1835-1839: in Italy, Professional Successes, and Personal Sorrows

Milan and Novara, with Malibran and De Bériot

Although Eugénie feels destined for a concert career, Malibran is convinced that she should instead become an opera singer and obtains an engagement for her in the Carnival season in Novara for two of Bellini’s works: La sonnambula (Amina) and I Capuleti e i Montecchi (Romeo).24 Manuel and Eugénie therefore decide to move to Italy, but before reaching Novara, they spend some time in Milan. This can be deduced from a letter Malibran wrote on 25 January 1836 to Duke Visconti, the Diretctor of the Teatro alla Scala who was hosting her in his palace, in which she asks permission to receive her brother and sister-in-law at her table upon their return from Novara. Malibran specifies in this letter that she had done this before, which means that Manuel and Eugénie had already been guests there as early as the autumn of 1835.25 Reports of their stay in Milan confirm the veracity of some accounts about Erminia Frezzolini that would otherwise remain aleatory. Regli and Fétis, in fact, state that García gave Erminia singing lessons there,26 while Piccolomini Adami adds that this was on the recommendation of Malibran.27 Therefore, the meeting between the student (Erminia), the diva (Eugénie) and the singing teacher (Manuel) can only have taken place in the final months of 1835, when Erminia was visiting her father, Giuseppe, who was also engaged at La Scala for the Autumn season.

Other news, albeit indirect, of García’s stay in Milan in the autumn of 1835 can be deduced from the Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant, in which there are two examples of the way Malibran tackled one passage from Sonnambula and one from Vaccaj’s Giulietta e Romeo, operas that appeared in La Scala’s 1835 autumn season.28 Manuel may have heard his sister sing the Sonnambula on stage in Italian only in Milan, because at Drury Lane in London in 1833 and 1835, and on other possible occasions he may have heard her perform, the opera was sung in English. The question regarding Vaccaj’s Giulietta e Romeo is more uncertain, because Malibran, as was customary, included this piece in Bellini’s Capuleti given at La Scala in the 1836 Carnival season.29

It was not Garcia’s first time in Milan, since he had already been there a few years earlier. One newspaper review of the time report that he was warmly received there in several private concerts.30 This stay in Milan is also confirmed by Malibran, who, in a letter dated 7 February 1828, informed her husband Eugène that Manuel had just left Paris for Milan.31 For these years, Mackinlay mentions an unspecified period in Italy and a debut in Naples in early 1829 which finds no confirmation in any source of information,32 whereas Manuel’s debut at the Paris Théâtre des Italiens in October 1828 is well documented in the press.33

As mentioned above, after their stay in Milan in the autumn of 1835, García and Eugénie went to Novara. Here they were joined by Malibran who, during a break in her La Scala commitments, helped to set up the Sonnambula in which Eugénie was to make her debut. Malibran’s assistance is given by conducting the piano rehearsals, the stage rehearsals and the first two orchestra rehearsals, with De Bériot as first violinist.34 Reviews of the debut unanimously underline the strong vocal and temperamental similarities between the diva and the debutant.35 The choice of parts in this first season as an opera singer places Eugénie in Malibran’s footsteps: a contralto who is able to manage very different parts thanks to the use of a well-practised vocal technique that gives her a wide range, combined with solid musical training that enables her to vary the part by adapting it to her possibilities.

To attend his sister’s important debut, however, Manuel must have travelled from Novara to Milan. Delacroix noted in his diary that, in conversation, García recalled some details of Malibran’s stage performance in Donizetti’s Maria Stuarda, which she sang only at La Scala between late 1835 and early 1836.36

Having concluded Eugénie’s engagement in Novara, at the beginning of 1836 the Garcías went back to Milan. Malibran, however, did not stay there for long, as she married De Bériot on 29 March in Paris. It is very unlikely that brother and sister-in-law were present at the wedding. On 9 April, Eugénie made her debut at the Theater am Kärntnertor in Wien with Coppola’s La pazza per amore, followed by Rossini’s Il barbiere di Siviglia and Ricci’s Chiara di Rosenberg.37 The following engagement was for the Autumn season at the Teatro Carignano in Turin, with Rossini’s Otello and Il Barbiere.38 It was probably here that Manuel and Eugénie received the news of Malibran’s death on 23 September.

The Carnival season of 1836-1837 did not see Eugénie on stage. The reason is made clear in an advertisement published in a newspaper which states that, after a pregnancy that prevented her from accepting engagements, she was once again available to consider any future proposals.39 On 1 February 1837, in fact, Manuel and Eugénie’s second son, Gustavo Alberto, was born in Milan. While their eldest son, Manuel Charles, bears the name of his paternal grandfather, their newborn is named after his maternal grandfather, Gustave Mayer. Gustavo’s second name is a tribute to his godfather, the lawyer Alberto Parola, Duke Visconti’s right-hand man in the management of the Teatro alla Scala and a good friend of De Bériot and Malibran’s.40 Evidently, while waiting for the birth, the couple chose to live in Milan because they found a solid network of personal relationships there.

Alongside Eugénie, ‘Prima Donna Assoluta’

The engagement for the Spring season at the Teatro Valle in Rome soon arrived, where Eugénie sang two operas she had already performed, Otello41 and Sonnambula,42 and one new one, Coccia’s Caterina di Guisa.43 The audience raved about Eugénie. A printed portrait distributed during the performance for her benefit points to her as the heir to the late Malibran: “Let’s open our heart to the joy, our tears are unjust, the goddess of singing has come back to life in her”.44 On May 15th comes the praiseworthy appointment to the Accademia Filarmonica Romana.45 The echo of Eugénie’s success in Rome soon reached Paris as is evident in the following comment: “There is a lot of talk behind the scenes about the upcoming debut of Madame Eugénie García, sister-in-law of Madame Malibran, who has already obtained the most brilliant successes not only in London – significant, though not conclusive – but also in Italy, which is much more decisive”.46 The French press, therefore, was well informed about Eugénie’s engagements, first in London, then in Italy, and alluded to her possible return to Paris. Her Italian career and reputation, in any event, continued to grow steadily. In fact, she was later engaged as ‘prima donna assoluta’ in Parma for the 1837-1838 Carnival season, where, in addition to Rossini’s well-rehearsed Otello, she sang in Bellini’s Beatrice di Tenda and Donizetti’s Belisario.47 She subsequently travelled to Genoa to perform Marin Faliero,48 Otello once again,49 then Donizetti’s Roberto Devereux,50 and Lucia di Lammermoor.51

Two letters sent by Adolphe Nourrit to his wife, Adèle, confirm Manuel’s presence with Eugénie in Parma and Genoa. Nourrit arrived in Italy at the end of 1837, eager to practice the vocal technique with which Gilbert Duprez had challenged his position as ‘prémier tenor’ of the major Parisian opera house.52 In the first letter, Nourrit writes that he had apologised to Manuel because, having changed his travel plans, he had not stopped in Parma to visit him and Eugénie.53 In the second one, he writes that Manuel wrote back, informing him that he was going to spend the spring in Genoa.54

After Genoa they moved on to Padua, where Eugénie was cast in Bellini’s Beatrice55 and Donizetti’s Lucia,56 and then to Bergamo for the same operas;57 in the fall, they travelled to Padua once more for Donizetti’s Marin Faliero.58 In one year, therefore, Eugénie took part in three productions of Lucia di Lammermoor and as many of Beatrice di Tenda. In his Traité, García cites several musical examples from these operas, four from the former,59 and as many as twelve from the latter,60 demonstrating that the direct, in-depth knowledge he had of these operas had begun in Italy during the early time of their diffusion.

However, there is another possible connection between Eugénie’s career and Manuel Garcia’s Traité. In Padua, Giovanni Battista Velluti heard Eugénie sing and was positively impressed. He consequently invited her to his villa in Mira for some advice on ways to improve.61 It is likely that on this occasion García was given the aria from Morlacchi’s Tebaldo e Isolina by Velluti, which he later included in the Traité, noting: “I received it from Giovanni Velluti who, alone, today knows the secrets of this lost art”, and adding in a footnote: “He has retired to the banks of the Brenta”.62

In October 1838, the French press offers one of the rare direct reports on Manuel for those years, calling him a “maître de chapelle en Italie”.63 After Padua, Eugénie was engaged for the Carnival season at the Teatro Apollo, Rome’s most prestigious opera house, where she performed Marin Faliero and Beatrice di Tenda.64

It is evident that her repertoire gradually stabilised on titles by Bellini and, above all, Donizetti, which required mastery of the high notes – no easy task for a contralto voice like hers. In February, a French newspaper informs its readers that the ‘prima donna assoluta’ is about to return to Paris. Despite this move, she does not intend to sever ties with Italian theatres and indicated where any potential engagement proposals should be directed.65

In Naples, the Last Days in Italy and the Farewell to Nourrit

When Eugénie’s engagements in Rome end, the couple goes to Naples to meet Nourrit, who, in the meantime, has been joined by his wife and children. After dining with Garcías on March 4, Guillame Cottrau, the Franco-Neapolitan music publisher and musician, describes them as talented artists with stately manners and very much in love with each other.66 The next day Nourrit asks Manuel and Eugénie for their opinion on the results of the changes to his vocal technique after his studies in Naples. Mme Nourrit thus writes:

Manuel sat down at the piano, had him sing various phrases, and seemed delighted with what he heard. Adolphe thought he could no longer sing Guillame Tell, and to prove it, he began to sing the most difficult phrases. Manuel, delighted, told him that there was a change, but that the change was for the better, much better. [...] Manuel and his wife showered him with compliments.67

On the morning of 8 March, Nourrit committed suicide. García was personally involved in the event: in a letter dated 12 March, he provided the most detailed and direct testimony on the last days of the great French tenor’s life.68 Adéle Nourrit, her children, Manuel and Eugénie, left Naples on April 7,69 and on the 13 of the same month were in Rome, waiting to embark from the harbour of Civitavecchia.70

Despite its relevance, García Jr.’s life between 1832 and 1839 has not yet been examined in secondary literature. In the mid-nineteenth-century, Regli, Escudier, and De La Madelaine wrote extensive and well-informed pages on Eugénie’s career, emphasising her belonging to the García family and school.71 Fétis does indeed dedicate a specific lemma to Eugénie,72 but, in the entry on Manuel, he only briefly mentions his marriage to Eugénie and does not record that Manuel travelled for several years following his wife’s remarkable career.73 The French obituaries for Manuel García Jr., published in Paris in 1906, clearly recall the marriage.74 In the same year, García Tapía also speaks about it, but withholds the name of the bride and provides erroneous information about the couple’s children.75 By contrast, in 1908, Mackinlay makes no mention of the marriage, and of the many events related to it. There is only one event that Mackinlay relates to the years in question (1832-1839); it is the beginning of García’s teaching at the Paris Conservatoire, which he dates to 1835.76 As will be seen in the following pages, however, this event actually occurred several years later. Finally, Mackinlay only mentions Nourrit as a pupil of García Sr., thus ignoring the fact that García Jr. was a close friend of the great French tenor and that in Naples he had witnessed his tragic death.77 These questionable choices led Mackinlay to distort the chronology and geography of events in García jr.’s life that were relevant both professionally and personally. Evidently, Mackinlay’s work seems to have prevailed over all other sources of information, becoming a point of reference for later authors who, in treating García’s biography, overlooked many important events that preceded and paved the way for the young singing master’s final settlement in Paris.

1839-1842: Back in Paris for Full Professional Affirmation

Immediately at Work on the Singing Method

On 9 May 1839, the news of García’s arrival in Paris spread rapidly, giving maximum prominence both to the fact he belonged to a very special family and to his experience as a singing teacher.

Manuel García, the brother of Madame Malibran and Pauline García, the most skillful singing teacher of our time, has just arrived in Paris. Garcìa’s teachings have given the musical world both M. Géraldy and Mme Manuel Garcìa, who has just replaced Mme Damoreau at the Opéra-Comique.78

This confirms that his fame as a teacher developed in parallel with Eugénie’s as a singer. In November, La France Musicale reported that he was working on a singing method which was to “be a real event in the music world”.79 This is the first in a long series of announcements about García’s initiatives, all published by La France Musicale, a journal that would prove to be particularly attentive to the demands of the young singing maestro. García was thus also about to fulfil the second of the exhortations addressed to him by Paulin Richard at his father’s funeral: to publish a singing method illustrating his father’s didactics.80 On 11 December 1839, Eugénie made her debut at the Opéra-Comique with Eva, a reworking of Coppola’s La pazza per Amore, which she had already sung in Vienna in 1836. This work, which is now rarely performed, enjoyed considerable fame at the time and must have been particularly appreciated by García, who reports no less than seven musical examples of La pazza per Amore in his Traité.81 Berlioz’s praise testifies to the fact that Eugénie was tremendously successful.82 Everything also seemed to be in place for Manuel to establish himself as a teacher in Paris, then the very center of musical life.

At the beginning of 1840, La France Musicale reports that Garcia’s singing method is almost finished.83 In the spring, however, Eugénie has serious health problems, as a result of which she is often unable to perform; indeed, at one concert rehearsal she even needs medical assistance.84 This does not slow down Manuel’s activity. On 14 June, La France Musicale reports that the method is being printed and confirms that it will be “a vast monument that will bring together the finest theoretical pages ever written on singing, with the best selected examples from ancient and modern musical repertoires alike”.85 A week later, the same journal announces a series of articles on singing with his signature.86 However, only two articles are brought to print the first of which would come out in September, while the other would appear as late as January 1841. This dense succession of announcements, only partially fulfilled and without haste, seems designed to keep the readers’ attention while concealing certain difficulties, since other sources inform us that the publication of the singing method was not going as La France Musicale suggested. It was during this period that García wrote a letter to the editor of the Gazette Médicale de Paris that was reported in the 27 June issue.

Sir, it is only in the last few days that I have come across a memoir published in the Gazette Médicale on 16 May, by Mr Diday and Mr Pétrequin, on the physiology of voice. This work interested me all the more because I have just started publishing a singing method in which I deal with the same questions. I have been teaching my art for more than eight years now, during which time I have observed some of the facts recorded in these gentlemen’s memoirs; in particular, the fixity of the larynx during the production of the chest register in dark timbre (what these gentlemen call voix sombrée). Without wishing in any way to destroy the value of the facts they point out, I think it is my duty, as well as in my interest, to claim a precedence that will be guaranteed by the testimony of all my students and that of several doctors.87

Physiologists Diday and Pétrequin are the authors of the Mémoire sur une nouvelle espèce de voix chantée, work dedicated to the ‘voix sombrée’, i.e., the emission that the tenor Gilbert Duprez, after having practised it in Italy, had proposed with resounding success on the stage of the Paris Académie Royale de Musique in April 1837. This Mémoire had been published in the Gazette Médicale de Paris on 16 May.88 Shortly afterwards, on 1 June 1840, it had also been presented to the Académie des Sciences de Paris.89 The two physiologists replied to García with a letter to the editor dated 29 June:

The latest issue of the Gazette Médicale (27th June) contains a complaint from Mr Manuel García about our paper on voix sombrée. This complaint is based on the announcement of a work in press, in which the author says the same questions will be dealt with, as well as on some verbal communications with his friends. [...] However, up to now, the announcement of a work that is to be published and a few oral confidences to his friends have not been considered sufficient proof of anteriority. So far, no one has thought himself entitled to claim the honour of a new theory, simply because he has come across one of the facts whose contemplation has led other minds to its discovery. [...] We shall wait until his work has been published to judge to what extent his theory differs from ours or resembles it.90

García was claiming “the honor of a new theory” on a rather precarious basis, as well highlighted by Diday and Pétrequin, but he did not hesitate to engage in a polemic to be recognised as fully competent on a subject that he evidently deemed very important.91 It should be noted that, in attesting his precedence, García did not refer to a scientific work but only to a singing method. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that, at least until the first half of 1840, he thought only of writing on a method of singing, into which he would probably insert a part devoted to physiological observations. To prove the veracity of what he wrote to the editor of the Gazette Médicale de Paris and to reply to Diday and Pétrequin, García could have accelerated the completion of the work on the method long announced in La France Musicale. The documents, however, outline quite a different strategy. On 3 August 1840, shortly after Eugénie, who had recovered, returned to the stage,92 Manuel wrote a letter to the ‘Ministre de l’Intérieur’ asking to be appointed professor of singing at the Paris Conservatoire. The document reveals that, strange as it may sound on the part of an applicant, García’s conditions were very strict: to choose his pupils personally, to be their only teacher and, above all, to follow his own teaching principles exclusively.

I would like a singing class made up of students who I think have all the required skills. I would direct their vocal studies exclusively. No teaching method would be imposed on me, as I wish to use only that of my father.93

The Minister replies to him that his prestige is undisputed, but that introducing a specific teaching method would require the consent of the director and the steering committee. He therefore refuses García’s request and suggests that he submit his method for approval

I could not give it [i.e., the class] to you under the conditions you have requested. The teaching at the Conservatoire is uniform; it is directed by a committee and by the Director; and it could only be with their consent that a different method may be introduced. For the time being, therefore, I can only express my regrets to you and urge you to submit your plans to the Director of the Conservatoire, so as to secure his assent. I will then hasten to comply with your wishes.94

It is therefore reasonable to assume that García’s singing method, which included pages expressly devoted to the ‘voix sombrée,’ was primarily aimed at obtaining a teaching appointment with special autonomy at the Paris Conservatoire. This intention, subsequently, was seriously undermined by Diday and Pétrequin’s Mémoire. But why did García choose to submit to the Minister a request that was inadequately supported and, consequently, destined to be rejected? Instead of receiving a refusal and a request for publication from the Minister, he could, rather, have hastened the printing of the Traité, which had already been announced in the columns of La France Musicale, quoted to the editor of the Gazette Médicale, and solicited by Diday and Pétrequin. The answer to this question comes from a careful analysis of the available documents. García tried to forward his request anyway, knowing that the Traité’s publication would be delayed since he was giving priority to another work.

A Change of Strategy: the Controversy with Diday and Pétrequin

and the Mémoire sur la Voix Humaine

In the fall of 1840, García opted for a particular strategy. While La France Musicale was once again reiterating that the singing method was in press by publishing a brief excerpt,95 he decided to challenge Diday and Pétrequin on their own ground by undertaking a physiological study. This was presented on 16 November 1840 at the Paris’ Académie des Sciences under the title Mémoire sur la voix Humaine. On this occasion, only a very short summary of García’s work was published in the reports of the academic session.96 The entire original Mémoire was not published and remained in manuscript form.97 It is worth noting that Mackinlay claims the diatribe with the two physiologists arose because of the singing master’s Mémoire, whereas in fact the reverse is true.98

On 22 November, La France Musicale announces that García’s method will be released simultaneously in France, England, Germany and Italy, thus outlining an international publishing plan.99 The first issue of the journal in 1841 gives yet another announcement of the forthcoming publication of the method, together with a short extract.100 The first issue of the Gazette Médicale of 1841, by contrast, blames the many conflicts of 1840 by reporting some examples, including the dispute that pitted Diday and Pétrequin against García; in this regard, the Gazette takes the opportunity to point out that the singing master formally acknowledged the precedence of the two physiologists.101 García does not reply, perhaps because at this point, more than the response of the Gazette Médicale, which is clearly as favorable to the two physiologists as La France Musicale is to him, he awaits the ‘super partes’ judgment of the Académie des Sciences. Finally, the report of the academic commission was read and approved at the session of 12 April.102 The preparation of the academic report took longer than expected because two commissioners, Savart and Savary, had to be replaced due to their precarious state of health. The report praises García’s work, judging it broader and more articulate than that of Diday and Pétrequin; nevertheless, it adopts a central notion from the work of the two physiologists, affirming that the ‘voix sombrée’ is “a particular voice that had only been known in France for three years, having been imported from Italy by a famous artist connected with our major opera house”.103 This is unacceptable to García, who, as we have seen, denies from the very first letter to the editor of the Gazette Médicale any novelty in the ‘sombrée’ emission. Consequently, he does not hesitate to be punctilious even with the academic commissioners. Just a week later, he writes again to the Académie to reiterate his precedence over Diday and Pétrequin and to insist that the ‘voix sombrée’ is by no means a new kind of vocal emission:

Before Mr Diday and Mr Pétrequin had established, in their Memoir, the fixity of the larynx during the emission of all the tones of the scale in dark timbre, I have been teaching it for several consecutive years. As early as 1832, I communicated this fact to Doctors Hippolyte Larrey and Edouard Louis, whose honourable testimony I am not afraid to invoke. Since then, I have taught it to all those entrusted to my instruction.104

García states that he began teaching the lowered position of the larynx in 1832. Similarly, in his 1840 letter to the editor of the Gazette Médicale he wrote that he had been teaching it for more than eight years, which, subtracted from 1840, gives precisely 1832. Only a few days later, Paulin Richard, in an essay accompanying the publication of the academic report in the columns of La France Musicale, stigmatizing the commissioners’ words with a nonchalance bordering on irreverence, wrote:

The members of the academic committee are such good observers they cannot have failed to notice that this so-called special voice has not been imported by anyone in France or elsewhere. The obscure timbre, for it must be called by its name, has existed for as long as there have been obscure syllables, and each of us has spent his life using obscure timbre without knowing it, just as M. Jourdain did with prose.105

The two physiologists, no less tenacious than the singing teacher, submitted a complaint that was read at a subsequent session of the Académie.106 In May 1841, García’s Mémoire was published in two issues in a medical journal, L’Esculape.107 La France Musicale did the same, but in four issues.108 The simultaneous publication in a journal for physicians and one for musicians underlines not only the dual nature of the Mémoire, but also García’s extensive background in physiology, which set him apart from all his contemporaries. In May 1847 the Mémoire was published again with some changes.109 This final version was then included in the second edition of the Traité discussed below.

Publication of the Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant

The dispute with Diday and Pétrequin had thus found its tacit conclusion, but the singing method remained unpublished. In August 1841, a new announcement appeared, with no follow-up, like the previous ones.110 The slow progress of the publication of the singing method confirms that the work was suspended around June 1840 to give precedence to the Mémoire. The delay, however, may also have been influenced by other events, both familial and professional. In fact, another announcement given on the same page informs us that Mme García, having recently given birth, would soon be able to return to the stage. The impact of his wife’s precarious state of health and the birth of a third child is therefore not to be underestimated.111 It should also be noted that in the same period García’s activity as a singing teacher was particularly demanding. For three years, he guided Henriette Nissen’s training and, in 1841, followed her debut on the stage of the Theâtre des Italiens, first as Adalgisa in Norma alongside Grisi and then as the acclaimed Rosina in Il barbiere di Siviglia by Rossini, in place of Persiani. From the end of August 1841 to July 1842, he also worked on the vocal rehabilitation of Jenny Lind, who soon rose to become one of the foremost stars of the operatic world of that era.112

Finally, the release of the method, titled Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant, is recorded on 6 November 1841.113 The first advertisement appeared, as expected, in La France Musicale, on 14 November, a full year and a half after the same journal had written that it was already in press.114 The complexity of the publication process is clearly revealed by the contradiction between “MDCCCXL” of the title page, which was probably printed before the controversy between García and Diday and Pétrequin had begun, and the year “1841” on the following page in the subtitle “Extrait des Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Sciences, séance du 12 avril 1841”, beneath the title of the academic commission’s “Rapport sur le Mémoire sur la Voix Humaine”, which is reproduced in full.115 A footnote to the academic Rapport mentions the date of the presentation of the Mémoire to the Académie. 116 The Mémoire sur la Voix Humaine was partially published in the Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant under the title “Extrait du Mémoire présenté à l’Académie des Sciences”, as part of the chapter headed “Description abrégée de l’appareil humain”.117

It is important to note that the Bibliographie de la France attests to the title Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant, while La France Musicale advertises the Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant en Deux Parties, informing the public that the second part will be published in early 1842. The Traité published in 1841, in fact, did not include the musical examples that an advertisement in La France Musicale had announced in June 1840.118 The second part would not be printed until 1847, with the new edition of the method definitively entitled Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant en Deux Parties.119 On this occasion, García included the Mémoire published in May of the same year by Duverger.

The Appointment as ‘Professeur de Chant’ at the Paris Conservatoire

Lastly, on 10 September 1842, García was appointed professor of singing at the Paris Conservatoire with effect from 15 November of the same year.120 It is highly probable that the breadth of the Traité helped remove any doubt about the young maestro’s teaching abilities. No document attests to the fact he submitted his work to a commission, as suggested at the time by the Minister, nor that he insisted on teaching autonomy. Even without official declarations, however, the ‘voix sombrée,’ i.e., the core of the dispute between García and the two physiologists and the cornerstone of his teaching, was recognised by the Paris Conservatoire. This recognition came at the same time as the appointment of the champion of the ‘voix sombrée’: Gilbert Duprez. La France Musicale, of course, praised the choices made by Daniel Auber, the new Conservatoire’s Director after Luigi Cherubini.

Mr. Auber [...] has appointed Duprez and García, singing teachers [...]. It has been a long time since we asked for the position that has finally been granted to them. May Mr Auber continue to pursue the reforms with the same vigor, the same spirit of justice and the same intelligence, and he will meet with nothing but approval.121

By La France Musicale’s own admission, the reports on García published by the journal between 1839 and 1842 were part of a conscious ‘media action’ aimed at favouring García and Duprez and, at the same time, at ‘reforming’ the teaching of singing at the Conservatoire.

The Need for a Clear Summary regarding Reference Texts

In such a complex succession of events, and in the absence of any in-depth biographical study, it is not surprising that there is often a difference between the information provided by primary sources and the data reported by reference texts such as monographs, specialist articles, and the latest editions of biographical and music dictionaries. Consequently, today’s researchers can be easily disoriented by reading discordant or erroneous reports on García’s works and on the beginning of his teaching at the Paris Conservatory. It would be very interesting to illustrate how such confusion arose, but that would overextend this study; nevertheless, it is useful to provide a brief overview of the data reported by the main secondary sources.

As mentioned above, the Mémoire sur la Voix Humaine can be associated with several events: its presentation to the Académie des Sciences, the report made by the academic committee, its summary publication in the first edition of the Traité, and finally its expanded publication both in autonomous form and in the second edition of the Traité. These events have often been used, mistakenly, as references to date the Mémoire to one or more among the years 1840, 1841 and 1847. The majority of texts indicate correctly 1840 as the year of its presentation to the Académie des Sciences.122 Other texts mistakenly date the presentation of the Mémoire to April 12, 1841, linking it explicitly to the Comptes rendus of the academy.123 This evidently results from a misunderstanding of an indication given in the Traité that does not refer to the presentation of the Mémoire (which took place on November 16, 1840), but to the approval of the Rapport of the academic commission on the Mémoire.124 Mackinlay is the only author who distinguishes between the date of submission to the Academie and the date of the rapport’s approval, and thus correctly dates both events.125 Concerning the year of publication of the Mémoire, some texts incorrectly indicate 1840, likely relying on the frontispiece of the Traité where it is listed.126 The publication of the Mémoire is also dated 1841 by some texts. Three of them do refer to the Comptes cited in the Traité, but this is incorrect as the Comptes contain the Rapport of the academic committee on the Mémoire, and not the Mémoire itself.127 Two of them do not provide any references to explain why they propose such a year.128 Finally, one text mentions the 1847 edition of the Mémoire published by Duverger.129 It is to be noted that the publications given in May 1841 by L’Esculape and by La France Musicale are not reported in any text, even though they were the very first editions of the Mémoire and the only ones that carry the entire original work.

Regarding the Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant, two texts mention only the edition of 1840, relying on the wrong year given in the frontispiece.130 Following the same approach, four texts date the first edition, incorrectly, to 1840 and the second, correctly, to 1847.131 One text correctly assigns the first edition to 1841 and the second one to 1847, but does not explain the reason for replacing 1840 with 1841.132 Some texts choose to mention only the 1847 edition, which indeed is the definitive two-part edition, but only one gives the correct title, Traité Complet de l’art du Chant en Deux Parties;133 the other cite the title of the first edition, Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant.134 One particular case should be noted: the entry devoted to García in one dictionary mentions only the 1847 edition of the Traité, but with the incomplete title Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant instead of Traité Complet de l’art du Chant en Deux Parties. In the same entry, however, there also is a list of García’s works that includes the first edition of the Traité with the correct title Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant but the wrong year, 1840; furthermore a third edition dated 1851 is also reported.135 This news probably comes from the Bibliographie de la France, which, however, clearly mentions only a third edition of the first part.136 Another text confusingly summarises various information and cites a two-part 1840 edition and a three-part 1851 edition, both under the title Traité Complet de l’Art du Chant, which was in fact the title of the first one-part edition.137 Finally, only one text indicates both editions, clearly pointing out the need to correct the year 1840 of the first edition with “recte 1841”.138

The beginning of García’s teaching at the Paris Conservatory is attributed to the correct year, 1842, only by a small number of texts.139 Mackinlay assigns this event to 1835: “It has always been said that the post was given to him by Auber, but investigations show that this is incorrect. Auber was not appointed director of the Conservatory until 1842”.140 This statement, although incorrect, has been treated as reliable by the authors of many subsequent texts.141 However, most texts assign it to 1847, a year for which no documentary evidence exists.142

Conclusions and Research Perspectives

It is thus evident that a substantial lack of information limits current knowledge of Manuel García Jr.’s early life as a voice teacher, researcher and author. This is unfortunate because he is an important witness to a period of strong change in the history of vocal art. This is exemplified by Duprez’s success on the stages of the Paris Opéra, after which the ‘voix sombrée’ became a topic of lively debate among singers and audiences alike.

García engaged in a heated controversy against Diday and Pétrequin, seeking public acknowledgement of his precedence over them thanks to his long experience in teaching what they called ‘voix sombrée.’ He explicitly claimed that his expertise in ‘voix sombrée’ begun in 1832, a fact explained only by knowing that in that year he interrupted his collaboration with his father and teacher Manuel García Sr., who died shortly thereafter. Following this event, he was entrusted with completing the training of Cécile Eugénie Mayer, who soon became his wife and his first pupil to achieve stardom. He himself stated publicly that, in fulfilling this task, he had applied his own convictions. From 1835 to 1839, in his dual role of husband and teacher, Manuel Jr. lived with Eugénie in Italy when the works of Bellini and Donizetti prevailed over those of Rossini and Cimarosa.