collaborators, the voice was that of a great actor of the period; it obeyed certain conventions of good taste, moderation and natural delivery, in the sense in which the word natural was in those days understood by society (for naturalness varies according to the period; different societies and different ages set different limits to it).—The misunderstanding between these two schools was based far less upon fundamentals than upon the manner of expressing them. Everybody was agreed in admitting that opera was tragedy expressed in music. But everybody was not agreed as to what tragedy ought to be. On the one hand were the disciples of Racine; on the other the romantics, born before their time.
Let us add that what matters most in art is not theory but the man who applies it. Gluck sought to reform the musical drama. So did Metastasio; so, in Berlin, did Algarotti, Graun and Frederick II. himself. But there are various ways of seeking to do this, and there is such a thing as temperament. Gluck's temperament was that of a revolutionist, intelligent and audacious, who could at need be brutal; who cared nothing for "what people would say" and turned the conventions topsy-turvy. Metastasio's was that of a man of the world who respected the established usages. He stuffed his operatic libretti with frigid sentences and finical comparisons; and to justify them he referred to the example of the Greeks and Romans; he informed Calsabigi that such methods "had always constituted the chief attraction of eloquence, sacred and profane."[1]
- ↑ "Han fatto sempre una gran parte finora della sacra e della profana eloquenza."
