Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T09:28:44.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to Make Wagner Normal: Lohengrin's ‘tour de France’ of 1891–92

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2013

KATHARINE ELLIS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The traditional story reception historians tell of Wagner in France is really a centralist story about Wagner in Paris. This article reverses the direction in light of the fact that seven French regional towns presented Lohengrin on publicly funded stages in 1891 before the directors of the Paris Opéra dared follow suit. Since the work's ‘job’ in the regions was to prove to Paris that Wagner stagings did not necessarily bring rioting with them, the focus is more on previews than on the usual (and logical) reception material of reviews. In addition, via its multi-centre approach and a sideways glance at a parallel phenomenon – the reception of Victorien Sardou's Thermidor – the article integrates reception study into a broader-based cultural history rather than treating it in potentially more limited fashion as an approach in and of itself.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Opera Journal , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , July 2013 , pp. 121 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Arch. Mun. Strasbourg: 180 MW 57.

2 The playlet was written in 1870 but not published until 1873 and not translated into French until 1875. For more detail, see Huebner, Steven, French Opera at the Fin de Siècle: Wagnerism, Nationalism, and Style (New York, 1999), 13Google Scholar.

3 See Huebner, French Opera, 16–17, and Patureau, Frédérique, Le Palais Garnier dans la société parisienne, 1875–1914 (Liège, 1991), 250–1Google Scholar.

4 Le Figaro, 15 January 1886, 1. Adam's main political vehicle was her journal, La Nouvelle Revue, which she founded in 1879 and which ran until 1940, outliving her by four years.

5 See Kahane, Martine and Wild, Nicole, eds., Wagner et la France (Paris, 1983), 165Google Scholar; Patureau and Huebner both note that the opera's arrival at the Opéra had been prepared by way of regional performances, but detailed pursuit of the question is beyond their remit (Huebner, French Opera, 19; Patureau, Palais Garnier, 250).

6 According to Charles Vauclin, who was closely involved with Rouen's operatic politics, the idea was abandoned because of a fear of financial loss. See Vauclin, unpublished, Histoire du Théâtre-des-Arts, 1882–1912 (Bibl. Mun. Rouen Ms g 91: 1–6, vol. 2 f. 618).

7 In Angers-Revue, 17 December 1886, comte Louis de Romain suggested it was up to France's musical leaders to support Carvalho, since the French had sought and gained significant success in Germany since 1870, and reciprocity was in order. Saint-Saëns, a vice-president of the orchestral association attached to Angers-Revue, considered his name taken in vain, protesting in the Paris and Brussels press only to find that he had thereby sabotaged his forthcoming German/Bohemian tour, which was plagued by cancellations and anti-French protests.

8 Bayonne's Lohengrin was an unusual mix – organised privately by the well-heeled Société Chorale, but with council subsidy. The regular season had been abandoned on financial grounds, and for three months there had been nothing but weekly opéra-comique visits from Pau. The Société organised a formal complaint to the council from audience members, while also proposing a short opera season that would cost the council 4,000 francs in subsidy (they were awarded 3,000 francs). The season of eight performances included three of Lohengrin (Arch. Mun. Bayonne, 1 D 36, pp. 117 and 123–5). The Société engaged Philippe Flon, conductor of the French premiere at Rouen, along with hand-picked soloists. Members of the regular theatre orchestra who agreed to play were stiffened by guest principals from Paris and elsewhere. Staging was minimal. (L'Avenir des Pyrénées et des Landes, 30 April, 2 and 9 May, 9 June 1891.)

9 L'Écho de Paris, 24 February 1891, [3], as part of his review of the premiere at Angers.

10 Le Réveil du Nord [Lille], 17 January 1892, 2.

11 La Sémaphore de Marseille, 28/29 February, 1892, 2.

12 A problem as early as the Nantes premiere of 21 February 1891 (see Le Populaire, 23 February 1891, 2). In Lyon, speculation failed for the Lohengrin premiere (see Lyon républicain, 27 February 1891, 3) but became endemic thereafter.

13 News preview Le Ménestrel 56/42: 10 October 1890, 335. Sources disagree over what was performed, but the whole of Act III seems likeliest from the evidence available. Cosima was almost certainly not consulted: she was adamant in refusing authorisation to perform anything other than a whole opera. See her letter of 21 November 1889 to Étienne Destranges at Nantes, where she refuses a single act of an opera but offers him the opportunity to do Lohengrin complete (Bib. Mun. Nantes Ms. 2644, no. 43). There seems to have been a tumultuous attempted performance by Léon Carvalho on 14 February 1886 at the Opéra-Comique. He allegedly advertised Zampa, altered the posters at the last minute, and tried to play Lohengrin instead. Zampa was reinstated following audience revolt. This story finds only the faintest echo in the specialist press but is told in minute detail, on the evidence of a witness, by Clément Buellet in L'Écho du Nord [morning edition], 18 January 1892, 1.

14 See Le Figaro, 31 October 1890, 3.

15 ‘Pedro’, in Nantes-Lyrique, 8 November 1890, 2 and 6.

16 Le Petit Marseillais, 3 November 1890, 1; New York Times, 2 November 1890, 10.

17 Le Siècle, feuilleton of 18 November 1890, 3. Census figures for 1891 give around 2.5 million for Paris, 19,000 for Bourg-en-Bresse, and 10,000 for Castelnaudary.

18 Le Gaulois, 19 January 1891, 1.

19 ‘G.-R’ in La Bataille, 21 January 1891, 1. The writer is almost certainly Gérault-Richard, the paper's editorial secretary.

20 Unsigned, Le Temps, 20 January 1891, 1: ‘que Paris suive au moins l'exemple des grandes villes de province, puisqu'on ne lui a pas permis jusqu'ici de le leur donner!’

21 Arch. Nat. Paris: F/13/1198. Richard Wagner dossier 2, item 15 (27 April 1891).

22 Unsigned, Le Moniteur universel, 23 September 1891, 1038.

23 Le Nouvelliste de Rouen, 8 Feb 1891 (Edition B), 2–3. Newspaper editions are specified where possible. Several of the major regional dailies used here published different editions (sometimes with slight variants of title, sometimes not), and the presence of evening editions dated for the following morning complicates matters. The same article, or a version of it, can therefore appear in the same or a closely related title in two versions dated either identically or differently. I have tried to ascertain and use the earliest appearance of an article, but access restrictions to some collections on grounds of fragility has not always allowed it. In some towns a single music critic was shared between two seemingly unrelated newspapers, and published essentially the same text in both.

24 The presence of at least one prison van is attested in Le Nouvelliste de Bordeaux, 16 April 1891. ‘Anticonstitutionnel’, unsigned. Other sources say there were more.

25 See Barioz, Jacques, Wagner et Lyon: Chronique d'un grand siècle (Lyon, 2002), 14Google Scholar.

26 See especially C[lément] Buellet, lead editorial for L'Écho du Nord et du Pas de Calais, 18 January 1892, 1. He begins with this point.

27 La Gironde, 21 November 1889, [3], and La Gazette de Bordeaux, 24 November 1889, [3].

28 La Gironde, 21 November 1889, [3].

29 Le Nouvelliste de Bordeaux, 1 December 1889.

30 The unnamed critic for the Le Rhône claimed, the day following the premiere, that he had received threats of personal violence if he continued to ‘act the German’ [faire l'allemand'] by calling for Wagner performances (Barioz, Wagner et Lyon, 14). Destranges actually downplayed the opposition in Nantes, though he mentioned receiving hate mail; see his Le Théâtre à Nantes depuis ses origines jusqu'à nos jours, 1430?–1893 (Paris, 1893), 251.

31 Kufferath wrote on 12 October 1890 (Bibl. Mun. Nantes, Ms 2645, no. 53).

32 See Nantes-Lyrique, 30 August, 6 September, 4 October 1890; Nantes mondain, 16 August, 27 September, 4 August. The main antagonists also included L'Union bretonne's director, Ernest Merson.

33 The critic Adolphe Jullien put together a veritable compendium of such material. See the three volumes of cuttings conserved in the Fonds Adolphe Jullien, item 117323, Bibliothèque Historique de la Ville de Paris.

34 For example, ‘C.’ [Henry Coutagne?] in Le Nouvelliste de Lyon, 27 February 1891, 2, or E. Malet in La Vraie France [Lille], 14 January 1892, 3.

35 For example, Paul Denoisel in a feuilleton for La Gironde, 10 March 1891.

36 See Les Échos de l'Anjou, 19–26 February 1891, 5; Le Petit Courrier, 19 February 1891, [2]; L'Union de l'Ouest, 19 February 1891, [3].

37 For example, ‘Tibicen’ in Le Journal de Maine et Loire, 18 February 1891, [2–3]. Destranges's article is in Angers-Artiste, 14 February 1891, 297–301.

38 ‘Si les vieilles provinces de France, jadis si vivantes, si intellectuelles, si indépendantes, sont encore déprimées sous le joug républico-césarien d'une centralisation bysantine, nous constatons, du moins, dans le domaine artistique, quelques heureux symptômes de révolte contre la monotonie provinciale … Lyon, après avoir proclamé en France le nom de Reyer et la renommée de Sigurd, va envoyer aux Parisiens étonnés les affiches de Lohengrin.…

Le cygne avait fui devant les clameurs de l'Eden, il revient aux rives du Rhône.’ Le Salut public (Lyon), 13 February 1891, 2–3, at 2. Tardy described himself as a ‘Bayreuth faithful’ [fidèle de Bayreuth] (ibid.).

39 In Le Nouvelliste de Lyon, the critic ‘C.’ claimed that Lyon had sought and received the first French contract to do Lohengrin shortly after the Geneva performances of late 1889. Le Nouvelliste de Lyon, 27 February 1891, 2. Destranges was in touch with Cosima at the same time (Bibl. Mun. Nantes, Ms 2644, item 43, letter dated 21 November 1889).

40 On the political fallout, see Weber, Eugene, ‘About Thermidor: the Oblique Uses of a Scandal’, French Historical Studies, 17/2 (1991), 330–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Thermidor scandal was more directly underpinned by politics than Lohengrin 1887, but the surface similarities hit home. It was also resolved with expedient haste: Sardou adjusted the politics of his text and the play was back on the boards after around a month.

41 G[aston] Lafargue-Decazes, ‘Chronique. Vive la Prusse!’, La Question sociale, 17 April 1891. The journal was radical socialist and sent representatives to the 1893 Parti Ouvrier Congress in Paris.

42 Jules Ruelle, ‘Lohengriniana’, Le Progrès artistique, 21 February 1891, 1–2.

43 Within the daily press multi-instalment previews are found, for instance, in Le Nouvelliste de Rouen and Le Journal de Rouen (Noël Desjoyaux and ‘G. D.’ respectively), in the Le Phare de la Loire (Nantes, ‘L. P.’), in Lyon's Le Salut public (J. Tardy), and in Le Nouvelliste and Dépêche du Nord (Lille, Pierre Duchesne) and La Vraie France (Lille, E. Malet). A Rouen pamphlet on the same lines by Paul Delesques – ‘Lohengrin’ à Rouen. La distribution, le livret, la partition (Rouen, 1891) appears to be independent of the press. Theatre director Tancrède Gravière is reported in Le Nouvelliste de Bordeaux of 1 April 1891 as selling a ‘Guide-Lohengrin’, which I have yet to find. In the specialist periodical press, Wagner discussion is ubiquitous but less formalised.

44 Desjoyaux, for instance, directed much of the musical preparation in Rouen; comte Louis de Romain was the driving force behind the Angers production; Destranges in Nantes had sealed the agreement with Cosima Wagner.

45 Unsigned, Le Phare de la Loire, 21 February 1891, 1–2.

46 They existed for later regional Wagner premieres, including for Le Vaisseau fantôme in Lille (Clément Buellet and Pierre Duchesne in competition, 1893) and Siegfried in Rouen (1901). However, there does not appear to be one for the famous Lyon Les Maîtres chanteurs de Nuremburg of 1896, whose French premiere Cosima gave to Lyon after hearing of the inadequacy of the Paris Opéra chorus in Lohengrin (Arch. Nat. Paris: AJ/13/1198: Richard Wagner Dossier 2. Sub-folder Corr. Adolphe von Gross, 1891–1898, item 16 (letter of 26 November 1891)).

47 In Nantes, for instance, ‘L. P.’ cites Baudelaire's essay on Tannhäuser only to dismiss it. Le Phare de la Loire, 22 February 1891, 1.

48 ‘G. D.’ in Rouen even cited Gérard de Nerval's 1850 comparison of the work to Gluck and Spontini; Le Journal de Rouen, 31 January 1891, Edition B, 3. He later described it as dating from the happy compromise of Wagner's ‘second manner’; Le Journal de Rouen, 7 February 1891, Edition B, 3. See also ‘Z.’, Le Progrès du Nord [Lille], 18 January 1892, 2; and C[lément] Buellet in L'Écho du Nord et du Pas de Calais, 19 January 1892, 2. Nerval's text was published in his Lorely. Souvenirs d'Allemagne (Paris, 1852), 86–90.

49 For example, ‘L. P.’ (who sounds very like a Destranges writing in the light of Kufferath's letter of 12 October 1890, cited above) in Le Phare de la Loire, 20 February 1891, 1–2, at 2.

50 A point emphasised by Pierre Lefranc in Le Messager du Midi [Montpellier], 26 January 1892, 1–2, at 1.

51 See Duchesne, Lohengrin à Lille, 8–9.

52 ‘Lohengrin, l'œuvre de la maturité de Wagner, est certainement la mieux réussie et la plus accessible à la fois de toutes ses productions. La fusion y est complète entre la musique et le poème, et le caractère particulier de l'ouvrage est le charme.’ Delesques, Paul, Lohengrin à Rouen. La distribution, le livret, la partition (Rouen, 1891), 7Google Scholar.

53 Duchesne, for instance, found the Wedding Chorus a little commonplace. Duchesne, Lohengrin à Lille, 29. Act II received generally short shrift and was frequently subject to cuts in performance.

54 Le Phare de la Loire, 21 February 1891, 1–2, at 2.

55 See, for example, Unsigned, Le Progrès de Lyon, 28 February 1891, 2; and, for the post-Paris phase, ‘Z.’ in Le Progrès du Nord, 20 January 1892, 2.

56 Le Monde artiste, ‘Province’ columns on 15 February, 1 and 8 March, 5 April, 10 May 1891; 20 and 27 March, 22 and 29 May 1892. The critic from Lille (Jean Bélin, 24 January 1892) was economical with the truth.

57 Unsigned, Le Progrès de la Somme, 9 March 1892, [2] and 11 March 1892, [3]; unsigned, L'Écho de la Somme, 11 March 1892, [2].

58 Le Petit Niçois, 10–14 January 1892. Each article is the front-page leader.

59 Local tensions are apparent here. The battle to replace a municipal opera in Italian with one in French was won only in 1888. Henri-François de Valori-Rustichelli was a Verdian, author of Verdi et son œuvre (Paris, 1895).

60 In Lille, for instance, ‘Z.’ found the ending – everything after Lohengrin's great narrative of Act III – puerile. Le Progrès du Nord, 18 January 1892, 2. The unsigned preview writer for L'Écho d'Amiens, 11 March 1892, [2], warned that as a whole the opera produced ‘an effect of unquestionable boredom’ [une impression d'ennui indiscutable] despite some admirable passages.

61 Carefully controlled at first, with the granting of review space by Louis de Romain to his Wagner-sceptic friend Guy de Charnacé in Angers-Artiste 28 February 1891, 346–8. De Charnacé responded with a chivalrous appeal for the retention of classic values, keeping the debate on an entirely aesthetic level.

62 Marcel Béliard, Nantes-Lyrique & Korrigan, 22 April 1893, 2. Destranges was alienated from the journal by this time.

63 Unsigned, La Semaine de Bayonne, 10 June 1891, [2].

64 Le Lillois, 5 February 1893, 2–3, by O. d'Halang (sometimes d'Haland; it is not a pun on Wagner's operatic character).

65 ‘le théâtre est l'art des préparations’. Le Nouvelliste de Rouen, 3 February 1891 (Edition B), 3, citing theatre critic Francisque Sarcey's regular quip about French playwrights rushing too quickly to the dénouement.