THE INFLUENCE OF ITALIAN OPERA.
How ripe Italy was for the music reform begun at Florence is proved by the eagerness with which other composers took up and utilized the Canterata's ideas. Fortunately for the fate of opera, some great musicians interested themselves in it; musicians who were bolder even than the brave spirits that had launched it. First among these was Claudio Monteverde (1567-16-13). by the nature of things a pioneer. Several innova tions are laid at his door, the most important to the development of opera being the breath of life he put into the ligneous recitatives of Peri and Caccini. This meant the bursting of an other bond which had restrained dramatic free dom, and dramatic melody replaced the stilted recitatives. He was aided in these reforms by his contemporary Alareo da Gagliano. When Alonteverde's first opera. Orfco, appeared in 1607 and his second one, Arianna, a year later, syn chronous with Da Gagliano's Dafne, it was evi dent that Peri and his comrade had been left far in the rear. The individuality of the later com posers asserted itself and in a short space of time opera had made a great bound for freedom. Of the three following decades few records re main to prove any great advance along the line of reform, a surprisingly large number of scores having been destroyed. But opera made a great advance in 1637 when the Teatro di San Cassiano —the first public opera house—was opened in Venice. Now that the masses had a voice in the matter, it soon became evident that the people must be pleased and the Florentine ideals for gotten. The nobleness of the libretti deteriorated, mythology gave way to history, and melodrama was king. The masses were pleased. and the busi ness of opera flourished until there were eleven opera houses in Venice alone. The leading musi cal spirit of this Venetian opera period was Nonteverde's pupil. I'ietro Francesco Caletti Bruni (c.1600-1676), who adopted the name of his noble patron, CavaIli. He was an excellent musician and did much to give Venice opera local color by introducing the spirit of jest in his works; lie is even credited with the invention of the operatic aria, distinct from the musics par tante used by his predecessor. (See Attu.) But
the introduction of the aria was a disastrous move for the good of opera ; it boded degeneration of serious opera and paved the way for the opera buiTa. The same fate was threatening Neapolitan opera despite the composer-genius Francesco Pro. venzale (c.1610-?), when a new force stayed the decline of opera. The contemporary compos ers who had not bothered their heads about the stage had gone quietly about their business de veloping the other forms of music in which they were unhampered by scenic bounds. It stands to reason that their art was a purer one ; so when one of these—Marc' Antonio Cesti (e.1620-69), pupil of the celebrated Carissimi—eame to Venice at the middle of the seventeenth century he brought with him a remarkable technique and a lot of musical ideas. That the latter were for the most part badly suited to the demands of opera is true. hut he made his mark on the map of operatic history by ousting the comic element from serious opera. Hereafter opera seria and opera buffo traveled different roads. The latter tumbled mightily from grace at first, but gradu ally its cause was championed by Nicola Logro scino (e.1700-63), l'ergolesi (1710-30), and Pie OM (1728.1600), who reestablished it on an artistic basis, Under the above-mentioned Cesti serious opera fared very badly. llis intentions doubtless were good—he even is said to have invented the fie cap°, or repetition, of aria— but his training under Carissimi was all antag onistic to the principles of opera. Ile tried to reconcile opera and oratorio and what resulted was neither. The product was sonic unfortunate thing that had fallen between the two stool-; opera became undramatic and unseenic—in a word, it became unoperatic.