Grove's dictionary of music and musicians

;
cries
;!
«
660 SPONTINI
Such steps could but damage his cause. The
opposition was headed by Rellstab, the editor
of the Vossische Zeitung, an experienced litterateur
with some knowledge of music, a great ally
of Weber's, and a blind opponent of everything
foreign. In Nos. 23 to 26 of the year 1827 of
Marx's Zeitung appeared an article utterly
demolishing the first act of Agnes von Hohenstaufen.
' Dorn made a successful reply in Nos.
'
27 to 29, but far from being silenced Rellstab
published a book, Ueber mein VerhaZtniss als
Kritiker zu Iferrn Spontini,^ in which he unsparingly
attacked Spontini as a composer and
director, and exposed the absurd tactics of the
Spontini clique. ^ The clique put forth a defence
called Spaniini in Germany, an impartial consideration
of Ms productions during Ms ten years'
residence in that covntry (Leipzig, 1830). It
was, however, anything but impartial, was
ignorant and badly done.'
Spontini's ten years' contract finished in 1830
it was renewed, on terms more favourable to
the Intendant-General, and this, with the fact
of his ceasing to compose, gave an opportunity
to his enemies, and an unfortunate indiscretion
on the part of one of his friends played into their
hands. Dorow of Halle, the archaeologist, in a
collection of autographs (1837) inserted a letter
from Spontini (Marienbad, August 12, 1836)
lamenting the degeneracy of the dramatic composers
of the day. It was done in good faith,
Dorow honestly believing that he was serving
Spontini by thus publishing his opinions without
authority ; but his opponents issued the letter
in a separate pamphlet with a German translation,
and 'explanatory' remarks, in which
Spontini was fiercely attacked in terms of ironical
respect.* In the same year, in Nos. 101 and
102 of the Komet appeared a pasquinade by a
student named Thomas, stating that Spontini
had opposed the production of 'Robert le Diable,'
the ' Postilion de Longjumeau,' and La Muette
'
de Portici,' till obliged to yield to the express
command of the King ; that a new code of
instructions had altered his position, and made
him entirely subordinate to the Intendant ; that
he had been reprimanded for selling his free
admissions, and had had them withdrawn ; that
the engagements of certain singers contained
a clause stipulating that they should not be
obliged to sing in Spontini's operas, etc. etc.
Thomas, when called to account, referred to
an ' official of high position ' as his authority.
And indeed there was a certain amount of truth
in the charges. Without directly opposing the
I Lelpzie. Whistling, 1827.
^ Bat see Rellstab, ante, p. 62b. It has been often, and even
recently, stated that two ai-ticles by Rellstab in Odcitia [Aua dem
IfacIUasg eines jungim Kiingtlera), vol. iv. pp. 1-42, and Julius, Bine
muMkaliaclte NoveUe, vol. vi. pp. 1-108) refer to Spontini. This is
quite untrue, but it shows how carelessly damaging statements
about Spontini are repeated.
3 Attributed, quite untruly, to Dom.
* The iMmera of fferr Bitter Qrwparo Spmttini . . . over the decline
of dramaiic mu^io, ZVontfoCetf from the French, with expla/natory
remarks bp a body of friends tmd admirers of the great
master, Leipzig, Mlchelsen, 1BS7,
production of the operas mentioned, he had not
hesitated openly to avow his dislike of them :
no new code of instructions had just then been
issued, but that of 1 83 1 did materially strengthen
the Intendant's position, and to a certain extent
make the Director -general his subordinate.
Spontini had not himself sold free admissions,
but his servant had, and in consequence the
allotted number had been diminished, very much
to his mortification. It was advisable, however,
to prevent such a newspaper scandal from
reaching the King's ears, so Count Redern
replied, contradicting all the false statements,
and passing over in silence all the true ones
Thomsis was induced to make a public apology,
and the affeir seemed at an end. But Spontini's
troubles were not yet over ;
and his unpopularity
was so great that worse attacks might be
expected.
On June 7, 1 840, King Frederick WiUiam III.
died, and Spontini's one mainstay was gone.
Though obliged occasionally to express displeasure
at his perpetual squabbles with the
Intendant, the King had been steadfast in his
attachment to Spontini and his music. The
new King made no change in his position, but
his sympathies were in a different direction, and
no place was destined for Spontini in the grand
designs he was elaborating. This soon became
known. If Spontini could have kept himself
quiet the change might have been delayed, but
he was injudicious enough to lay before the King
a paper complaining of the Management and of
Count Redern. The King questioned the Intendant,
and was satisfied with his explanations,
but to obviate all appearance of partisanship he
appointed a commission to inquire into Spontini's
grievances. In the meantime the press
had taken up the matter. A definite attack
was made, to which Spontini was unwise enough
to reply (Leipzig Allgemeine ZeUung of Jan. 20,
1841) in such a manner as to give Count Eedem
ground for an indictment for lise-majest^, and
(on Feb. 5) to a direct reprimand from the King.
But this disgraceful treatment of the royal
house by a foreigner who had enjoyed for years
almost unexampled Court favour immensely
increased the public feeling against Spontini,
and for two months he remained in private.
On April 2, however, in spite of repeated
warnings, he took his seat to conduct 'Don
Juan.' His appearance was the signal for a
'
tremendous • '
uproar, and of hinaus
hinaua ! oflF ! off ! ' He stood firm, began
the overture, and would have proceeded with
the opera, but a rush was made to get at him
on the stage, and he was forced to retire from
the theatre. He never entered it again as
conductor.
The trial kept Spontini in Berlin all the
summer, but he obtained leave from Aug. 31
to Dec. 10, and went to Paris. His connection
with the opera was severed by the King ou