Goethe’s “Faust” fascinated poets, composers and artists – and well beyond Germany. The works by Hector Berlioz and Charles Gounod are the best-known adaptations.
It is no coincidence that the anti-rational mood of French Romanticism was nurtured by Goethe’s “Faust” Part One of 1808. In 1820s Paris there was a great fascination centred on the Faustian theme. Two translations of Goethe’s drama were published. For the reissue of Philippe Albert Stapfer’s translation in 1827, Eugène Delacroix produced seventeen lithographs which were greatly admired by the German poet. A little later, Gérard de Nerval’s translation of 1828 also met with Goethe’s approval. The composers were also infected by this enthusiasm. In the same decade, several Parisian stage productions contained music from “Faust”, and in 1830 a German opera company performed Louis Spohr’s “Faust”. The colossal success of Meyerbeer’s “Robert le diable” in 1831 at the Paris Opéra related closely to the theme of the pact with the devil.
The depth of the myth: Hector Berlioz
It was upon reading Nerval’s translation that the young Hector Berlioz, who had not yet composed his “Symphonie fantastique”, was captivated by Goethe’s work. Already impressed by the discovery of Shakespeare’s work, he now saw in the two poets the “interpreters of his life”. He read and reread the German work, “at the table, in the theatre, on the street, everywhere”. Within a few weeks he had planned a ballet, then a “Symphonie descriptive de Faust” and finally composed his “Huit scènes de Faust” which he had printed at his own expense in 1829. The composition is something like the musical equivalent of Delacroix’ lithographs: sound illustrations to enjoy after reading the literary work. This is not “stage music” destined for a performance, especially since two scenes written at different times are combined in the same number. It is hardly conceivable that a promoter would have been prepared to perform seven numbers for orchestra, solo voices and chorus, and an eighth for guitar and tenor. In this score Berlioz utilised a special kind of exegesis: he preceded every number with a quotation from “Faust”, which he combined with quotations from Shakespeare’s dramas. To some extent it is music furnished with commentary.
His creative outpouring was so spontaneous that several passages turned out to be too complex. For this reason, the third number of the score was only performed with difficulty in the Conservatoire in November 1829 and it did not prove popular with the public. Disappointed, the composer destroyed the copies of the edition he still had, even though he had just sent one to Goethe. He had his musician friend Zelter read it, who criticised it with withering words. Fortunately, this criticism never reached the composer. Berlioz, who remained obsessed by the play, composed music for the “Walpurgisnacht” in response, which ultimately formed the Finale of the “Symphonie fantastique” of 1830. Over the years, he kept the idea of a Faust for the Paris Opera in his mind. But after the bitter failure of “Benvenuto Cellini” in 1837 the doors of the opera house closed to him for good.
Seven years later, on a tour through central Europe, the wish to take up the “Faust” project stirred once more. Thanks to Franz Liszt’s encouragement, in 1845/46 Berlioz began work on composing “La damnation de Faust” whilst on concert tours through Germany, without, however, having a precise aim in mind. He included all the eight earlier scenes, improved the composition and added numerous episodes to these, including some in which the previously absent main character appears. This paints a unique portrait of Faust as the composer’s alter ego; thus Berlioz altered the ending envisaged by Goethe.
The question of genre remained unresolved. Various subtitles are found in the sources: “Opéra de concert” in his correspondence, “Légende” in the manuscript, and finally “Légende dramatique” in the printed editions. The work was therefore intended for concert use, but the solo part is so ubiquitous that Berlioz hesitated to describe the work as a “symphonie dramatique”, as he did with “Roméo et Juliette”. Although several operatic conventions are observed, such as recitatives, the division into arias and ensembles, and a division of roles as would be expected, Berlioz freed himself from the constraints of theatrical performance. It was predictable that the inventor of the concept “Symphonie à programme” would integrate elements that could not be portrayed on the stage. Berlioz did not believe that his “Damnation” could be staged in its original form. However, following the first staged performance in Monte Carlo in 1893 this happened frequently, as a rule without being completely convincing, since the staging clashes with the rhythm of the episodes, the specific tempo which Berlioz allows for the episodes, and the length of the symphonic movements. Only cinema or video now seem capable of providing an appropriate interpretation of the “race to the abyss”. As in “Roméo et Juliette”, the “dramatic legend” stands on its own when heard: its evocative power is sufficient in itself (the etymological meaning of “Légende” is “reading” rather than “performance”).
Although the premiere in Paris in December 1846 was a failure, the work achieved great success abroad, especially in Germany. Shortly after Berlioz’s death it became his most frequently-performed work, either in excerpts or in its entirety. In the last quarter of the 19th century, especially in the run-up to Easter, Parisian concert societies vied for the honour of presenting the best-possible performance.
Musical Romance: Charles Gounod
In the mid-19th century Parisian enthusiasm for the Faustian myth had found no convincing realisation on the operatic stage until Charles Gounod composed his first version of “Faust” for the Théâtre-Lyrique in 1859. This reflects the search for something new on which the generation of composers born after 1830 had embarked, something which sought to leave behind the heavyweight productions at the Opéra de Paris in the tradition of Meyerbeer. Often ignored or rejected by that theatre, librettists and composers searched for an alternative to grand opéra. They turned therefore to the conciseness of the opéra comique genre, which forged a lively blend between spoken and sung theatre. And so a new genre of work was created, which was termed “demi-caractère”, combining dialogue with recitative. This was very well received by audiences.
Jules Barbier and Michel Carré wrote the libretto for Gounod’s “Faust”. As was then the custom, the composer altered his score in the course of the revivals. The production was so successful that ten years later, after numerous revisions, the Opéra decided to include the work in its repertoire. This version of 1869 was the only one known for a long time. Only with the first edition by Fritz Oeser (1972) and above all with the two-volume edition by Paul Prévost in 2016/2020 was it possible to measure the extent of the differences compared with the original version.
A comparison between the versions for the Théâtre-Lyrique and the Opéra de Paris is revelatory: the latter draws on the traditional genre’s use of recitative, choral scenes, appealing arias and the replacement of the spoken dialogue with refined musical conversations and a ballet, but without detracting from the original quality. However, these alterations are to the detriment of interesting sections of the original version. Passages from Prévost’s edition provide a delightful aspect of new productions and a current recording through their theatrical vitality and their humour.
Compared with the first version, the 1869 version appears more unwieldy, but also “more classical”. In addition, numbers were added which contributed to its immense success. Its reception in Germany went hand in hand with an important alteration in the title to “Margarete”: in Goethe’s native country it seemed impossible to give “Faust” such a Romanticised name. As Emmanuel Reibel says: “Gounod made Faust even more Parisian than Berlioz had done. The motives of the old scholar lose the nobility they had in Romantic Germany.” Frenzied scenes and metaphysical undertones disappear behind the sentimental lyricism. The ballet makes way for decorative elements, and the protagonist gives up each dilemma in favour of a simple striving for pleasure. Its downfall is of less concern to the viewer than Marguerite’s redemption.
All in all, Berlioz and Gounod did not write two Faust works, but at least four: Berlioz composed two different works, and Gounod several versions of an opera. The “Huit scènes de Faust” present Romantic sketches. In La damnation de Faust, Berlioz, at the height of his art, presents a masterpiece which, in his idiosyncratic way, explores the depths of the myth. Gounod impresses through the variety of his style and his inimitable charm. Both excel in the lyrical elegance and emotional depth of their portrayals of women. This is about two typically French interpretations of the myth, both of which limit themselves to Part One of Goethe’s drama. Schumann and Liszt, who also focussed on Part Two, banished the immediacy of the anecdote. Berlioz and Gounod renounced neither the power of the picturesque nor the captivating poetry of the legendary tale.
Jean-Pierre Bartoli
(from [t]akte 1/2026)
(translation: Elizabeth Robinson)