This is a purely empirico-practical

This is a purely empirico-practical fabri- cation of opera-texts for one's own use, emanating in toto from the requirement for animated theatrical effect. How Lortzing tackled this problem is very clearly described by himself in a conversation published by J. C. Lobe in "Konsonanzen und Dissonanzen" (Leipzig, 1869), a work now almost forgotten. Below I quote the most important points:
Lobe:—Our conversation turned to opera- texts, and I asked him why he adapted existing pieces for his operas, instead of inventing something of his own.
Lortzing:—I tried that at first with a few short pieces, but it requires more talent than I possess, and longer study and practice than were at my disposal! I soon came to the conclusion that many more enjoyable things would be proffered us in the world of art if every talent sought to perfect itself within the bounds set for it by nature, without reach- ing out after fruits which are beyond its grasp. So I was glad to turn my attention to unremembered plays and adapt them for my use as operas. The actor has one advan- tage which most dramatic poets lack familiarity with the stage. After one has been playing his tricks before the public almost daily for some twenty years, he grad- ually learns from his audiences what makes a hit and what does not. How delightfully many a tirade, many a jest, reads in a book, and how perfectly flat it falls on the stage. Contrariwise, much that looks like nothing at all in print strikes fire from the soul when acted to the life. And so one finally comes to realize the significance of the placing of dialogues and scenes. Therefore, every dra- matic poet ought really to be an actor for a time.
Having my knowledge of the stage, I might well venture on the adaptation of good plays. And yet—how long did I have to seek for a suitable subject! When I thought I had at last found such an one, I first of all asked myself whether it contained musical situations, scenescapableofstirringtheemotions. These scenes I marked, to begin with. Here was an opportunity for a song, there for an aria,
elsewhere for a duet, an ensemble, a chorus, etc. When I found these in a piece, a weight was lifted from my heart. Next began another task—that of a critic, so to speak. I asked, What are the most effective scenes in it? which are weaker ones, or quite unfit? Then the weak scenes had to be improved; the unfit ones were discarded. Little by little my plan took on the form that I needed for an opera, and with that the most formidable difficulties were vanquished. The dialogue was easily altered, and the^ verse—well, my goodness,
who is there nowadays that can't patch together some sort of verses, let alone opera- verses! Why overexert oneself? For every- thing that goes to make up poetry—pro- found, majestic thoughts, rosy imagery, purity of rime, smoothness and flow of language, and all the rest, must be burned to ashes by the composer in order that the phoenix of music may arise therefrom. Roles!—that is the "open sesame" to the doors of the stage alike for the dramatic poet and the composer. There are singers with little voice, who still are pretty good actors, and other singers who sing well but act poorly. Now, if one has found a piece which provides the former with good acting parts, and the latter with nice singing parts, a favorable reception is assured. Most success is had with such roles as cannot be "knocked out" even by the small fry among the histrionic tribe—roles that play themselves, like those of the Burghermaster and Peter the Great in "Tsar and Carpenter." Mind you, those are what I call roles, and the Italians understand that kind best of all, which accounts for their success. The singers are always attracted by pieces that contain roles
—star roles. Composers pay scant attention to the fact that in opera it is the singers, or, in a word, in stage-plays it is the players, who are to be considered as the authors' chief aids to fame and fortune. Lobe:—But, with all this working over, is not the loftier artistic spirit of dramatic works often lost? We have many plays with roles such as you prefer, to which we can hardly ascribe a high artistic value.
Lortzing:—True enough! On the other hand, we also have plays whose high dramatic value we must recognize, and which neverthe- less cannot maintain themselves on the stage just because they contain no roles. When both requirements are combined—then, in- deed, the poet has attained the loftiest goal, as the plays of our dramatists, Shakespeare, Goethe and Schiller, prove, both requirements being fulfilled in them. Such men, however, are of the rarest, and if the managements were permitted to give no plays but such as theirs
Lobe {interrupting him):—So, in your opinion, anyone to whom the genius of a Shakespeare, Goethe, Schiller, Mozart, Beet- hoven, etc., is denied, should content himself withlesserundertakings? Mightwenotbet- ter say, in the interest of art, Rather let him who does not feel equal to the highest tasks, abstainaltogether? Whatdoesaconnoisseur careformediocrity? (AndasLortzinggreeted this question with a somewhat peculiar smile, Lobe suddenly realized what a snare he had set for himself, and hastily continued): It is hardly necessary to assure you that your own operas
Lortzing {interrupting him) :—Oh, old friend, no diplomatic finesse between you and me! Theremarkthatmythingsarebeneath mediocrity, cannot insult me, because it is true. But that such as I should refrain from production on that account, I cannot admit. Connoisseur? Oh yes, a fine title. How many of them do you think you could get together in Leipzig, or any other city? How many could you turn into regular theatregoers? And how many would agree in their opinions concerning the works of art? Is not Robert Schumann a musician of the highest capacity? Well, let him write an opera only for Mendels- sohn and other similar connoisseurs. Would his music thoroughly satisfy these men? Would they agree in praise or blame for all thenumbers? Andbesides—howlongdoyou suppose a theatre would exist, in which only creations of the highest genius could be pro- duced, and where the audiences should be composed of connoisseurs alone? You could not scrape together enough perfect works to fill a half-year's repertory, and the receipts from select audiences of connoisseurs would not pay the theatre manager for the oil in his lamps! It would be delightful if all art-works were perfect and all men were connoisseurs. But the Lord has willed it otherwise. Human beings on this planet must have different capacities, different tastes, different education —but all should enjoy art so far as may be. Some of my operas give many honest souls pleasure for hours; with that I am satisfied.
Here, so far as Lobe gives it, the con- versation between the two men breaks off. I have reproduced this portion of the important dialogue in extenso because the plain talk of the unassuming master seems, in my opinion, to outweigh a bulky compendium of theoretical reasoning. Only after one has carefully ex- amined his texts and compared them with the originals, does one realize how much of his own personality Lortzing imparted to the revamped old comedies, and how he often so greatly varied their structure and casts that, in spite of a literal taking-over of some parts of the dialogue, the works in their present shape may be considered as his personal property. For nearly all the great dramatic poets—the Spaniards, Moliere and Shakespeare beyond the rest—employed no other procedure in many of their pieces; as practical stage-folk they laid hold of good material left by their predecessors, retained the successful scenes, and completely rewrote the ineffective ones. Hence, numerous subjects, more especially those of a sprightly character, took on their definitive form only after the lapse of gener- ations. That, of course, runs counter to the present craze for originality, when every individual would fain be an original genius of a wholly new type. One should consider, however, that it is not a wholly despicable feat when, without poetical pretensions, one can write an opera-book for oneself in good workmanlike style, as has been done in Ger- many, for example, by Kienzl ("Der Evangeli- mann"), in Italy by Leoncavallo ("Pagliacci"), and in France by Charpentier ("Louise").