at a later time more familiar types; but for the history of the modern symphony, a form which was distinguished from the other as the 'Italian Overture,' ultimately became of much greater importance.
This form appears in principle to be the exact opposite of the French Overture: it was similarly divided into three movements, but the first and last were quick and the central one slow. Who the originator of this form was it seems now impossible to decide; it certainly came into vogue very soon after the French Overture, and quickly supplanted it to a great extent. Certain details in its structure were better defined than in the earlier form, and the balance and distribution of characteristic features were alike freer and more comprehensive. The first allegro was generally in a square time and of solid character; the central movement aimed at expressiveness, and the last was a quick movement of relatively light character, generally in some combination of three feet. The history of its early development seems to be wrapped in obscurity, but from the moment of its appearance it has the traits of the modern orchestral symphony, and composers very soon obtained a remarkable degree of mastery over the form. It must have first come into definite acceptance about the end of the 17th or the beginning of the 18th century; and by the middle of the latter it had become almost a matter of course. Operas, and similar works by the most conspicuous composers of this time, in very great numbers, have the same form of overture. For instance, the two distinct versions of 'La Clemenza di Tito' by Hasse, 'Catone in Utica' by Leonardo Vinci (1728), the 'Hypermnestra,' 'Artaserse,' and others of Perez, Piccini's 'Didone,' Jomelli's 'Betulia liberata,' Sacchini's 'Œdipus,' Galuppi's 'Il mondo alla reversa'—produced the year before Haydn wrote his first symphony—and Adam Hiller's 'Lisuart und Dariolette,' 'Die Liebe auf dem Lande,' 'Der Krieg,' etc. And if a more conclusive proof of the general acceptance of the form were required, it would be found in the fact that Mozart adopted it in his boyish operas, 'La finta semplice' and 'Lucio Silla.' With the general adoption of the form came also a careful development of the internal structure of each separate movement, and also a gradual improvement both in the combination and treatment of the instruments employed. Lulli and Alessandro Scarlatti were for the most part satisfied with strings, which the former used crudely enough, but the latter with a good deal of perception of tone and appropriateness of style; sometimes with the addition of wind instruments. Early in the eighteenth century several wind instruments, such as oboes, bassoons, horns, trumpets, and flutes, were added, though not often all together; and they served, for the most part, chiefly to strengthen the strings and give contrasting degrees of full sound rather than contrasts of colour and tone. Equally important was the rapid improvement which took place simultaneously in internal structure; and in this case the development followed that of certain other departments of musical form. In fact the progress of the 'Sinfonia avanti l'Opera' in this respect was chiefly parallel to the development of the Clavier Sonata, which at this time was beginning to attain to clearness of outline, and a certain maturity of style. It will not be necessary here to repeat what has elsewhere been discussed from different points of view in the articles on Form, Sonata, and Suite; but it is important to realise that in point of time the form of this 'Sinfonia avanti l'Opera' did not lag behind in definition of outline and mastery of treatment; and it might be difficult to decide in which form (whether orchestral or clavier) the important detail first presents itself of defining the first and second principal sections by subjects decisively distinct. A marked improvement in various respects appears about the time when the symphony first began to be generally played apart from the opera; and the reasons for this are obvious. In the first place, as long as it was merely the appendage to a drama, less stress was laid upon it; and, what is more to the point, it is recorded that audiences were not by any means particularly attentive to the instrumental portion of the work. The description given of the behaviour of the public at some of the most important theatres in Europe in the middle of the eighteenth century, seems to correspond to the descriptions which are given of the audience at the Italian Operas in England in the latter half of the nineteenth. Burney, in the account of his tour, refers to this more than once. In the first volume he says, 'The music at the theatres in Italy seems but an excuse for people to assemble together, their attention being chiefly placed on play and conversation, even during the performance of a serious opera.' In another place he describes the card tables, and the way in which the 'people of quality' reserved their attention for a favourite air or two, or the performance of a favourite singer. The rest, including the overture, they did not regard as of much consequence, and hence the composers had but little inducement to put out the best of their powers. It may have been partly on this account that they took very little pains to connect these overtures or symphonies with the opera, either by character or feature. They allowed it to become almost a settled principle that they should be independent in matter; and consequently there was very little difficulty in accepting them as independent instrumental pieces. It naturally followed as it did later with another form of overture. The 'Symphonies' which had more attractive qualities were played apart from the operas, in concerts; and the precedent being thereby established, the step to writing independent works on similar lines was but short; and it was natural that, as undivided attention would now be given to them, and they were no more in a secondary position in connection with the opera, composers should
