 (2 April 1830): 3

Der Berggeist Romantische Oper (3) Georg Döring Kassel (1825) AmZ IBVIII (September 1825): 34 [L. Spohr] BamZ 46 (16 November 1825): 368–9 [J. P. S.] JLM 14 (15 February 1825): 110 AmZ 16 (20 April 1825): 253–60 [M.] ZeW 88 (6 May 1825): 703–4 [Fr. M.] ZeW 89 (7 May 1825): 711 [Fr. M.] JLM 58 (19 July 1825): 463–4 ZeW 190 (29 September 1825): 1518–20 BamZ 42 (18 October 1826): 334–6 [Gon.] BamZ 39 (26 September 1827): 312–5 [A. Wendt] BamZ 40 (3 October 1827): 324 [A. Wendt] BamZ 42 (17 October 1827): 334–8 [A. Wendt] BamZ 43 (24 October 1827): 348–50 [A. Wendt] BamZ 34 (31 October 1827): 356–8 [A. Wendt] BamZ 4 (23 January 1828): 29–31 [G. O. N.—g.] BamZ 5 (30 January 1828): 38–40 [G. O. N.—g.] BamZ 9 (27 February 1828): 71–2 [A. Wendt] BamZ 10 (5 March 1828): 78–80 [A. Wendt]

Pietro von Abano Romantsiche Oper (3) Karl Pfeiffer Kassel (1830) [1827] ZeW 227 (19 November 1827): 1815–6 MamZ 8 (24 November 1827): 123–7 BamZ 25 (20 June 193–9 [Marx] AmZ 52 (30 December 1829): 849–53 Caecilia 45 (1830): 63–8 [Weber]

280 Der Alchymist Romantische Oper (3) F. G. Schmidt Kassel (1830) BamZ 34 (21 August 1830): 271–2 BamZ 35 (28 August 1830): 278–9 BamZ 36 (4 September 1830): 286–8

SPONTINI, GASPARE [LUIGI PACIFICO] (1774–1851)

Nurmahal [Das Rosenfest von Kaschmir] Lyrisches Drama (2) Karl [Carl] Alexander Herklots Berlin (1822) Gesellschafter 89 (5 June 1822): 420 [ch] WZ 72 (15 June 1822): 583–4 AmZ 25 (19 June 1822): 401–3 ZeW 201 (14 October 1822): 1607–8 ZeW 202 (15 October 1822): 1615–6 ZeW 203 (17 October 1822): 1622–4 AmZ(W) 7 (17 March 1824): 27–8 [B. Z.] BamZ 13 (31 March 1824): 119–22 AmZ 29 (19 July 1826): 475 BS 12 (1826): 47–8 BamZ 50 (10 December 1828): 471–2 [M] BamZ 51 (17 December 1828): 477–81 [M] Caecilia 27 (1828): 135–82 [A. B. Marx]

Alcidor Zauberoper (3) [Marie] Emanuel [Guillaume Marguerite Mathieu] Théaulon de Lambert Berlin (1825) BamZ 52 (29 December 1824): 442–3 BamZ 22 (1 June 1825): 177–8 [A. B. Marx[ BamZ 23 (8 June 1825): 187–8 [A. B. Marx] BamZ 24 (15 June 1825): 194–6 [A. B. Marx] BamZ 25 (22 June 1825): 198–201 [A. B. Marx] BamZ 26 (29 June 1825): 207–11 [A. B. Marx] BamZ 27 (6 July 1825): 214–6 [A. B. Marx] WZ 77 (28 June 1825): 643–4 WZ 89 (26 July 1825): 743 ZeW 145 (28 July 1825): 1158–9 BS 62 (1826): 247–8 BS 118 (1826): 471–2 BCB 53 (15 March 1827): 212

281

Agnes von Hohenstaufen Grosse historisch-romantische Oper (3) [Lyrisches Drama (2)] Ernst Raupach Berlin (1827) BamZ 23 (6 June 1827): 183–4 [L. Rellstab] BamZ 24 (13 June 1827): 189–90 [L. Rellstab] BamZ 25 (20 June 1827): 195–6 [L. Rellstab] BamZ 26 (27 June 1827): 205–8 [L. Rellstab] BamZ 27 (4 July 1827): 212–3 [Dorn] BamZ 27 (4 July 1827): 213–6 [h. d.] BamZ 28 (11 July 1827): 225–7 [h. d.] BamZ 29 (18 July 1827): 233–4 [h. d.] BCB 106 (29 May 1827): 423–4 [F. F.] BCB 107 (31 May 1827): 426–8 [F. F.] WZ 83 (12 July 1827): 684–5 BCB 142 (20 July 1827): 567–8 MamZ 4 (27 October 1827): 55–9 [R. B...... k.] BamZ 27 (4 July 1829): 215–6 [Marx] BamZ 28 (11 July 1829): 222–4 [Marx] BamZ 29 (18 July 1829): 229–30 [Marx] MgS 161 (7 July 1829): 644 MgS 162 (8 July 1829): 648 MgS 163 (9 July 1829): 652 MgS 164 (10 July 1829): 656 AmZ 31 (5 August 1829): 509–10

STEGMANN, CARL DAVID (1751–1826)

Der Triumf der Liebe [Das kühne Abenteuer] Grosse Feenoper (4) Friedrich Ernst Jester Hamburg (1796) AmZ 43 (23 October 1822): 703

STEINACKER, CARL (1785–1814)

Der vierjährige Posten Singspiel Karl Theodor Körner Wien (1813) WT 102 (26 August 1813): 397–8

STENGEL, GOTTFRIED

282

Amadis der fahrende Ritter aus Gallien Oper K. L. Giesecke [after C. M. Wieland] Hamburg (1798) JLM 1 (January 1799): 33–4 [S.[

STUNZ, JOSEPH HARTMANN (1793–1859)

Heinrich IV zu Ivry Singspiel (3) J. J. Sendtner (after Voltaire) München (1820) WZ 131 (31 October 1820): 1076–7

SÜSSMAYR, FRANZ XAVER (1766–1803)

List und Zufall Matthäus Stegmayer Wien (1786) AmZ 21 (19 February 1806): 329

Der Spiegel von Arkadien Heroisch-komische Oper (2) Emanuel Schikaneder Wien (1794) MTJ 4 (April 1800): 126–31 MTJ 4 (April 1814): 81–3 AmZ 41 (11 October 1826): 673–4

Der Wildfang Komische Oper (2) Franz Xaver Huber Wien (1797) AmZ 37 (13 September 1826): 609–10 BS 96 (1826): 383

Solimann II [die drei Sultaninnen] Singspiel (2) Franz Xaver Huber Wienn (1799) JLM 8 (August 1804): 399–400 ZeW 155 (28 September 1807): 1239–40 AmZ 2 (7 October 1807): 26–7

283 WT 15 (10 October 1807): 33–5 Freimüthige 15 (21 January 1808): 60 ZeW 33 (15 February 1811): 264 WT 109 (11 September 1813): 426 AmZ 52 (29 December 1813): 842 WT 6 (20 January 1816): 21–2 AmZ 8 (21 February 1816): 117–8

Phasma [Die Erscheinung im Tempel der Verschwiegenheit] Heroische Oper (2) [Grosse heroische Oper] Wien (1801) JLM 11 (November 1801): 589–92

SUTOR, WILHELM (1774–1828)

Masinissa [Die Karthagerin] MgS 104 (1 May 1811): 416 MgS 298 (13 December 1811): 1192 ZeW 45 (3 March 1812): 360 MTJ 3 (March 1814): 38–40 AmZ 12 (23 March 1814): 202–3

David Georg Reinbeck AmZ IBX (August): 45 [Reinbeck]

Pauline AmZ 8 (22 February 1815): 138 AmZ 21 (26 May 1819): 358 Wage 7 (18 April 1820): 336–7 [Ludwig Börne]

TEILE, FRIEDRICH WILHELM [WILHELM TELL/E] (1798–1845)

Das Schützenfest Singspiel (2) Sophie Friederike Krickeberg Berlin (1820) AmZ 37 (13 September 1820): 629–30

TEYBER [TEUBER], FRANZ (1758–1810)

Alexander Grosse Oper (2)

284 Emanuel Schikaneder Wien (1801) ZeW 99 (18 August 1801): 799–800

Das Spinnerkreuz am Wienerberge Romantisch-komische Volksmärchen (3) Wien (1811) AmZ 43 (23 October 1811): 724

TOMÁŠEK, VÁCLAV JAN KŘTITEL [TOMASCHEK, WENZEL JOHANN] (1774–1850)

Seraphine [Grossmut und Liebe] Oper (2) J. H. Dambeck Prag (1811) ZeW 1 (2 January 1812): 7–8

TRIEBENSEE [TRÜBENSEE], JOSEPH (1772–1846)

Die wilde Jagd Grosse romantisch-komische Oper Sebastian Willibald Schiessler Prag (1820) WT 56 (11 May 183): 226

TUČEK, VINZENZ FERRARIUS (1773–1821)

Der travestierte Hamlet [Hamlet, Prinz von Tandelmarkt] Tragisch-komische Oper (3) C. L. Gieseke Wien (1794) WT 122 (11 October 1821): 487–8

Hanns Klachl von Przelautsch [Das Rendezvous in der neuen Allee] Singspiel (2) F. G. Quolfinger von Steinsberg Prag (1796) NadB 37 (1798): 447–8 [Aw.]

Rübezahl (2) Samuel Gottlieb Bürde Breslau (1801)

285 ZeW 23 (21 February 1801): 180–2

Dämona, das kleine Höckerweidchen Singspiel [Zauberoper] Joseph Bullinger Pest (1805)/Wien (1806) AmZ 29 (13 April 1808): 457–8

Der Zauberkuss [Die Studne der Erlösung] Joseph Hofmüller Wien (1807) WT 17 (15 May 1807): 79

Die Polterhexe zu Greifenstein [Die Zwergenhöhle/Die Polterhexe von Lichtenstein] Komische Vaudeville-Oper (3) [Komische Volkssage] J. Einweg Wien (1807) AmZ 52 (23 December 1824): 854–5

Samson, Richter in Israel Melodrama (3) Josef Anton Schuster Wien (1808) WT 49 (25 April 1818): 195 WZ 50 (25 April 1818): 401–2 AmZ 21 (27 May 1818): 386–7 WT 103 (28 August 1819): 412

Moses in Egypten Historisches Schauspiel (4) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1810) AmZ 53 (3 October 1810): 853

Die beiden Dacheln [als zweyter Teil von Hans Dachel] Komishe Oper Vinzenz Ferrarius Tuczek Pest (1811) WT 24 (21 March 1812): 96 [Joseph V. Menner]

UMLAUF, IGNAZ (1746–96)

Die Bergknappen Original-Singspiel (1) Paul Weidmann

286 Wien (1778)

UMLAUF, MICHAEL (1781–1842)

Das Nachtlager in Granada Schauspiel Friedrich Johann Kind Wien (1812) WZ 20 (14 February 1818): 162–3 [W. H.]

Der [deutsche] Grenadier [Die Medaille] Singspiel (1) Franz Joseph Marius von Babo Wien (1812) WT 56 (11 July 1812): 219–20 [Heinrich Meyer] AmZ 34 (19 August 1812): 561

VITÁSEK [WITTASEK, WITTASCHEK], JAN AUGUST

David [Die Befreiung Israels] Melodrama (3) J. Münch Bellinghausen Prag (1810) AmZ 45 (8 August 1810): 722–4

VOGLER, GEORG JOSEPH [ABBÉ] (1749–1814)

Hermann von Unna Incidental Music [Drama mit Chören] A. F. Skjöldebrand 1795 AmZ 28 (9 April 1800): 494–5 AmZ 8 (19 November 1800): 130–5 AT Vol. 2 Nr. 35 (September 1800): 157–60 ZeW 6 (13 January 1801): 48 AmZ 26 (24 March 1802): 431–2 AmZ 28 (8 April 1807): 445

Samori Heroisch-komische Oper (2) Franz Xaver Huber Wien (1804) AmZ 35 (30 May 1804): 581–3

287

VOLKERT, FRANZ [JOSEPH] (1778–1845)

Johann Faust, der Erfinder der Buchdruckerkunst Schauspiel (4) Joachim Perinet Wien (1811) AmZ 16 (17 April 1811): 291

Zauberhut Karl Hampel Wien (1812) AmZ 43 (21 October 1812): 708

Der betrogene Vormund Paul Rainoldi Wien (1813) AmZ 25 (23 June 1813): 416

Unterhaltung in der Ukraine (1) Karl Hampel Wien (1813) AmZ 30 (28 July 1813): 497

Hermann, Germaniens Retter Historisches Melodrama (3) Matthäus Stegmayer Wien (1813) WT 145 (6 December 1813): 568–70 AmZ 4 (26 January 1814): 69

Kaffee und Sürrogat Posse (3) Adolph Bäuerle Wien (1813) AmZ 4 (26 January 1814): 70

Abentheuer auf der Schlangenburg Grosse Komische Zauberoper (3) Franz Volkert Wien (1814) AmZ 28 (20 July 1814): 491 WT 107 (5 September 1818): 428 [Ph. M—r]

Die getreuen Gebirgsbewohner Böhmens

288 Schauspiel Karl Meisl Wien (1814) WT 16 (7 February 1814): 62–3

Die Fräulein von Matzleinstorf Lustspiel WT 85 (19 July 1814): 338–9

Zauberpyramiden AmZ 8 (21 February 1816):119

Pygmalion [Prüfung der Musen] Parodie (2) Franz Xaver Gewey Wien (1812) AmZ 43 (23 October 1816): 731 WT 88 (24 July 1827): 359 [Walther von Thale] AmZ 35 (29 August 1827): 606

Der Sturz des Ikarus [Harlekin als Pagat] Pantomime Paul Rainoldi Wien (1817) WZ 88 (1 November 1817): 316 [Y]

Das Mädchen von Orleans Romantische Tragödie (3) Johann Kachler [after Friedrich von Schiller and Cuvellier] Wien (1817) WZ 94 (22 November 1817): 363–4 [R]

Die falschen Kosaken Posse (1) Karl Meisl Wien (1817) AmZ 40 (1 October 1817): 691

Der lustige Fritz [Schlaf, Traum, und Besserung] Mährchen Karl Meisl Wien (1818) WZ 75 (23 June 1818): 608

Hans Heiling Volksmährchen (3)

289 Joseph Ferdinand Kringsteiner Wien (1818) WZ 92 (1 August 1818): 751

Seppherl Komisches Melodrama (3) Chorin Wien (1818) WT 131 (31 October 1818): 523–4 [Ph. M—r]

Die nach Norder reisende Komisches Quodlibet (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1819) WZ 59 (18 May 1819): 478

Die Stärke und die Arbeiten des Herkules Parodie (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1819) WT 52 (1 May 1819): 207–8 [J-R-r.]

Das Gespenst auf der Bastey Lokale Posse (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1819) WZ 119 (5 October 1819): 975–6

Das Gespenst in der Familie [Sappho und Tobias] Lokale Posse (2) Karl Meisl Wien (1820) [Revised as Das Gespenst in Prater (Wien 1820)] WZ 67 (3 June 1820): 543–4 WZ 24 (24 February 1821): 199–200

Die Frau Ahnl Parodie (2) Johann Welling Wien (1819) WZ 133 (6 November 1819): 1084–5

Die Fasching in Wien Posse (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1820) WZ 14 (1 February 1820): 112

290 WT 15 (3 February 1820): 59

Kolumbineus und Arlequins Entführung [Zaubertempel] Grosse Komische Zauberpantomime WZ 48 (20 April 1820): 392

Die Reise in der Mond Zauberposse (2) L. Stegner Wien (1820) WZ 116 (26 September 1820): 952 WT 120 (5 October 1820): 480 [-F-]

Don Juan der steinerne Gast Lustspiel (3) Wien (1820) WZ 134 (7 November 1820): 1104

Maranterl [Die drei Räthsel] Zauberparodie (2) Teischl Wien (1820) WZ 140 (21 November 1820): 1152

Der Waldmann in der Brühl Volksmährchen (2) [Zauberposse] Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1821) WZ 9 (20 January 1821): 72

Zwei Gütter und die Braut Posse (2) Joses Willmann Wien (1821) WT 25 (27 February 1821): 99

Die Blauhütchen Grosse Komische Zauberpantomime WT 48 (21 April 1821): 191

Der alte Geist in der modernen Welt Lokales Zauberspiel (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1821) WT 114 (22 September 1821): 455 WZ 116 (27 September 1821): 983–4

291

Der goldene Fächer [Arlequin als Schmetterling] WZ 131 (1 November 1821): 1116

Der Mädchenraub Schwank (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1822) WZ 122 (10 October 1822): 985–6

Der Eheteufel auf Reisen Zauberspiel Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1821) WZ 34 (20 March 1821): 288

Die goldenen Kohlen Komische Operette (2) Joseph Alois Gleich Wien (1823) WT 73 (19 June 1823): 190–1

Zauberschere [Raub der Columbia] Grosses Pantomimisches Zauberquodlibet WT 145 (4 December 1823): 583

Der wilde Mann im Prater Locale Zauberposse (2) Joseph Schuster Wien (1824) AmZ 28 (8 July 1824): 452

Die geraubten Haarzöpfe Locale Posse (2) AmZ 24 (15 June 1825): 403

Die Sesselträger in Wien Lokale Faschingsposse AmZ 13 (22 March 1826): 215

Felix und Gertrude [Der Bräutigam auf der Flueht] Posse (3) Wien (1826) WT 115 (26 September 1826): 467 [Mosel]

292 WAGNER, KARL JAKOB (1772–1822)

Adonis [Die Rache des Ares] Melodrama (1) W. Baur Darmstadt (1815) AmZ 37 (16 September 1818): 655–8

Chimene Grosse Oper (3) W. Baur Darmstadt (1821) AmZ IBV (June 1822): 25

WEBER, BERNHARD ANSELM (1764–1821)

Hero Lyrisches Monodrama (1) [Lyrisch-dramatische Gemählde] Karl Alexander Herklots Magdeburg (1800) AmZ 52 (24 September 1800): 892–3 AT Vol. 2 Nr. 46 (November 1800): 321–4

Die Jungfrau von Orleans Romantisches Trauerspiel Schiller Berlin (1801)

Die Wette Singspiel (1) After P. Guillet/trans. Pierre Gaveaux Berlin (1805) AmZ 21 (20 February 1805): 339–40 AmZ 7 (12 November 1806): 107–9 AmZ 45 (4 November 1812): 738–9 [G. Weber]

Deodata Heroische Schauspiel [Romantische Schauspiel/Oper] August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue Berlin (1810) JLM 4 (April 1810): 246–7 JLM 5 (May 1810): 293–6 AmZ 27 (4 April 1810): 424 AmZ 28 (11 April 1810): 440–7

293 AmZ 58 (7 November 1810): 934–5 AmZ 32 (7 August 1811): 529–39 JLM 10 (October 1811): 662 [tz.] AmZ 48 (27 November 1811): 808 AmZ 49 (4 December 1811): 824–5 Freimüthige 31 (7 September 1816): 123 ZeW 135 (14 July 1820): 1079

Der Kosak und der Freiwillige Liederspiel (1) August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue Berlin (1813) AmZ 52 (29 December 1813): 844–5 AmZ 24 (15 June 1814): 410–2 AmZ 28 (13 July 1814): 470–1

Asträa’s Wiederkehr (1) Karl Alexander Herklots Berlin (1814) AmZ 34 (24 August 1814): 572 Freimüthige 182 (12 September 1814): 728

Epimenides Erwachen Festspiel (2) Johann Wolfgang Goethe Berlin (1815) AmZ 15 (12 April 1815): 257–9 JLM 3 (March 1816): 171–8 [F. W. R.]

Der Abschied von der Heimath [Die Heldengräber bei Großbeeren] Schauspiel mit Gesang Karl von Levetzow Berlin (1815) AmZ 38 (20 September 1815): 641–2

Hermann und Thusnelda Heroische Oper (3) [Schauspiel mit Gesang und Tanz] August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue Berlin (1819) AmZ(W) 42 (26 May 1819): 339

WEBER, CARL MARIA VON (1786–1826)

294 Silvana, das Waldmädchen Romantische Oper (3) [Heroische Oper] Franz Karl [Carl] Hiemer Frankfurt (1810) MgS 237 (3 October 1810): 948 MgS 244 (10 October 1810): 976 AmZ 3 (15 January 1812): 47 [Triole] MgS 199 (19 April 1812): 795–6 AmZ 32 (5 August 1812): 532–3 AmZ 35 (26 August 1812): 572–81 [X..] JLM 9 (September 1812): 615–7 AmZ 12 (23 March 1825): 196 BamZ 47 (21 November 1827): 378 [Marx] Caecilia 32 (1828): 271–4 [GW] MgS 32 (6 February 1828): 128 MgS 33 (7 February 1828): 132 AmZ 32 (6 August 1828): 517–20

Abu Hassan Singspiel (1) [kleine Oper] Franz Karl [Carl] Hiemer München (1811) JLM 8 (August 1811): 498–9 AmZ 3 (15 January 1812): 47 [Triole] WamZ 23 (29 May 1813): 351–4 WT 65 (1 June 1813): 251–2 [M—ll—r] AmZ 25 (23 June 1813): 415 AmZ 32 (9 August 1820): 550–2 JLM 10 (October 1820): 587–8 AmZ 35 (27 August 1823): 573–4 JLM 6 (January 1825): 39 WZ 22 (19 February 1825): 182–3 [A. .] ZeW 36 (19 February 1825): 288

Preciosa [Preziosa] Incidental Music [Melodrama] [Schauspiel mit Musik] Pius Alexander Wolff Berlin (1821) WZ 84 (13 July 1822): 680 AmZ 1 (1 January 1823): 10–11 WZ 39 (1 April 1823): 322 WZ 87 (22 July 1823): 715–6 AmZ 38 (17 September 1823): 618–9 WZ 8 (17 July 1823): 67–8 BamZ 5 (2 February 1825): 37–9 WZ 141 (24 November 1825): 1172

295

Der Freischütz Romantische Oper (3) Friedrich Johann Kind Berlin (1821) AmZ 8 (21 February 1821): 124 Gesellschafter 105 (2 July 1821): 487–8 [Gtz.] Gesellschafter 106 (4 July 1821): 491–3 [Gtz.] WZ 83 (12 July 1821): 705 ZeW 138 (17 July 1821): 1103–4 WZ 88 (24 July 1821): 750–1 WZ 89 (26 July 1821): 758–9 WT 134 (8 November 1821) [K–t] AmZ(W) 90 (10 November 1821): 709–14 WZ 136 (13 November 1821): 1153–6 WZ 143 (29 November 1821): 1206–8 AmZ(W) 96 (1 December 1821): 757–62 AmZ(W) 97 (8 December 1821): 776–8 AmZ 1 (2 January 1822): 12–3 Gesellschafter 3 (5 January 1822): 12 [v—.] AmZ(W) 3 (9 January 1822): 17–8 [N—n] Gesellschafter 28 (18 February 1822): 132 [H.**] Gesellschafter 32 (25 February 1822): 152 [C.] Gesellschafter 34 (1 March 1822): 164 [Sa.] WZ 27 (2 March 1822): 222–3 AmZ(W) 22 (16 March 1822): 172–4 AmZ(W) 23 (20 March 1822): 182–4 WZ 34 (19 March 1822): 279–80 WZ 42 (6 April 1822): 343–4 AmZ 15 (10 April 1822): 242–5 AmZ 18 (1 May 1822): 290 AmZ 19 (8 May 1822): 303 Gesellschafter 77 (15 May 1822): 365 [ck] AmZ 23 (5 June 1822): 369–71 AmZ 23 (5 June 1822): 377–8 WT 72 (15 June 1822): 287–8 WZ 87 (20 July 1822): 703 AmZ 59 (24 July 1822): 465–70 AmZ 31 (31 July 1822): 512–3 JLM 7 (July 1822): 398–9 WZ 92 (1 August 1822): 743–4 Gesellschafter 130 (16 August 1822): 613–4 Gesellschafter 131 (17 August 1822): 618–9 Gesellschafter 132 (19 August 1822): 621–3 Gesellschafter 133 (21 August 1822): 626–7 Gesellschafter 134 (23 August 1822): 634–5

296 Gesellschafter 135 (24 August 1822): 637–8 WZ 103 (24 August 1822): 828–9 Gesellschafter 136 (25 August 1822): 642–3 AmZ 35 (28 August 1822): 574 Gesellschafter 137 (28 August 1822): 645–6 AmZ 37 (11 September 1822): 603–5 AmZ(W) 74 (14 September 1822): 585–91 WZ 111 (14 September 1822): 899–900 AmZ 43 (23 October 1822): 698–9 JLM 10 (October 1822): 601–4 JLM 11 (November 1822): 674 MgS 32 (6 February 1822): 127–8 [A. W.] MgS 112 (10 May 1822): 448 MgS 113 (11 May 1822): 452 MgS 114 (13 May 1822): 456 MgS 186 (5 August 1822): 743–4 [†††] ZeW 29 (9 February 1822): 231–2 [G. W–s.] ZeW 34 (16 February 1822): 270–2 ZeW 97 (18 May 1822): 775–6 [A. S.] ZeW 117 (18 June 1822): 935–6 [R.] ZeW 246 (16 December 1822): 1967–8 AmZ(W) 55 (9 July 1823): 439–40 [Z.] AmZ(W) 57 (16 July 1823): 455–6 [Z.] AmZ(W) 79 (1 October 1823): 627–30 AmZ(W) 81 (8 October 1823): 646–8 AmZ(W) 82 (11 October 1823): 655–6 JLM 101 (November 1823): 830–1 ZeW 160 (18 August 1823): 1286–8 [y.] WZ 149 (13 December 1823): 1232 WZ 99 (17 August 1824): 866–7 [Kandler] WZ 100 (19 August 1824): 874–5 [Kandler] WZ 101 (21 August 1824): 882–4 [Kandler] WT 114 (21 September 1824): 456 WT 100 (20 August 1825): 426–7 WZ 104 (30 August 1825): 871–2 [*—*] AmZ 43 (26 October 1825): 720 JLM 12 (10 February 1826): 92–3 BS 12 (1826): 45–7 BS 13 (1826): 49–50 BS 14 (1826): 53–4 BS 15 (1826): 57–8 BS 16 (1826): 61–2 BS 17 (1826): 65–6 WZ 60 (20 May 1826): 478–9 WZ 129 (28 October 1826): 1040 [—nn—] BamZ 41 (10 October 1827): 330–2

297 WZ 12 (27 January 1827): 95–6 BCB 60 (24 March 1827): 239–40 [K.] WT 81 (7 July 1827): 331 BCB 198 (6 October 1827): 789–90 [K.] WZ 121 (9 October 1827): 100–2 AmZ 43 (24 October 1827): 728–9 AmZ 45 (7 November 1827): 760–1 WZ 146 (6 December 1827): 1210 BamZ 17 (23 April 1828): 137–8 [Klingemann] MamZ 17 (26 January 1828): 267–72 MamZ 22 (1 March 1828): 349 MamZ 35 (31 May 1828): 555–9 WZ 42 (5 April 1828): 336 WZ 49 (22 April 1828): 394 MTZ 12 (10 December 1828): 90–1 WZ 14 (31 January 1829): 111–2 K.M. WT 15 (3 February 1829): 59 WT 16 (5 February 1829): 62–3 WZ 20 (14 February 1829): 163 WT 23 (21 February 1829): 91 WT 25 (26 February 1829): 98–9 WT 30 (10 March 1829): 119 ZeW 105 (29 May 1829): 839 [Le Globe] WZ 66 (2 June 1829): 544 WZ 101 (22 August 1829): 836 WT 124 (15 October 1829): 507 WT 143 (28 November 1829): 587

Euryanthe Grosse heroische-romantische Oper (3) Wilhelmine Christiane von Chézy Wien (1823) AmZ 47 (19 November 1823): 764–5 AmZ 52 (24 December 1823): 861–5 Gesellschafter 181 (12 November 1823): 880 [V.*] Gesellschafter 189 (26 November 1823): 919–20 [Ph. F.] JLM 115 (December 1823): 937–9 MgS 165 (11 July 1823): 660 AmZ(W) 88 (1 November 1823): 697–704 WT 131 (1 November 1823): 523–4 [Th.] AmZ(W) 89 (5 November 1823): 705–10 AmZ(W) 90 (8 November 1823): 713–9 WZ 134 (8 November 1823): 1102–4 WZ 135 (11 November 1823): 1109–12 AmZ(W) 91 (12 November 1823): 721–4 MgS 289 (3 December 1823): 1155–6

298 MgS 290 (4 December 1823): 1160 ZeW 249 (20 December 1823): 1999–2000 ZeW 250 (22 December 1823): 2007–8 WT 153 (23 December 1823): 611–2 ZeW 251 (23 December 1823): 2014–6 ZeW 252 (29 December 1823): 2024 BamZ 50 (15 December 1824): 430–1 [†††] BamZ 50 (15 December 1824): 432 BamZ 51 (22 December 1824): 440 Caecilia 2 (1824): 195–6 Gesellschafter 70 (1 May 1824): 348 Gesellschafter 135 (23 Aug 1824): 669–70 [Georg Harrys] JLM 15 (February 1824): 120 JLM 25 (March 1824): 193–5 JLM 54 (May 1824): 481 JLM 55 (May 1824): 435–6 JLM 81 (July 1824): 646 WZ 109 (9 September 1824): 946–7 WZ 110 (11 September 1824): 954 JLM 121 (November 1824): 968 MgS 96 (21 April 1824): 383–4 MgS 108 (5 May 1824): 431–2 [Guido] MgS 120 (19 May 1824): 479–80 AmZ 24 (10 June 1824): 387–8 AmZ 25 (17 June 1824): 406–8 MgS 164 (9 July 1824): 656 MgS 178 (26 July 1824): 711–2 AmZ 37 (9 September 1824): 600–1 AmZ 45 (4 November 1824): 731–2 Caecilia 5 (1825): 42–65 [St. Schütze] Caecilia 9 (1825): 49–51 WZ 11 (25 January 1825): 89–90 [B.] AmZ 20 (18 May 1825): 335 ZeW 104 (31 May 1825): 831–2 MgS 154 (29 July 1825): 616 [A. Wendt] AmZ 1 (4 January 1826): 8–9 BamZ 1 (4 January 1826): 4–8 [Marx] AmZ 2 (11 January 1826): 24–5 [Marx] BamZ 2 (11 January 1826): 9–11 [Marx] BamZ 2 (11 January 1826): 11–2 [A Wendt] BamZ 3 (18 January 1826): 21–3 [A. Wendt] BamZ 4 (25 January 1826): 26–9 [A. Wendt] BamZ 5 (1 February 1826): 37–9 [A. Wendt] BamZ 6 (8 February 1826): 43–5 [A. Wendt] WZ 19 (14 February 1826): 151 BamZ 7 (15 February 1826): 54–6 [A. Wendt]

299 BS 2 (1826): 7–8 Gesellschafter 2 (4 January 1826): 12 [**] JLM 9 (31 January 1826): 70–2 WZ 23 (23 February 1826): 184 JLM 21 (14 March 1826): 165–6 WZ 31 (14 March 1826): 246 MgS 2 (3 January 1826): 8 [—tz.] ZeW 6 (9 January 1826): 47–8 [d. Red.] ZeW 7 (10 January 1826): 55–6 [S.] ZeW 33 (16 February 1826): 264 ZeW 34 (17 February 1826): 272 MgS 42 (18 February 1826): 167–8 BCB 28 (8 February 1827): 110–2 BCB 29 (9 February 1827): 115–6 BamZ 44 (31 October 1827): 359–60 BamZ 45 (7 November 1827): 364–5 WZ 134 (8 November 1827): 1105 AmZ 48 (28 November 1827): 810 BamZ 18 (30 April 1828): 144–5 [Klingemann] WZ 57 (10 May 1828): 460 AmZ 24 (11 June 1828): 394 BamZ 52 (24 December 1828): 489 [C. G.] AmZ 1 (7 January 1829): 17 BamZ 49 (5 December 1829): 388–90 WT 149 (12 December 1829): 614 (Beilage)

WEIGL, JOSEPH (1766–1846)

Das Dorf im Gebirge Schauspiel mit Gesang (2) [Melodrama, Komische Operette] August Friedrich Ferdinand von Kotzebue Wien (1798) AmZ 24 (15 June 1814): 406 ZeW 109 (15 May 1820): 871–2 [**n.] AmZ 22 (30 May 1827): 37–4

Vestas Feuer Heroische Oper (2) Emanuel Schikaneder Wien (1805) AmZ 48 (28 August 1805): 767–8

Kaiser Hadrian Grosse Oper (3) Johann Cölestin Mayer [J. Sonnleithner]

300 Wien (1807) MgS 41 (17 February 1807): 164 WT 1 (4 July 1807): 5–7 [Sp] AmZ 41 (8 July 1807): 650–1 JLM 3 (March 1809): 173 AmZ 23 (8 March 1809): 365 Wage 2 (11 July 1819): 74–5 [Ludwig Börne] AmZ 15 (11 April 1821): 248

Adrian von Ostade Operette (1) [Singspiel] Georg Friedrich Treitschke Wien (1807) AmZ 6 (4 November 1807): 86 MgS 291 (5 December 1807): 1164 WT 22 (12 December 1807): 147–8 [Gruber] AmZ 45 (4 November 1812): 738 AmZ 22 (30 May 1821): 383 ZeW 124 (28 June 1821): 992

Die Schweizerfamilie Lyrische Oper (3) Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1809) AmZ 28 (12 April 1809): 441 AmZ 18 (31 January 1810): 286 AmZ 22 (28 February 1810): 348–51 AmZ 24 (14 March 1810): 378–9 AmZ 43 (25 July 1810): 695–6 Freimüthige 236 (26 November 1810): 944 ZeW 242 (4 December 1810): 1927–8 ZeW 244 (7 December 1810): 1942–4 AmZ 16 (17 April 1811): 288–9 AmZ 26 (26 June 1811): 444–5 AmZ 12 (18 March 1812): 189 AmZ 18 (29 April 1812): 303–4 JLM 9 (September 1813): 557–60 [Chezy] AmZ 12 (23 March 1814): 203 JLM 4 (April 1814): 225 MTJ 4 (April 1814): 71–4 WT 89 (27 July 1814): 355–6 WT 93 (6 August 1814): 371–2 WT 16 (14 February 1815): 61–2 [E...] MTJ 2 (February 1816): 115–7 LKgK 9 (1817): 40 [R.] WZ 55 (9 July 1817): 23 [H. W.] (sic)

301 AmZ (W) 19 (9 May 1818): 163–4 AmZ 5 (3 February 1819): 65–7 WT 63 (27 May 1819): 252 Wage 1 (2 July 1819): 41–2 [Ludwig Börne] ZeW 185 (22 September 1820): 1479–80 [-t-] WT 30 (10 March 1821): 118 [Mpr] WZ 30 (10 March 1821): 251–2 AmZ 17 (25 April 1821): 310 WZ 119 (4 October 1821): 1008 WZ 65 (31 May 1825): 547–8 AmZ 24 (15 June 1825): 402–3 WT 107 (6 September 1825): 439 BS 11 (1826): 43 [Delta] WZ 67 (6 June 1826): 534–5 WZ 93 (4 August 1827): 767–8 AmZ 45 (7 November 1827): 760–1 MTZ 10 (6 December 1828): 73–4 BCB 118 (20 June 1829): 463 AmA 35 (29 August 1829): 140 WZ 107 (5 September 1829): 884 WT 108 (8 September 1829): 440

Das Waisenhaus Singspiel (2) [Oper] Georg Friedrich Treitschke Wien (1808) AmZ 8 (23 November 1808): 124–6 MgS 71 (24 March 1809): 283–4 AmZ 29 (19 April 1809): 456–8 JLM 10 (October 1809): 660–1 ZeW 225 (11 November 1809): 1798–1800 Freimüthige 244 (8 December 1809): 975 AmZ 11 (13 December 1809): 171–2 AmZ 13 (27 December 1809): 201 JLM 1 (January 1810): 47–9 [S.] AmZ 24 (14 March 1810): 378–9 AmZ 51 (19 September 1810): 809–19 AmZ 5 (30 January 1811): 82–3 WZ 58 (19 July 1817): 47–8 [W. H.] AmZ 33 (13 August 1817): 564–5 WZ 91 (12 November 1817): 339–40 [C] WZ 94 (22 November 1817): 362 [D] AmZ 41 (13 October 1819): 699

Die Verwandlungen Operette (1) [Singspiel]

302 [After Viscount de Ségur] Berlin (1810) AmZ 25 (21 March 1810): 393 JLM 4 (April 1810): 245–6

Der Einsiedler auf den Alpen (1) Georg Friedrich Treitschke Wien (1810) AmZ 42 (18 July 1810): 674

Franziska von Foix Heroisch-komische Oper (3) Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1812) AmZ 13 (25 March 1812): 208–9

Der Bergsturz bei Goldau Singspiel (3) [Johann Anton] Friedrich Reil Wien (1813) WT 103 (24 December 1812): 409–11 [Adolf Bäuerle] AmZ 3 (20 January 1813): 50–1 MgS 38 (13 February 1813): 152 WamZ 2 (9 January 1813): 19–23 AmZ 52 (27 December 1815): 876 JLM 6 (June 1816): 357 LKgK 135 (8 August 1818): 551–2 LKgK 136 (11 August 1818): 555 Wage 3 (1 September 1819): 142 [Ludwig Börne] WT 68 (6 June 1822): 271

Die Jugend Peters des Großen Singspiel (3) Georg Friedrich Treitschke Wien (1814) WT 142 (27 December 1814): 565–6 MgS 7 (9 January 1815): 28 AmZ 3 (18 January 1815): 44–5 WT 121 (8 October 1825): 496 WT 57 (13 May 1826): 231

Nachtigall und Rabe Singspiel (1) [Schäferspiel] Georg Friedrich Treitschke Wien (1818)

303 WZ 51 (28 April 1818): 412 AmZ (W) 19 (9 May 1818): 163–4 AmZ 21 (27 May 1818): 386 LKgK 159 (8 October 1818): 648 AmZ 41 (14 October 1818): 723 JLM 2 (February 1819): 112 WT 96 (12 August 1819): 384 Wage 4 (13 September 1819): 169–71 [Ludwig Börne] AmZ 42 (20 October 1819): 714–5 AmZ 44 (1 November 1820): 737–8 AmZ 15 (11 April 1821): 248 WZ 95 (10 August 1826): 764

Baals Sturz [Daniel in der Löwengrube] Grosse Ernsthafte Oper (3) Friedrich Reil Wien (1820) WT 47 (18 April 1820): 187 [Mpr] AmZ(W) 32 (19 April 1820): 249–51 WZ 50 (25 April 1820): 406–8 AmZ 20 (17 May 1820): 329–33 WT 43 (10 April 1821): 170–1 [Mpr]

König Waldemar [Die dänischen Fischer] Operette (1) Ignaz Franz Castelli Wien (1821) WZ 60 (19 May 1821): 513–4 AmZ 41 (23 May 1821): 326–8 AmZ 26 (27 June 1821): 453

Eduard und Caroline Operette (1) Georg Friedrich Treitschke Wien (1821) WT 116 (27 September 1821): 462–3 WZ 118 (2 October 1821): 999–1000 AmZ(W) 79 (3 October 1821): 627–9 WZ 124 (16 October 1821): 1056

Die eiserne Pforte Grosse Oper (2) [Romantische Oper (3)] Ignaz Ritter von Seyfried Wien (1823) WZ 28 (6 March 1823): 226–8 AmZ(W) 20 (8 March 1823): 153–6

304 AmZ(W) 21 (12 March 1823): 161–4 AmZ 13 (26 March 1823): 210–11 DB 49 (27 March 1823): 195–6 DB 64 (24 April 1823): 256

WEIGL, THADDÄUS (1776–1844)

Die Marionettenbude [Der Jahrmarkt zu Grünwald] Oper (2) Karl Friedrich Hensler Wien (1795) WT 2 (8 July 1806): 27 [Bothart]

WEISSE, C. E. F.

Ludlamshölen [Seyfried] Oper [grosse Oper] AmZ 21 (22 May 1816): 358–9 BamZ 12 (23 March 1825): 91–3 [A. R.] BamZ 13 (30 March 1825): 98–100 [A. R.]

WIELAND, CHRISTOPH MARTIN (1733–1813)

Don Sylvio von Rosalva NadB 47 (1799): 18–21 [Rw.]

WINTER, PETER VON (1754–1825)

Das unterbrochene Opferfest Heroisch-komische Oper (2) Franz Xaver Huber Wien (1796) JLM 5 (May 1800): 248–50 BmZ 88 (1805): 348 JLM 7 (July 1806): 454–5 JLM 9 (September 1808): 617 AmZ 29 (19 April 1809): 454 Freimüthige 138 (13 July 1809): 551 ZeW [Intelligenzblatt] (1809): 18 [F. Hofmeister] ZeW 225 (11 November 1809): 1798–1800 AmZ 51 (19 September 1810): 823–4 Freimüthige 123 (21 June 1811): 492 [Kapf.]

305 WT 4 (1811): 15–6 AmZ 49 (4 December 1811): 828 WamZ 12 (20 March 1813): 185–6 WT 34 (20 March 1813): 134–5 MgS 82 (6 April 1813): 327–8 AmZ 22 (2 June 1813): 368–9 AmZ 28 (13 July 1814): 471 MTJ 1 (January 1815): 23 AmZ 20 (17 May 1815): 338 AmZ 20 (15 May 1816): 332 Freimüthige 22 (16 August 1816): 87 Freimüthige 64 (12 November 1816): 256 LKgK 3 (1817): 15–6 [R.] LKgK 65 (10 February 1818): 272 JLM 3 (March 1818): 187–8 LKgK 126 (16 July 1818): 515–6 WZ 118 (1 October 1818): 963–4 AmZ(W) 41 (10 October 1818): 380–1 WT 132 (3 November 1818): 527–8 [Freymuth] AmZ 5 (3 February 1819): 65–7 WZ 26 (29 February 1820): 205–6 WT 52 (1 May 1819): 207 [l] AmZ 34 (23 August 1820): 580 WZ 125 (17 October 1820): 1027–8 AmZ(W) 88 (1 November 1820): 701–3 WT 148 (9 December 1820): 591 [M-s-r] WZ 149 (12 December 1820): 1227–8 WZ 59 (17 May 1821): 506–7 AmZ 21 (6 June 1821): 399–400 WZ 88 (24 July 1821): 751 AmZ(W) 69 (28 August 1822): 545–5 AmZ(W) 93 (19 November 1823): 741–3 BamZ 46 (17 November 1824): 400 [K-B] Gesellschafter 187 (22 November 1824): 937–8 [P.] JLM 23 (March 1824): 183 JLM 90 (August 1824): 718–9 AmZ 46 (11 November 1824): 750 WZ 10 (22 January 1825): 84 WT 12 (27 january 1825): 46–7 WZ 17 (8 February 1825): 143 [*—*] AmZ 9 (2 March 1825): 148 BamZ 42 (17 October 1827): 340–3 BCB 204 (15 October 1827): 813 [K.] MamZ 4 (27 October 1827): 59–63 MamZ 7 (17 November 1827): 107–8 MamZ 13 (29 December 1827): 204–7

306 MamZ 33 (17 May 1828): 527–8 AmZ 4 (28 January 1829): 60

Babylons Pyramiden Grosse heroisch-komische Oper Emanuel Schikaneder Wien (1797) JLM 6 (June 1798): 419 AmZ 5 (31 October 1798): 72–80

Das Labyrinth [Der Kampf mit den Elementen] Heroisch-komische Oper (2) Emanuel Schikaneder Wien (1798) JLM 6 (June 1798): 419 AmZ 47 (20 August 1800): 811–5 AmZ 48 (27 August 1800): 823–7 AmZ 47 (17 August 1803): 778–9 AmZ 48 (24 August 1803): 794–5 ZeW 98 (20 August 1803): 779–80 [d. H.] WT 7 (16 January 1819): 27

Marie von Montalban Große Oper (4) Karl Reger München (1800) AmZ 47 (17 August 1803): 779–1800 AmZ 19 (8 February 1809): 298 AmZ 32 (9 August 1815): 539 WZ 67 (5 June 1821): 568

Salomons Urtheil München (1808) ZeW 73 (13 April 1809): 583–4 [Klingemann] MTJ 1 (January 1816): 28–9

Comal Heroische Oper (2) [grosse Oper] Matthäus von Collin München (1809) MgS 269 (10 November 1807): 1076 MgS 291 (5 December 1807): 1161 AmZ 2 (11 October 1809): 31–2 JLM 11 (November 1809): 729–31 AmZ 10 (6 December 1809): 154

307 Die beiden Blinden Singspiel (3) Franz Holbein München (1810) AmZ 35 (30 May 1810): 559–60

Der Sänger und der Schneider Komische Operette (1) Friedrich von Drieberg [Composer Berlin 1814] München (1820) AmZ 16 (19 April 1820): 262 ZeW 66 (2 April 1822): 528 [W. Bechstein] WZ 95 (7 August 1824): 828

WOLFRAM, JOSEF (1789–1839)

Die bezauberte Rose [Maja und Alpino] Feenoper Eduard Heinrich Gehe Prag (1826) ZeW 113 (13 June 1826): 905–9 JLM 47 (13 June 1826): 373–6 BamZ 24 (14 June 1826): 191–2 WT 90 (29 July 1826): 367 (Beilage) [l] WZ 98 (17 August 1826): 785–7 JLM 72 (8 September 1826): 569–71 WZ 108 (9 September 1826): 867–8 JLM 75 (19 September 1826): 598–9 JLM 76 (19 [sic] September 1826): 607 JLM 78 (29 September 1826): 617–20 [Sch] WZ 117 (30 September 1826): 943–4 Gesellschafter 160 (7 October 1826): 810–1 [K.] MgS 224 (12 October 1826): 975 [Guido] AmZ 43 (25 October 1826): 705–6 Gesellschafter 198 (13 December 1826): 1002 [S.] AmZ 12 (21 March 1827): 205–8 WZ 39 (31 March 1827): 315 AmZ 15 (11 April 1827): 259–60 MgS 95 (20 April 1827): 380 WZ 51 (28 April 1827): 417 BamZ 37 (12 September 1827): 295–7 [Klingemann] BamZ 38 (19 September 1827): 301–4 [Klingemann] AmZ 43 (24 October 1827): 721–3 AmZ 3 (16 January 1828): 44–5 BamZ 3 (16 January 1828): 20–1 [L. Rellstab]

308 BamZ 4 (23 January 1828): 28–9 [L. Rellstab] BamZ 5 (30 January 1828): 36–8 [L. Rellstab] BamZ 6 (6 February 1828): 43–5 [L. Rellstab] BamZ 7 (13 February 1828): 51–2 [L. Rellstab] BamZ 10 (5 March 1828): 73–7 [L. Rellstab] BamZ 12 (19 March 1828): 92–4 [L. Rellstab]

Der Normann auf Siciliens Thron Eduard Heinrich Gehe Dresden (1828) MgS 151 (24 June 1828): 604 [Guido] ZeW 117 (17 June 1828): 929–32 [Gehe] ZeW 118 (19 June 1828): 940–2 [Gehe] ZeW 119 (20 June 1828): 947–8 [Gehe] ZeW 120 (21 June 1828): 955–7 [Gehe] ZeW 121 (23 June 1828): 961–3 [Gehe] ZeW 122 (24 June 1828): 970–2 [Gehe] ZeW 123 (26 June 1828): 980–1 [Gehe]

Prinz Lieschen Komische Oper (3) Eduard Heinrich Gehe (1829) AmZ 38 (23 September 1829): 623–4

Der Bergmönch Romantische Oper (3) Karl [Borromäus] von Miltitz Dresden (1830) WT 42 (3 April 1830): 171 AmZ 15 (14 April 1830): 235–7 [Giusto] BamZ 30 (24 July 1830): 238–40 [Spazier] BamZ 31 (31 July 1830): 246–7 [Spazier] BamZ 32 (7 August 1830): 254–5 [Spazier] BamZ 33 (14 August 1830): 263–4 [Spazier] WZ 60 (20 May 1830): 490

WOLLANCK [WOLLANK], [JOHANN ERNST] FRIEDRICH (1781–18310

Die Alpenhirten Oper (3) H. W. Loess Berlin (1811) AmZ 11 (13 March 1811): 196–7 ZeW 57 (21 March 1811): 456

309

WRANITZKY [VRANICKÝ, WRANICZKY, WRANIZKY], PAUL [PAVEL] (1756–1808)

Oberon, König der Elfen Romantisches Singspiel (3) Johann Georg Karl Ludwig Giesecke [Pseud. of Johann Georg Metzler] Wien (1789) WT 5 (1 August 1806): 71 [Bolthart] AmZ 51 (16 September 1807): 817 MTJ 8 (August 1814): 224–6 AmZ 29 (19 July 1826): 476 MgS 296 (11 December 1827): 1170 AmZ 39 (30 September 1829): 643–4

WÜRFEL, VÁCLAV VILÉM (1790–1832)

Rübezahl [romantische Oper (3)] Wilhelm Marsano Prag (1824) WT 126 (19 October 1824): 503–4 WT 140 (20 November 1824): 559 WZ 142 (25 November 1824): 1221–2 AmZ(W) 97 (4 December 1824): 385–6 AmZ 6 (9 February 1825): 93–4 WZ 28 (5 March 1825): 236 WT 33 (17 March 1825): 132 WZ 35 (22 March 1825): 295–6 [*—*] AmZ 15 (13 April 1825): 242 MgS 97 (23 April 1825): 388 [A. Wendt] JLM 36 (3 May 1825): 286

ZUMSTEEG, JOHANN RUDOLF (1760–1802)

Die Geisterinsel Singspiel (3) (Johann) Friedrich Wilhelm Gotter Stuttgart (1798) AmZ 7 [Intelligenzblatt] (January 1799): 25 AmZ 42 (17 July 1799): 657–76 [Christmann] AmZ 43 (24 July 1799): 689–711 [Christmann] AmZ 48 (28 August 1799): 785–813 [Christmann] JLM 10 (October 1802): 566–8

310 AmZ 15 (8 January 1806): 232 WT 83 (13 July 1813): 323 AmZ 28 (13 July 1814): 467–9

Das Pfauenfest Singspiel (2) F. A. C. Werthes Stuttgart (1801) AmZ 41 (9 July 1800): 716–20 [Christmann]

Elbondokani Singspiel (1) J. C. F. Haug Stuttgart (1803) AmZ 45 (3 August 1803): 746–51

311

MUSIC EXAMPLES

Example 1. Wilhelm Sutor (1774-1828), Masinissa (1812), Act III Finale

* Lysiart’s tritone leap, although characteristic for early nineteenth-century recitative, is not supported by the harmonic motion. As there is no critical edition available for Masinissa, I have not been able to explore this anomaly any further than my transcription of D-Mbs St.th.106. ^ A diminished 3rd chord, as discussed by Johann David Heinichen (1683-1729).

Example 2. Ferdinando Paer (1771-1839), Sofonisba (1805), Act III Finale

313

Example 3. Louis Spohr (1784-1859), Jessonda (1823), Act III Recitative

314

Example 4. Carl Maria von Weber (1786-1826), Euryanthe (1823), Act II Recitative

315

Example 5. Euryanthe Act III Recitative

316

Example 6. Euryanthe Act III Cavatina

317

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abert, Anna Amalie. “Webers Euryanthe und Spohrs Jessonda als grosse Opern.” Festschrift für Walter Wiora, edited by Ludwig Finscher und Christoph-Hellmut Mahling, 435–40. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1967.

Abraham, Gerald. “Weber as Novelist and Critic.” Musical Quarterly 20 (1934): 27–34.

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1983.

Applegate, Celia. “How German Is It? Nationalism and the Idea of Serious Music in the Early Nineteenth Century.” Nineteenth-Century Music 21 (1998): 274–96.

______. Bach in Berlin: Nation and Culture in Mendelssohn’s Revival of the St. Matthew Passion. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005.

______and Pamela Potter, eds. Music and German National Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Barbour, J. Murray. “Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung: ‘Prototype of Contemporary Music Journalism.’” Notes 5 (1948): 325–37.

Bauman, Thomas. North German Opera in the Age of Goethe. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

______. “Benda, the Germans, and Simple Recitative.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 34 (1981): 119–31.

Becker, Heinz, ed. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Musikkritik. Regensburg: Bosse, 1965.

Berger, Stefan. Germany, Inventing the Nation. Edited by Keith Robbins. London: Arnold, 2004.

Birke, Joachim. “Gottsched’s Opera Criticism and its Literary Sources.” AcM 32 (1960): 194– 200.

Bonds, Mark Evan. Music as Thought: Listening to the Symphony in the Age of Beethoven. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006.

______. “Idealism and the Aesthetics of Instrumental Music at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 50 (1997): 387–420.

Branscombe, Peter. “Music in the Viennese Popular Theatre of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 98 (1971–2): 101–12.

Braun, Werner. Musikkritik: Versuch einer historisch-kritischen Standortbestimmung. Köln: Gerig, 1972.

Brown, Clive. Louis Spohr: A Critical Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

______. “Spohr, Faust and Leitmotif.” The Musical Times 125 (1984): 25–7.

______. “Spohr’s Jessonda.” The Musical Times 121 (1980): 94–7.

Buch, David J. “Fairy-Tale Literature and Die Zauberflöte.” Acta musicologica 64 (1992): 30– 49.

Burnham, Scott. “Aesthetics, Theory and History in the Works of Adolf Bernhardt Marx.” Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1988.

Chantler, Abigail. E. T. A. Hoffmann’s Musical Aesthetics. London: Ashgate, 2006.

Christensen, Thomas. Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Cochran, Keith H. “The Genesis of Gaspare Spontini’s Agnes von Hohenstaufen: A Chapter in the History of German Opera.” Ph.D. diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1995.

Coeuroy, André. “Weber as Writer.” Musical Quarterly 11 (1925): 97–115.

Cone, Edward T. Music: A View from Delft. Edited by Robert P. Morgan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Cooper, Barry. Beethoven’s ‘Abendlied’ and the ‘Wiener Zeitschrift.’ Music & Letters 82 (May 2001): 234–50.

Deal, Bama Lutes. “The Origin and Performance History of Carl Maria von Weber’s Das Waldmädchen (1800).” Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, 2005.

Dechant, Hermann. E.T.A. Hoffmanns Oper “Aurora.” Regensburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft 2. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1975.

Dent, Edward J. “The Nomenclature of Opera–II.” Music & Letters 25 (October 1944): 213–26.

Ditzler, Kirk. “The Motif of the Forest in Weber’s Silvana and Der Freischütz.” Opera Journal 31 (1998): 35–49.

Doerner, Mark Frederick. “The Influence of the Kunstmärchen on German Romantic Opera, 1814–1825.” Ph.D. diss., University of California at Los Angeles, 1990.

319

Dora, Wilson. “Johann Adolph Scheibe’s Views on Opera and Aesthetics.” The Opera Quarterly 2 (1984): 49–56.

Ehinger, Hans. Friedrich Rochlitz als Musikschriftsteller. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1929.

______. E.T.A. Hoffmann als Musiker und Musikschriftsteller. Olten: Walter, 1954.

Emerson, Isabelle Putnam. Five Centuries of Women Singers. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2005.

Engländer, Richard. “The Struggle between German and Italian Opera at the Time of Weber.” Musical Quarterly 31, no. 4 (1945): 479–91.

Everist, Mark. “Translating Weber’s Euryanthe—German Romanticism at the Dawn of ‘French Grand Opera.’” Revue de Musicologie 87 (2001): 68–104.

Fellinger, Imogen. Verzeichnis der Musikzeitschrfiten des 19. Jahrhunderts. Studien zur Musikgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts 10. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1968.

Flaherty, Gloria. Opera in the Development of German Critical Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978.

Forchert, Arno. “Adolf Bernhard Marx und seine Berliner Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung.” In Studien zur Musikgeschichte Berlins im frühen 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Carl Dahlhaus, 381–404. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1980.

Forkel, Johann Nikolaus. Über Johann Sebastian Bachs Leben, Kunst und Kunstwerk. Edited by Claudia Maria Knispel. 1802. Reprint, Berlin, 2000.

Freystätter, Wilhelm. Die musikalischen Zeitschriften ihrer Enstehung bis zur Gegenwart: chronologisches Verzeichniss der periodischen Schriften über Musik. Amsterdam: F. Knuf, 1971.

Garlington, Aubrey S. “E. T. A. Hoffmann’s ‘Der Dichter und der Komponist’ and the Creation of German Romantic Opera.” The Musical Quarterly 65 (1979): 22–47.

______. “German Romantic Opera and the Problem of Origins.” Musical Quarterly 63 (1977): 242–60.

______. “August Wilhelm von Schlegel and the German Romantic Opera.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 30 (1977): 500–506.

______. “The Concept of the Marvelous in French and German Opera, 1770–1840: A Chapter in the History of Opera Esthetics.” Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 1965.

320

Goslich, Siegfried. Die Deutsche Romantische Oper. Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1975.

Gramit, David. Cultivating Music: The Aspirations, Interests, and Limits of German Musical Culture, 1770–1848. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.

Grey, Thomas. “Metaphorical Models in Nineteenth-Century Criticism: Image, Narrative, and Idea.” Critical Inquiry 26 (1992): 93–117.

Henneberg, Gudrun. Idee und Begriff des musikalischen Kunstwerks: im Spiegel des deutschsprachigen Schrifttums der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Tutzing: Schneider, 1983.

Herder, Johann Gottfried von. Philosophical Writings. Translated and edited by Michael N. Forster. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Hirschfeld, Robert. “Musikalische Kritik in der Wiener Zeitung.” In Zur Geschichte der kaiserlichen Wiener Zeitung, 197–235. Vienna, 1903.

Hocks, Paul and Peter Schmidt, eds. Index zu deutschen Zeitschriften der Jahre 1773–1830. 3 vols. Nendeln: KTO Press, 1979.

Hoeckner, Bertold. Programming the Absolute: Nineteenth-Century German Music and the Hermeneutics of the Moment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.

Hoffmann, E. T. A. E. T. A. Hoffmann’s Musical Writings: Kreisleriana, The Poet and the Composer, Music Criticism. Edited by David Charlton. Translated by Martyn Clarke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Horsley, Paul Joseph. “Dittersdorf and the Finale in Late-Eighteenth-Century German Comic Opera.” Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1988.

Hsu, Dolores Menstell. “Weber on Opera: A Challenge to Eighteenth-Century Tradition.” In Studies in Eighteenth-Century Music, edited by H. C. Robbins Landon, 297–309. New York: Da Capo Press, 1979.

Hughes, Derek. “‘Wie die Hans Heilngs’: Weber, Marschner, and Thomas Mann’s Doktor Faustus.” Cambridge Opera Journal 10 (1998): 179–204.

Istel, Edgar. “Aus Heinrich Marschners Produktivster Zeit: Briefe des Komponisten und Seines Dichters Eduard Devirent.” Süddeutsche Monatshefte 7 (1910): 774–820.

Jaiser, Gerhard. Carl Maria von Weber als Schriftsteller: Mit einer in Zusammenarbeit mit der Weber-Gesamtausgabe erarbeiteten quellenkritischen Neuausgabe der Romanfragmente Tonkünstlers Leben. Vol. 3 of Weber Studien. Mainz: Schott, 2001.

321

Kilian, Gerald. Studien zu Louis Spohr. Wissenschaftliche Beiträge Karlsruhe16. Karlsruhe: M. Wahl, 1986.

Kirby, Frank E. “Herder and Opera.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 15 (1962): 316–29.

Kirchmeyer, Helmut. Situationsgeschichte der Musik und des musikalischen Pressewesens in Deutschland. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1972.

______. “Ein Kapitel Adolf Bernhard Marx: über Sendungsbewusstsein und Bildungsstand der Berliner Musikkritik zwischen 1824 und 1830.” In Beiträge zur Geschichte der Musikanschauung im 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Walter Salmen, 73–101. Regensburg: Gustav Bosse, 1965.

Kirchner, Joachim. Bibliographie der Zeitschriften des deutschen Sprachgebietes bis 1900. Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1969.

______. Das deutsche Zeitschriftenwesen, seine Geschichte und seine Probleme. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1958–62.

Koch, Hans-Albrecht. Das deutsche Singspiel. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1974.

Kröplin, Eckart. “Opernäesthetische Fragestellungen bei Weber.” Beiträge zur Musikwissenchaft 30 (1988): 28–32.

Kuhles, Doris. Deutsche literarische Zeitschriften von der Aufklärung bis zur Romantik: Bibliographie der kritischen Literatur von den Anfängen bis 1990. 2 vols. München: K.G. Saur, 1994.

Kunze, Stefan, ed. Ludwig van Beethoven, die Werke im Spiegel seiner Zeit: gesammelte Konzertberichte und Rezensionen bis 1830. Laaber, 1987.

Lauden, Robert Tallant. “Sources of the Wagnerian Synthesis: A Study of the Franco-German Tradition in Nineteenth-Century Opera.” Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 1969.

Leinert, Michael. “Tonkünstlers Leben—Weber als Schriftsteller und Dichter.” Beiträge zur Musikwissenchaft 30 (1988): 84–9.

Link, Dorothea. The National Court Theatre in Mozart’s Vienna: Sources and Documents 1783– 1792. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Longyear, Rey M. “Schiller and Opera.” The Musical Quarterly 52 (1966): 171–82.

Magee, Glenn Alexander. Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.

322

Mann, Michael. Heinrich Heines Musikkritiken. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe, 1971.

Markx, Francien. “Der Kritiker als Magier: E.T.A. Hoffmanns Musikerzählungen im Kontext der Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung.” Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, 2003.

Mayer, Dorothy Moulton. The Forgotten Master: The Life and Times of Louis Spohr. New York: Da Capo, 1981.

Meyer, Stephen C. “Terror and Transcendence in the Operatic Prison, 1790–1815.” Journal of the American Musicological Society 55 (2002): 477–523.

______. Carl Maria von Weber and the Search for a German Opera. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2003.

______. “Performing Identity: The Search for German Opera in Dresden, 1798–1832.” Ph.D. diss., State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1996.

Mink, Louis. “Philosophical Analysis and Historical Understanding.” Review of Metaphysics 11 (June 1968): 667–98.

Morrow, Mary Sue. German Music Criticism in the Late Eighteenth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

______. “Of Unity and Passion: the Aesthetics of Concert Criticism in Early Nineteenth- Century Vienna.” 19th-Century Music 13 (1989–1990): 193–206.

Neumann, Friedrich-Heinrich. Die Ästhetik des Rezitativs: Zur Theorie des Rezitativs im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Baden-Baden: Heitz, 1962.

Newman, Ernest. “A Forerunner of Wagner.” The Musical Times LIII/838 (1 December 1912): 780–2.

Nieder, Christoph. Von der “Zauberflöte” zum “Lohengrin”: Das deutsche Opernlibretto in der ersten Häfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Germanistische Abhandlungen, vol. 64. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche, 1989.

Pederson, Sanna. “A.B. Marx, Berlin Concert Life, and German National Identity.” Nineteenth- Century Music 18 (1994): 87–107.

______. “Enlightened and Romantic German Music Criticism, 1800–1850.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995.

323

Peek, Sabine. “Cottas Morgenblatt für gebildete Stände. Seine Entwicklung und Bedeutung unter der Redaktion der Brüder Hauff (1827–1865).” In Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel Frankfurt am Main 42 (1965): 947–1064.

Porter, Cecelia Hopkins. The Rhine as a Musical Metaphor: Cultural Identity in German Romantic Music. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1996.

______. “The Rheinlieder Critics: a Case of Musical Nationalism.” Musical Quarterly 63 (1977): 74–98.

Quantz, Johann Joachim. On Playing the Flute. Translated and Edited by Edward R. Reilly. New York: Schirmer, 1966.

Refardt, Edgar. Verzeichnis der Aufsätze zur Musik in den nichtmusikalischen Zeitschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Basel. Leipzig: Universitätbibliothek, 1925.

Rehm, Jürgen. Zur Musikrezeption im vormärzlichen Berlin: die Presentation bürgerlichen Selbstverständnisses und biedermeierlicher Kunstanschauung in den Musikkritiken Ludwig Rellstabs. Hildesheim: Olms, 1983.

Reipschläger, Erich. Schubaur, Danzi und Poissl als Opernkomponisten: Ein Beitrag zur Entwickelungsgeschichte der deutschen Oper auf Münchener Boden. Berlin: Wegner, 1911.

Rogols-Siegel, Linda. “Ludwig Börne as Music Critic.” The Musical Quarterly 74 (1990): 269– 94.

Salmen, Walter. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Musikanschauung im 19. Jahrhundert. Regensburg: Bosse, 1965.

Scher, Steven Paul. “Hoffmann, Weber, Wagner: The Birthplace of Romantic Opera from the Spirit of Literature?” In German Literature and Music in the 19th Century, edited by Gerald Chapple, Frederick Hall, and Hans Schulte, 227–44. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992.

______. “Carl Maria von Weber’s Tonkünstlers Leben: The Composer as Novelist?” Comparative Literature Studies 15 (1978): 30–42.

Schering, Arnold. “Aus der Geschichte der musikalischen Kritik in Deutschland.” Jahrbuch der Musikbibliothek Peters 34 (1928): 9–23.

Schiedermair, Ludwig. Die deutsche Oper: Grundzüge ihres Werdens und Wesens. Leipzig, 1930.

Schmidt, Klaus, ed. Index deutschsprachiger Zeitschriften, 1750–1815. 2 vols. Hildesheim: Olms Neue Medien, 1990.

324

Schmitt-Thomas, Reinhold. Die Entwicklung der deutschen Konzertkritik im Spiegel der Leipziger Allgemeinen Musikalischen Zeitung 1798–1848. Frankfurt am Main: Kettenhof, 1969.

Schmitt, Anke. Der Exotismus in der deutschen Oper zwischen Mozart und Spohr. Hamburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft 36. Hamburg: Wagner, 1988.

Schnitzler, Günter. “Antiklassizistische Ästhetik und prodoktive Musikkritik: E.T.A. Hoffmanns Ritter Gluck und Don Juan.” Musik & Ästhetik 9 (2005): 69–89.

Schrott, Ludwig. “Aus dem Ringen um die deutsche Oper: Ein Lebens- und Schaffensbild Johann Nepomuk von Poissls.” Die Musik 32 (1939–40): 299–303.

Schwartz, Judith L. “Conceptions of Musical Unity in the 18th Century.” The Journal of Musicology 18 (Winter 2001): 56–75.

Seeger, Horst. “Zum Begriff ‘Nationaloper’ und seiner Anwendung auf Weber.” Beiträge zur Musikwissenchaft 30 (1988): 33–6.

Senner, Wayne M., Robin Wallace, and William Meredith, eds. The Critical Reception of Beethoven’s Compositions by his German Contemporaries. 2 vols. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2001.

Smither, Howard E. “Oratorio and Sacred Opera, 1700–1825: Terminology and Genre Distinction.” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 106 (1979–80): 88–104.

Spohr, Louis. The Musical Journeys of Louis Spohr. Translated and edited by Henry Pleasants. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961.

______. Autobiography. Translator unknown. London: Reeves &Turner, 1878.

Sulzer, Johann Georg. Aesthetics and the Art of Musical Composition in the German Enlightenment, eds. Nancy Kovaleff Baker and Thomas Christensen/ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Tadday, Ulrich. Die Anfänge des Musikfeuilletons: Der kommunikative Gebrauchswert musikalischer Bildung in Deutschland um 1800. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1993.

Taruskin, Richard. The Oxford History of Western Music, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Tusa, Michael C. Euryanthe and Carl Maria von Weber’s Dramaturgy in German Opera. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

325

______. “Music as Drama: Structure, Style, and Process in Fidelio.” In Ludwig van Beethoven’s Fidelio, edited by Paul Robinson, 101–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Tyler-Schmidt, Linda Louise. “Mozart and German Opera Conventions in Austria and Southern Germany, 1760–1800.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1988.

Uhlendorff, Franz. “Chronik des Kasseler Musiktheaters von 1814–1944.” In Theater in Kassel aus der Geschiche des Staatstheaters, edited by Christiane Bernsdorff-Engelbrecht and Hans Joachim Schaefer, 67–102. Kassel: Bärenreiter, 1959.

Waidelich, Till Gerrit. “‘Weder Italienisch noch Französisch, sondern rein Deutsch’: Johann Nepomuk von Poissls Athalia als Oper ‘ohngefehr im Genre der Gluck’schen.’” In vol. 3 of Weber-Studien, edited by Frank Ziegler and Joachim Veit, 318–46. Mainz: Schott, 1996.

Wallace, Robin. Beethoven’s Critics: Aesthetic Dilemmas and Resolutions during the Composer’s Lifetime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Warrack, John. “German Operatic Ambitions in the Early 19th Century.” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 104 (1977–8): 79–88.

––––––––. German Opera: From the Beginnings to Wagner. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Weber, Carl Maria von. Writings on Music. Edited by John Warrack. Translated by Martin Cooper. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Webster, James. “Between Enlightenment and Romanticism in Music History: ‘First Viennese Modernism’ and the Delayed Nineteenth Century. 19th-Century Music 25 (2001–2): 108–26.

Weisstein, Ulrich. “Heinrich Marschner’s ‘Romantische Oper’ Hans Heiling: A Bridge between Weber and Wagner.” In Music and German Literature: Their Relationship since the Middle Ages, edited by James M. McGlathery, 154–79. Studies in German Literature, Linguistics, and Culture 6, edited by James Hardin and Gunther Holst. Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1992.

______. “Carl Maria von Weber’s Der Freischütz: ‘Nummernoper’ or ‘Gesamtkunstwerk’?” In The Romantic Tradition: German Literature and Music in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Gerald Chapple, Frederick Hall, and Hans Schulte, 281–307. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992.

Wurst, Karin A. “Fashioning a Nation: Fashion and National Costume in Bertuch’s ‘Journal des Luxus und der Moden.” German Studies Review 28 (May 2005): 367–86.

326