of inevitable passion, is at the command of him who knows how to wield
the means by which expression is carried to the hearer's mind. And in
this fact--for a fact it is--lies the completest justification of
opera as an art-form. The old-fashioned criticism of opera as such,
based on the indisputable fact that, however excited people may be,
they do not in real life express themselves in song, but in
unmodulated speech, is not now very often heard. With the revival in
England of the dramatic instinct, the conventions of stage declamation
are readily accepted, and if it be conceded that the characters in a
drama may be allowed to speak blank verse, it is hardly more than a
step further to permit the action to be carried on by means of vocal
utterance in music. Until latterly, however, English people, though
taking pleasure in the opera, went to it rather to hear particular
singers than to enjoy the work as a whole, or with any consideration
for its dramatic significance. We should not expect a stern and
uncompromising nature like Carlyle's to regard the opera as anything
more than a trivial amusement, and that such was his attitude towards
it appears from his letters; but it is curious to see that a man of
such strongly pronounced dramatic tastes as Edward FitzGerald, though
devoted to the opera in his own way, yet took what can only be called
a superficial view of its possibilities.

The Englishman who said of the opera, 'At the first act I was
enchanted; the second I could just bear; and at the third I ran away',
is a fair illustration of an attitude common in the eighteenth
century; and in France things were not much better, even in days when
stage magnificence reached a point hardly surpassed in history. La
Bruyère's 'Je ne sais comment l'opéra avec une musique si parfaite, et
une dépense toute royale, a pu réussir à m'ennuyer', shows how little
he had realised the fatiguing effect of theatrical splendour too