The Ratio of Content and Entertainment in the Operas of Giacomo Meyerbeer

Popov Denis Aleksandrovich Professor, Department of Theory, History and Pedagogy of Art, Saratov National Research University named after N. G. Chernyshevsky 410012, Russia, Saratovskaya oblast', g. Saratov, ul. Astrakhanskaya, 83 pvden@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

In the history of opera art, Giacomo Meyerbeer appears as an extremely ambiguous figure — he was admired and hated, he was praised and despised, performances of his operas gathered huge halls during the maestro's lifetime, but were thoroughly forgotten soon after his death. Leading critics and artistic figures of the XIX century left extremely contradictory statements about his work, for example, Goethe believed that only Meyerbeer was able to write decent music for his "Faust", but he would never write it, because he tied his fate too closely with the Italian theater ^{[1, p. 280]}. Heinrich Heine was an ardent admirer of Meyerbeer's music and left many poisonous remarks about his work ^{[2, p. 137]}. In Russia, Vladimir Stasov led an uncompromising struggle against the "Meyerbeer" and urged Russian composers not to imitate the French celebrity, but admitted that "he brought great treasures to the opera, previously unseen and untouched" ^[3].

Equally ambiguous were the assessments of the work of J. Meyerbeer and in the critical writings of the following generations. Thus, in Russia, within the framework of the Marxist view of the essence of artistic culture, he was reproached for "bourgeoisness", for indulging the tastes of the rich public, but at the same time they invariably emphasized the brightness and colorfulness of his music. I. I. Sollertinsky, whose views became decisive for the subsequent study of Meyerbeer's legacy within the framework of Soviet musicology, called him "a typical composer of the bourgeois monarchy," but he did not skimp on compliments to him: "his orchestra is powerful, flexible, expressive; tutti, thanks to brilliant combinations of timbres and registers, sometimes make a stunning impression. At the same time, he is extremely delicate in accompaniment" ^{[4, p. 20]}.

And at the end of the XX – beginning of the XXI century, the authors writing about Meyerbeer still remained within the established tradition of exalting and overthrowing him at the same time. The article by Alexander Bode and Peter Pospelov literally repeats and reproduces countless contradictory statements that have already been made about Meyerbeer over a century and a half of widespread performance of his music ^[5]. It was only with the final victory of "mass art" in the serious scientific literature about the Bolshoi opera that the assessments softened: for example, O. V. Zhestkova, in her numerous studies on the history of the bolshoi opera in France, prefers to focus on its merits rather than its shortcomings ^[6],[7],[8]. At the same time, a certain inner kinship of Meyerbeer's musical creativity with modern artistic culture should become an occasion for a deeper analysis of the reasons why such opposite opinions were expressed about him.

The reason for the duality of critical assessments of the work of the French composer was named back in the XIX century, and a lot has been said about it. If we remain in the sphere of exclusively artistic assessments and do not consider banal envy, class approach, as well as nationalist prejudices, then no one has ever doubted Meyerbeer's giftedness. The main artistic claims of his critics are connected with the eclecticism and entertainment of his creations, catering to the tastes of the public, Meyerbeer was reproached that, having the opportunity to create serious and profound things, he cared only about his popularity and commercial success.

These reproaches make us think about what entertainment is and what its role in art is, as well as why this problem remains so relevant for modern artistic creativity. Meyerbeer's operatic legacy, unanimously referred to as "entertaining", turns out to be a good subject for studying the "mechanics of entertainment" and the main techniques used by it.

Entertainment is usually defined as an activity whose purpose is pleasure, fun, getting pleasant, funny and shallow emotions. One of the goals of art, formulated back in the era of classicism, was precisely to "entertain, teach". In turn, classicism borrowed this formulation from Horace's treatise On Poetic Art: "All the votes are for the one who merged pleasure with benefit, Who, occupying the reader, immediately instructs him" ^{[9, p. 171]}. This classicist formula was somewhat transformed in the era of Romanticism, when art became something like a way to convey to the public high feelings or ideas of social significance. But the romantics have not abandoned entertainment at all, they can find in abundance and entertaining plots, and intriguing mystery, and all kinds of special effects. None of the leading artistic geniuses of the XIX century completely rejected "entertainment", therefore, its very presence in Meyerbeer's creations could not serve as a reason for reproaches. The point, apparently, is that they lack or are extremely poorly expressed the second most important component of the traditional formula under consideration - teaching.

However, if we try to apply this formula to specific works of Meyerbeer, we unexpectedly find that Meyerbeer, at least at first glance, never violates it. From a formal point of view, there is always a "teaching" in his operas, and all his works contain a message to the viewer. Moreover, this message is sustained just in line with all the prevailing ideological currents and trends at that time, so that the critics' reproaches seem to be meaningless.

The plots of "Robert the Devil", "The Huguenots", "The Prophet", "Dinora" unfold in a system of certain moral coordinates and ideological searches of the era, they interpret and show in their own way those problems that were actively discussed by contemporaries and seemed important to them. Situations of moral choice, the debunking of religious fanaticism, the collapse of human destinies in the maelstrom of civil war, the responsibility of a person for his actions — it would seem that everything is in order with the meaningful, instructive side of these works. But critics persistently label these works only as entertaining, and we, having familiarized ourselves with Meyerbeer's creations, intuitively agree with them. What's the matter?

It seems that both contemporaries and descendants felt very keenly that a certain mimicry was characteristic of Meyerbeer's works. They only imitate the "deep" content, but in fact it is absent in them, they exploit borrowed, common ideas, without delving into them and not getting into them. Everything is limited to reproducing certain cliches recognizable by the public, which in fact do not contain any serious ideas, but only depict their presence. A sign of such an approach is the obvious superficiality, thoughtlessness, inconsistency and inconsistency in the presentation of what should look like the ideological basis of the work. At first glance, it is understandable and recognizable, but if we only look at it more closely, its falsity is revealed.

Let's consider this feature of Meyerbeer's work on the example of some of his most famous works.

At first glance, the plot of Robert the Devil, Meyerbeer's first successful opera, presents the viewer with a moral conflict within the personality, a confrontation between its dark and bright aspirations. Robert the Devil is a hero torn by conflicting desires and opposing feelings: a theme that never loses its relevance, including for the modern viewer. But what do J. Meyerbeer and his librettist Eugene Scribe really show us?

In the ballad of Rambo, at the beginning of the first act, we are informed about the main character that he is truly terrible, but instead a gallant knight appears on the stage in front of the audience, who does not demonstrate his awfulness anywhere. He is somewhat short—tempered, he is extravagant, he is gambling, but at the same time he is capable of generous deeds and feelings - he loves his mother dearly and saves Alice, his foster sister, from the lustful harassment of fellow knights, whom no one considers "devils". His only "terrible act" throughout the entire opera action — the abduction of the magical branch of St. Ursula, committed out of desperation and for the sake of possessing his beloved — somehow does not pull at an unforgivable crime. In addition, Robert, under the influence of his selfless love for Isabella, soon refuses to own the branch.

The main tempter, the devil Bertram, is even more far from moral problems, who acts like an ordinary father, concerned about the welfare of his child and wanting to regain the favor of his son. He does not so much encourage Robert to commit some criminal acts, as he weaves clever intrigues around him, the sole purpose of which is to force Robert to stay with him.

The camp of goodness, represented by Isabella and Alice, is also colorless. Robert's beloved Isabella is the embodiment of "duty virtues", she helps poor girls (on duty) and obeys her father, the Sicilian duke, in everything, even when he forces her to marry the unloved. Alice, as a supporting character, does not pretend to look like a model of morality at all: she just dreams of a calm, happy marriage with Rambo, whom she is sincerely jealous of because he is late for a date. At a crucial moment, when she could have warned Robert about the danger, she actually betrays him without suffering remorse afterwards.

As a result, the battle of Heaven and Hell becomes something like a small family showdown about who Robert will live with. Instead of an internal drama, the viewer is shown an endless change of Robert's decisions, and it is not the development of the hero and his moral decisions that move the plot of the opera forward, but a complex intrigue where each side makes its own move, after which Robert once again falls into a trap or happily avoids it.

But maybe Robert is not a demon, but an ordinary romantic hero? Romanticism has given rise to many such characters who, under the masks of the "damned", hide only a set of strong passions, bright, but not diabolical. But, unfortunately, Robert does not reach the romantic hero either. He's just a characterless madcap who constantly changes his decisions under someone else's influence. What was supposed to look like a "struggle" looks like endless compliance to someone else's opinion. Once Bertram, Isabella, or Alice do something again, Robert accepts a new point of view and line of behavior. His weakness is obvious, and romanticism does not like weak characters.

Of course, all these flaws could be attributed to the peculiarities of the work of Eugene Scribe, the main librettist of Meyerbeer. But the very choice of a superficial and entertaining Scribe, a master of entertaining intrigue ^[10] for a permanent creative community is already a conscious step. In addition, the composer does not just follow his librettist, but also makes a decisive contribution to strengthening and dominating the entertainment side of the opera.

Where Scribe resorts to romantic cliches and banal techniques that are in no way rooted in the action of the opera, Meyerbeer magnificently decorates them with musical means. For example, Alice's inset romance, dedicated to the all-saving mother's love, literally stops the development of the plot. It does not reveal the psychology of the characters, does not change the relationship between them or their attitudes and views, but it turns out to be a spectacular and sentimental number, a successful lyrical pause between tense dramatic episodes.

Individual elements, musical numbers in "Robert" obviously do not work for some general content, theme or idea, but lead an independent existence, and interact with each other only to provide entertainment, showiness and constant attention of the public.

So, the most discussed and well—known episode in this opera — the ballet of depraved nuns in the third act - is obviously aimed at tickling the nerves of the public, critics and public opinion with scandalousness and piquancy. At the same time, neither Scribe nor Meyerbeer is at all interested in why and why the nuns went on a spree and debauchery, the external effect is important to them, not psychology or explanations.

Another important entertaining episode of the opera in question is a musical scene with a thunderstorm, where Bernard reveals his diabolical essence for the first time. Again, we have only an excuse to impress the imagination of the public and excite it with unusual musical and stage techniques, and not to reveal the essence of the "demonic". We can say that Scribe and Meyerbeer contributed to the formation of the future popular image of the "opera", and then the "operetta" demon, terrifying the audience with black eyebrows, thunderous laughter and a variety of special effects.

Thus, already the first famous opera by Meyerbr demonstrates one important feature: formally preserving a certain ideological content, it emasculates it to the level of a cliche, contradictory, primitive and banal sketch, adjusted to the level of everyday perception. The real value and significance in it are only "special effects" that lead an independent life, providing the attention of the public.

This feature of Meyerbeer's musical creations has given rise to constant accusations of eclecticism, but they are not entirely fair. The artistic integrity of the work is certainly achieved, but not at the expense of a unifying idea, but at the expense of a thoughtful alternation of impressive episodes that do not let the audience get bored. Virtuoso arias work for the same, forcing you to follow the efforts of the singers literally with sporting interest, and grandiose mass scenes with choirs and dances, allowing you to take a break from the development of the plot and immerse yourself in the world of ballet. As a result, their thoughtful abundance creates an unusually colorful and spectacular spectacle — but without any additional semantic load. It should also be noted that Meyerbeer, initially devoid of a bright melodic gift, really achieves the impossible: without striking listeners and viewers with the exquisite beauties of his melodies, he nevertheless uses such a rich arsenal of expressive means that he completely immerses them in his musical world. As a result, the viewer is fascinated, shocked, impressed... but it is not enriched by anything.

The same feature will be observed in all subsequent creations of Meyerbeer.

In "Dinor", the main storyline is the madness of the main character as a result of unhappy love and the loss of the groom. However, despite the obvious tragedy of the chosen material, the opera has a lyrical and comic character: Dinora, who has lost her mind, runs merrily through the mountains after a white goat, dances with her shadow and with laughter throws bouquets of wildflowers out of the window to hapless treasure hunters. The tragedy turns into a funny situation, a minor nuisance, where no one suffers enough to really empathize with him, but you can have fun from the bottom of your heart. This conflict between the initially tragic situation and its musical and comic treatment leads to the fact that nothing that happens in the opera can be taken seriously: it is really entertainment, fun, adventure, and not a reason to reflect on responsibility and morality, although Goel, Dinora's lover, eventually overcomes his passion for gold and returns to to the bride, at the same time restoring her sanity. On the one hand, the opera seems to give the audience a moral lesson, on the other — it turns out to be too frivolous, turning into a hackneyed, obvious and expected morality by everyone. In the first place comes all the same entertainment, funny nocturnal adventures of Dinora, Goel and Corentin, accompanied by bright musical numbers, and not a moral idea.

And finally, the brightest example of such a transformation is the "Prophet". The plot of this opera is based on the religious quest of the Reformation era and the personal tragedy of John of Leiden, the leader of the Munster Anabaptists in 1534-1535. Under the pen of Scribe, the events in Munster turn into a complicated melodramatic story, where the cynical intrigues of the Anabaptist leaders (who really only crave wealth and power) and the romantic feelings of the main characters (John, his mother and bride, driven by love and revenge) become the driving force of the action. John of Leyden appears in the opera as a romantic character, he is infinitely far from religious problems, he is not a prophet, not a religious fanatic or even an unscrupulous manipulator — he is just an unhappy lover who lost his fiancee Bertha and is eager to avenge her by posing as a prophet and thus gaining the power to deal with the offender.

The morality of the "Prophet" turns out to be not religious, but romantic, the personal feelings of the characters (the love between the bride and groom, mother and son) are immeasurably higher than religious beliefs and ideas. In this respect, the "Prophet" formally follows the general tradition of romantic aesthetics, but even here we see an imitation rather than a sincere conviction of the truth of the romantic view of the world.

In the words of I. S. Turgenev, "John is a weak and pale creature, and a rogue in addition," and the behavior of his bride Bertha smacks of complete nonsense ^{[11, p. 457]}. Romantic collisions in The Prophet are reduced to the level of repeatedly used and secondary stamps: a bride who wants to kill a tyrant and recognizes her fiance in him, or a mother who considers her son dead and suddenly finds out that he is alive.

But, despite the obvious secondary basis, "The Prophet" shocks the viewer with the most complex arias, magnificent mass actions, vivid folklore scenes, religious chorales, dance numbers with skating, solemn processions and magnificent ensembles up to the obligatory final fire in the fifth act. "In this opera, the decorative setting was brought to unprecedented luxury and art" ^[12], and the dynamically developing intrigue skillfully holds all this grandiose structure, not giving the viewer a minute to be bored and riveting his attention.

We see something similar in another Meyerbeer opera on a "religious" plot — in The Huguenots. And here, the romantic love story is again in the foreground, and not the problem of religious fanaticism. In the Huguenots, the entertaining moment is somewhat less pronounced than in the thematically similar Prophet, perhaps due to a more thorough libretto, which was based on Prosper Merimet's novel Chronicles of the Reign of Charles IX. Such a serious literary basis constrains the entertainment component of the opera, however, even here individual numbers seem to be trying to escape from the dictates of the general plan and begin to lead an independent life, fighting for the attention of the public with the help of various musical and expressive means.

Let's summarize the results. The accusations of the "entertainment" of Meyerbeer's operas are not really based on the fact that they have an entertaining element: if desired, it can be found in any opera, as well as any other work of entertainment arts. Spectacular arts must be a "spectacle", "entertainment", such is their original nature. But the problem with Meyerbeer's operas is that there is nothing left in them but the spectacle. At the same time, the substantive, ideological side of these works is formally preserved, still playing the role of the conditional foundation of the work, but it is emasculated to the level of imitation, stamp, forgery. At the same time, the sophisticated influence on the listener and the viewer increases in order to surprise, amaze, capture attention and keep it, in this few of the composers of modern Meyerbeer could compete with him. He is a great master of impressing and attracting, but his work is impact for the sake of impact, entertainment for the sake of entertainment. If all his other colleagues still saw "entertainment" as a convenient tool for conveying some idea, thought, message to the viewer, then Meyerbeer has it only as a way to attract attention and bring pleasure to the order of the public.

Thus, Meyerbeer turns out to be the forerunner of all modern mass culture in understanding the goals and objectives of art: he does not educate the public, but caters to it, its needs for vivid impressions and spectacular episodes. Hence, perhaps, such a sharp struggle with him by his contemporaries, who felt that Meyerbeer was paving the way for a completely different cultural era, when art would be a simple commodity to satisfy mass needs, and not at all a high service to ideals, as it was in the XIX century.