Roman musical tragedy and the modern opera, except in the aria of the latter, which does not appear to have been known or employed by the ancients.

Convinced of the correctness of these remarks, we are inclined to think that Count Orloff should have prefaced his remarks on the Italian Opera by some notice of the musical representations of the Greeks; as it would have enabled those of his readers who had not before paid a particular attention to this subject, to form some idea of the true source of the opera. In his highly interesting work on the Union of Poetry and Music, Dr. Brown, after alluding to the fact, that the opera was a revival of the Grecian musical tragedy and not a newly invented species, suggests the opinion, that this form of the ancient tragedy had been still kept up in some retired part of Italy which the barbarians had not conquered, and was revived in happier days. "As Venice," he remarks, "was the place where the opera first appeared in splendour, so it is highly probable that there the ancient tragedy had slept in obscurity during the darkness of the barbarous ages. For while the rest of Italy was overrun by the nations from the north, the seas and morasses of Venice preserved her alone from their incursions. Hence, history tells us, the people flocked to Venice from every part of Italy; hence the very form of her republic hath been maintained for thirteen hundred years: and from these views of security, it was natural for the helpless arts to seek an asylum within her canals, from the fury and ignorance of a barbarous conqueror." He thinks his opinion strengthened, 1st, from the circumstance, that the carnival first appeared in splendour at Venice; which carnival is in many circumstances a transcript of the ancient saturnalia of Rome: 2dly, from the actors wearing a mask in the Venetian comedy, which is an imitation cr continuance of the old Roman custom: 3dly, from the opera appearing first in a city whose other entertainments were evidently borrowed from those of ancient Rome: 4th, from the fact that the subjects of the very first operas were drawn from the fables of ancient Greece and Rome, and not from the events or achievements of the time: 5thly and finally, from the circumstance, that in their form they were exact copies of the ancient drama. Although, from what we have said, it will be seen that we are disposed to regard the modern opera as a revival of the Grecian musical drama, we see no reason for considering it as a continuation of the latter, and for adopting in all its points the opinion of Dr. Brown, however ingenious and plausible it may appear. Our reasons are, that not the least information has been handed down to us respecting any performances of the sort at Venico during the times of the northern invasions; secondly, that we have already seen the manner in which it insensibly grew out of religious performances, which were begun at an early period;

thirdly, that profane subjects are said to have been represented in the thirteenth century, or at any rate, at an earlier period than that assigned by Dr. Brown on the authority of Riccoboni (1574); and fourthly, that Venice, as we have seen, was not the place where the first opera was composed; since the very opera performed in that city in 1574, was composed as early as 1555, for the court of Ferrara.

However acceptable to our readers, or agreeable to us, the task might be of following our author in his observations on "Instrumental Music,"-on the different schools established in various parts of Europe, from the thirteenth century to a late period,a subject he has rendered very attractive by combining with his text, as well as in the form of notes, a number of biographical sketches of the most eminent composers of Europe; or on the English, Flemish, and Spanish music and schools, we are constrained, from the fear of extending this article beyond the limits to which we are restricted, to refer such of our readers as may feel desirous of gleaning much information on these various subjects, to the work itself, and to content ourselves with a few remarks on the Neapolitan and other schools of Italy. Naples was, in ancient times, as since in the middle ages, the seat of opulence, of the arts, and particularly of music. From the remotest antiquity it possessed two theatres, in which the voices of Alexis of Thurium and of Menander of Syracuse, were heard and applauded by an enthusiastic multitude. There, also, public games, consecrated to the muse of melody, were represented every four years in honour of Augustus, and attracted from all parts of Greece the most celebrated musical performers. Naples likewise possessed two Odeons, in which, as we are informed, the Emperor Claudius caused the Greek tragedy he had composed in honour of the virtuous Germanicus, to be performed, and in which the sanguinary Nero did not scruple to appear in public, and to sing his own verses, or those of his master, Seneca.

During the middle ages, when the greater portion of Italy had been subjugated, and was smarting under the iron rod of the barbarians, Naples suffered less than the neighbouring cities, and remained longer under the dominion of the Eastern emperors, who, until the time of Justinian, encouraged, instead of destroying the arts. Music, therefore, did not cease to be cultivated. Artists of more or less celebrity composed pieces for the church, and so early as the thirteenth century, we find that Cardinal Alberic, anticipating Guido, of whom we have already spoken, as well as Frederick II., his heroic son, Manfredi, and Robert of Anjou, had written upon and cultivated with success an art which was peculiarly well calculated to civilize, and to soften the manners of the Italian people, who once more had become as rude and barbarous as their relentless conquerors.

Under Ferdinand I. of Arragon, the foundation of the Neapolitan school was laid by a Flemish composer of great celebrity, Tinctorius, and by Garnerio and Gafforio, both of whom were natives of the city of Milan. About the same time, with a view of diffusing more extensively a knowledge of the art, the treatise of Aristoxenes of Tarentum, as well as those of Aristides and Bacchius, were translated from the Greek into Latin. Tinctorius also edited the earliest musical dictionary on record; and, soon after, Gafforio published his works entitled Theoreticum opus Harmonica Disciplinæ, and de Practica Musicæ et de Harmonia Instrumentorum. Stimulated by the example of these celebrated men, a number of Neapolitans entered the list of composers; and about the same time, Ceroni published, in Spanish, a treatise entitled El melopo, y maestro, tratado de Musica theoretica y pratica.

About the middle of the sixteenth century, many foreign professors flourished at Naples, and contributed in no small degree to the progress of the art, and to prepare the way for the celebrity which the Neapolitan school so justly acquired in the succeeding century. Among them stands, in the boldest relief, Orlando Lassus, who became master of the king's Palatine chapel, and raised by his compositions, to the highest pitch, the enthusiasm of the Neapolitans for harmony. About this period, four colleges were established, without the aid of the government; and from them issued a host of celebrated composers. In a work entitled Regole del Canto Fermo, Ceroni, whose name we have already mentioned, pointed out the absurdity of devoting so much attention to what was then called enigmi del canto; and thus contributed greatly to improve the taste of the Italians for pure and chaste melody, and to facilitate the art of teaching. To enumerate here, in detail, all the Neapolitan composers of celebrity, who flourished from the sixteenth century to the present time, and to present a list of their writings, would swell to an inordinate size this already long article, and prove as unprofitable to the reader as irksome to ourselves. Yet, as we could not, without doing injustice to that renowned school, dismiss it so unceremoniously, we must be allowed to offer a few remarks on some of its most eminent pupils and professors. By those who are as easily dazzled by wealth and high rank as by brilliancy of talent, the Prince of Venosa was early cited as a composer of unrivalled merit; and by Laborde in his Essays on Music, and J. J. Rousseau in his Dictionary, nearly the same sentiments are expressed. Next to the prince, as a composer, stands Curti, who, although deprived, like Homer and Milton, of the sense of sight, did honour to the art by the excellence of his melody, and to the Neapolitan school by the extent of his knowledge in counterpoint. But however distinguished Curti might have been for his

talents in composition, his reputation was in great measure eclipsed by that of his successor, the inimitable Salvator Rosa, alike renowned for his music, his poetry and his paintings; and of whom, a female writer of our own age has executed a biography with more pretension than success. Among his compositions is cited as worthy of our admiration, the music he made for his own cantatas. The melody of these pieces appears to have been superior to that of many of the author's contemporaries, and is still heard with as much pleasure as surprise. To Salvator Rosa, as a rare musical genius, succeeded Alessandre Scarlatti, who, as Count Orloff has well remarked, soon became the arbiter of the school of Naples. After completing his studies in his native city, he repaired to Rome, where he enjoyed the benefit of the instruction of Carissini, at that time at the head of the Roman school. After leaving Rome, Scarlatti visited Bologna, Florence, Venice, and Vienna; and before returning to Naples, visited Rome a second time, and there composed several operas which were received with unbounded applause. To Scarlatti not a little credit is due for having perfected the science and practice of overtures, which, before, were only meagre obligato symphonies, and were by him changed into a kind of musical prologue or index of the action of the piece. Together with Monte Verde, the illustrious founder of the school of Lombardy, he introduced what are called dissonances in music, and invented the da Capo. Among his more celebrated operas, may be cited Mithridates, Cyrus, Telemachus, Turnus, Regulus, and the Principessa Fedele. Besides these compositions, he wrote more than two hundred masses, and a great number of cantatas, many of which continue to be sung in Italy, even at the present time.

To Scarlatti succeeded Christofano Caresani and Dominico Gizzi, the latter of whom attained a high renown in the art, and rendered great services to the school in which he had received his instruction.

The next composer whom we shall notice is Domenico Scarlatti, the son of the individual of the same name whom we have already cited. Like his father, Domenico travelled much,-visited most of the schools of Italy, and particularly that of Venice, where he composed operas, and became intimately acquainted with the celebrated Handel. From Venice, he next proceeded to Lisbon, where he was called to direct the music of the royal chapel, and composed operas and sacred pieces which were universally admired. He afterwards visited Rome, Vienna, and Madrid, and composed in each of these cities, operas which met with unbounded and merited applause. The next after Domenico Scarlatti, in point of eminence, is Niccolo Porpora, who derived his instruction from Alessandre Scarlatti, and distinguished himself at Vienna and Venice, by his operas of Ariane e Teseo, and

of Siface. At Dresden, although appearing as the competitor of the celebrated Saxon Hasse, his success was unlimited. Porpora next proceeded to London, where Handel had already acquired the highest renown. Placed in opposition to so dangerous a rival, Porpora, although his efforts were not inferior to his courage and talents, felt for the first time, the mortification of not succeeding in obtaining the unbounded applause of his audience. Deeply wounded at the coldness of his reception in the English metropolis, he returned to Naples, and ceased to compose. Independently of his acknowledged superiority as a composer, he is justly held as a model in the recitative. Few composers of any school can be pointed out, who excelled him in facility, profoundness, or truth. He is alike distinguished for his cantabiles and his sonateswas deeply versed in the theory of sounds, and received from his countrymen the appellation of the Patriarch of Harmony. His principal operas were Ariane e Teseo, Siface, Meride e Salinunte, Imeneo in Atene, Semiramide, Tamerlano, Annibale, Arbace, Polifemo, Ifigenia, Rosbaldo, Statira, Il Matrimonio, Ercole, Ebe, and Il Trionfo di Camillo.

About the same time, flourished the celebrated Domenico Sarri, author of Didone, Tito Sempronio, and of many other operas of great merit. From Italy, Sarri proceeded to Germany, where he applied himself to the composition of sacred music, and succeeded as eminently in this department, as he had before done in dramatic music. Our limits will not allow us to do more than to enumerate, among the composers of the Neapolitan school, the names of Ignazio Gallo, Francesco Mancini, Niccolo Fogo, surnamed the Tarentino, Leonardo Leo, Giuseppe Majo, Feò, Ignazio Prota, Francesco Araja, Niccolo Sala, Pasquale Caffaro, Francesco Novi, and Pergolese, rendered immortal by the Stabat Mater, and his Salve Regina, not less than by his other compositions. We cannot dismiss the names of Leonardo da Vinci and of Durante, however, without a few words on the subject of their musical labours. Invited to Rome, soon after the completion of his studies, the former distinguished himself by his opera of Semiramide, which, as well as his subsequent pieces, attracted the admiration of the Romans, in consequence of the beauty of the melody, the science displayed in the accompaniments, and the brilliancy of the style. Returning to Naples, he there composed the opera of Astianax, which raised his reputation to the highest eminence. At Venice, he composed his opera of Cyrus, which was preferred to the Syphax of Porpora. The success in the same place of his Ifigenia, or of his Rosmire in his native city, was not less signal. Called a second time to Rome, he composed Artaserse and Didone, the latter of which has justly been regarded as his masterpiece, and one of the finest operas on the Italian stage. Da Vinci possessed in a high degree