Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 4.djvu/374

358 he had raised. The actual contents of the article were ignored; but Wagner was persistently reproached with having attempted a disgraceful defamation of rival composers 'because of their Hebrew origin'! It remains significant that amongst his staunchest and most intelligent friends there were then, and there are still, many of Jewish descent, who may have wished he had let the subject alone, but who nevertheless see no reason to disagree with him in the main. The noise in the newspapers had an odd result: other writings of his, hitherto a drug on the market, suddenly began to sell, and have continued to do so.

With regard to the fierce attack upon Meyerbeer in 'Oper und Drama,' it should not be overlooked that Wagner's strictures concern Meyerbeer the musician, not Meyerbeer the man. The following extracts from a private letter of 1847 comprise everything Wagner thought fit to state publicly later on.

Did Wagner really act as an ungrateful and ill-conditioned person towards Meyerbeer? The two men never were friends in the true sense of the word. The time they actually spent together can hardly amount to a hundred hours. 1839–42 at Boulogne and Paris, Meyerbeer the senior by 22 years, was the patron, and Wagner the client; and for the next decade this state of things apparently continued. Meyerbeer had spoken well of Wagner, and in return it was expected that Wagner should make himself useful as a partisan. But this Wagner would not and could not do; the broadest hints produced no effect upon him.—When Wagner sought Meyerbeer's acquaintance the latter was surrounded by a host of literary adherents; willing champions in the press, with whom his agent and his publisher could manœuvre as they pleased. But the support of real musicians was wanting. Masters like Spohr and Marschner, Mendelssohn and Schumann, pronounced Meyerbeer's music an ingeniously contrived sham, and would have nothing to do with it; they attributed a good deal of the success of 'Robert,' etc. to Meyerbeer's business talents and to the exertions of his literary 'bureau.' Thus to secure the services of a promising young musician was a matter of some moment, and Wagner was regarded as the right sort of man to enlist. What did Meyerbeer do by way of patronage? He wrote a letter introducing Wagner to M. Pillet, fully aware that there was not a ghost of a chance for an unknown German at the 'Opéra.' To foist Wagner, with his 'Liebesverbot,' upon Antenor Joly and the Théâtre de la Renaissance, was, in the eyes of Parisians, little better than a practical joke; twice or thrice in the year that rotten concern had failed and risen again: 'mon théâtre est mort, vive mon théâtre,' was M. Joly's motto. Meyerbeer introduced Wagner to his publisher Schlesinger. And this is all that came to pass at Paris—unless the fact be taken into account that Scribe imitated an important scene from Rienzi in Le Prophète without acknowledgment. At Dresden a letter from Meyerbeer to Herr v. Lüttichau, dated March 18, 1841, turned the scales in favour of Rienzi, and both Rienzi and the Holländer were accepted (but not performed) on his recommendation at Berlin. After the surprising success of Rienzi, open hostility was shown by certain sections of the press. As time went on, Wagner traced some queer attacks to their source, and came upon members of Meyerbeer's bureau. No one who is aware of the large and complicated interests at stake with regard to the success or failure of a grand opera, will be surprised at the existence of press scandals, and it is of course impossible to say at present whether or not Meyerbeer was personally concerned. Wagner certainly thought he was, but chose to remain silent. It was not until 1850–52 that Meyerbeer's people came to know in their turn whom they were dealing with. By this time when Le Prophète was pitted in Germany against Lohengrin, the words 'friendship' or 'personal obligation' cannot have conveyed the usual meaning to Wagner's mind; yet there is little that savours of revenge or recrimination in 'Oper und Drama' and 'Das Judenthum.' Serious questions of art are treated, and Meyerbeer's works are quoted as glaring examples of operatic good and evil.

Besides the vast mass of theoretical and critical writing, Wagner got through much other work during the first two years at Zurich. He completed the prose version of a drama in three acts 'Wieland der Schmiedt' (meant to be carried out in French verse with a view to performance in Paris), conducted orchestral concerts, superintended the performances at the Stadt-theater (where his young disciples, Carl Ritter and H. von Bülow acted as conductors), lectured on the musical drama (reading the poem of Siegfried's Tod by way of illustration), and kept up a lively correspondence with German friends.

The first performance of Lohengrin took place under Liszt at Weimar, Aug. 28, 1850. The date chosen was that of Goethe's birth and of the inauguration of the statue to Herder; Liszt had invited musical and literary friends from all parts of Europe, and the work, performed (for once) without cuts, made a powerful impression. From that memorable night dates the success of the Wagner movement in Germany. The reception of Lohengrin by the musical profession, the press, and the general public, resembled that of Tannhäuser described above. It is not worth while to give details here. The following words