Fernando Sor on the Move in the Early 1820s

By Erik Stenstadvold

The life and music of Fernando Sor (1778–1839) are well known Every person must be well acquainted with the popular story of
to most guitarists, thanks mainly to Brian Jeffery’s groundbreaking Cinderella; and as the plot of this Ballet does not at all vary from the
work.1 In summary, Sor spent the first half of his life in Spain, but, original from whence it is taken, we shall not enter into any
due to the Napoleonic turmoil, he emigrated to France in 1813 at particlars concerning it. The Music, part of which only is original, is
the age of thirty-five. It was only from this date forward that he composed and arranged by Mr. Sor. The Overture of Pandore5 was
pursued a purely musical career. After two years in Paris, Sor moved substituted for the one intended for this Ballet, in consequence of
to London where he stayed for several years. Then, in 1823, circum- its not being quite finished, but we understand it is to be forth-
stances led him to Russia after a brief interlude back in Paris. Finally, coming on Saturday next; such of the airs as are original are very
in late 1826 or early 1827, he once again returned to Paris, this time good, and do Mr. Sor much credit: a great deal of the music is
for good. selected from other Ballets, some from the Opera of Il Nozze de
Scholars have wondered about the details of his final months in Figaro [sic]. The scenery and decorations are entirely new, and no
England in 1822 and his subsequent Paris sojourn. It is well known expence has been spared to make this a superb spectacle, as well as
that Sor became romantically involved with a young ballerina at an interesting ballet. Too much praise cannot indeed be bestowed on
about that time. But was she the main (indeed the only) reason he Mr. Albert and the Managers for the exertions they have made in
left London, relocating first to Paris and then to Moscow? What getting up so complete an entertainment.
other factors might have influenced his travels during those pivotal
years? The purpose of this article is to throw new light on these ques- Not all the reviews were as complimentary regarding Sor’s com-
tions and to add to our knowledge of Sor’s activities in a brief but positional merits. The Morning Chronicle (28 March 1822) wrote
defining period of his career. that the music “is by M. Sor, a composer who generally manifests so
It is easy to forget that Sor was more than just a guitarist and much genius and ability, that we were, perhaps, unreasonably, rather
guitar composer. It may perhaps be somewhat fanciful to call him “a disappointed by his present production.” The Examiner (31 March)
reluctant guitarist,” as Wolf Moser has done,2 but it is quite clear that was far more laudatory:
in certain periods of his career, guitar-related activities were only a Having been accustomed of late to much light and trifling music
part, sometimes even a minor part, of his total musical undertakings. in the dances, the compositions of Sor were received with double
This was particularly apparent during his London years.3 relish. The constant succession of pleasing and original airs, with the
Some eight guitar works by Sor were published in England, skillful construction of the accompaniments, mark the work of a man
while his publications of piano and vocal music far outnumbered of science and fine taste, and the beautiful solos for the wind instru-
them. Much of this music was widely acknowledged: the various sets ments dispersed throughout it, admirably performed as they were,
of Italian Arietts for voice and piano received the most enthusiastic gave great variety to the general effect.
reviews in Ackermann’s Repository of Arts and elsewhere. Sor’s status
in London’s musical life was notable. He was an Associate of the These enthusiastic reviews were topped by the voice of the
Philharmonic Society and had played in the third concert of their New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal (vol. 6, May 1822):
1817 season at the Argyll Rooms; he had also become an honorary [The] music is excellent—the best, perhaps, of any Ballet-
member of the Royal Academy of Music at its foundation in 1822. composition that has appeared at this theatre. Some of the move-
Furthermore, two one-act ballets for which he provided the music ments are so beautiful, that, Goths as we are, we almost felt a regret at
had been staged at the King’s Theatre in the 1821 season. hearing them in a ballet. The author of this music, a few selections
His success as a ballet composer was crowned with the three-act excepted, is Mr. Sor, a Spanish gentleman, whose arietts have, for
grand ballet Cendrillon, which was premiered at the King’s Theatre some years past, eclipsed every other vocal composition in this
on 26 March 1822. It was based on the popular Cinderella tale and country. Mr. Sor is the man to compose an opera for the King’s
choreographed by the French dancer and ballet-master, Mr. Albert theatre.
(François Decombe), who also danced a leading role as Prince Rainir.
Sor’s involvement is duly recorded, but little has been known of the “Mr. Sor is the man to compose an opera for the King’s
actual reception of the ballet and of the music in particular.4 Yet it theatre”—a flattering suggestion indeed! This, of course, never
had good coverage in the press. The Morning Post published a review happened. Nonetheless, Sor was involved in another operatic pro-
the very next day: duction in this final year of his stay in England: Gil Blas, staged at
the English Opera House, Strand. This circumstance has attracted
but little attention in the Sor literature.6

16 Soundboard Scholar No. 1 guitarfoundation.org

Gil Blas—an English opera by Sor?
Gil Blas was an “Operatic Drama” with spoken dialogue, loosely act version), “even after twenty-seven representations, goes off with
based on Alain-René Lesage’s picaresque novel of the same name. as much applause as ever.” The last performance was on 5 October
After several delays, the opera was premiered on 15 August 1822. 1822, when the theatre closed for the season.
Of almost Wagnerian proportions—five acts, lasting nearly five With two major scenic productions in one season, Cendrillon
hours—it was heavily criticized for its unbearable length, both by and Gil Blas, Sor’s future in London looked bright indeed. So why,
the audience and the critics; for the second presentation it was cut at the height of his fame, did he suddenly leave?
by an hour and a half but still considered too long. The text was a
co-production of John Hamilton Reynolds (1794–1852) and the Departure from London—ballets and ballerinas
young Thomas Hood (1799–1845), and the music was by Sor and The Sor article in Ledhuy’s Encyclopédie Pittoresque of 1835,
a certain Matthew Moss. Unfortunately, the score is lost—quite considered to be partly autobiographical, provides no explanation
possibly it vanished in the fire destroying the theatre in 1830—so for the sudden departure.10 Here it briefly says that “Sor left London
we shall probably never know how much music the drama actually to go to Russia” and that “on his way he found Cendrillon in rehears-
contained, or how much of it was by Sor. However, a review in the al at the grand Opéra, and could enjoy the success of his work before
Morning Chronicle (16 Aug.) makes clear that the play had a “mix- continuing the journey.”11 However, Sor’s involvement with ballet
ture of music and dialogue,” implying that there must have been a extended beyond writing music: around this time he became roman-
substantial amount of music. tically involved with the ballerina Félicité Hullin, who was invited
Some of it has nevertheless survived. Soon after the premiere, to Moscow as prima ballerina. Brian Jeffery suggested that she was
the overture and six songs were published in arrangements with the reason for his departure from London and subsequent journey to
piano; two of them were by Sor.7 Yet there is good reason to believe Russia.12
that his contribution went well beyond those two songs. An advance Félicité Hullin was a budding young dancer, still in her late
notice in the Morning Post on 27 July 1822 declares that a “report teens when Sor, in his mid-forties, began courting her; in fact, she
speaks favorably of the Music, some of which is in the true old was only seventeen if her reported day of birth, 9 March 1805, is cor-
Spanish style, composed by Mr. F. Sor, the celebrated performer on the rect. She was the second of three dancer daughters of Jean-Baptiste
Guitar.” Another notice on that same day in the London Literary Hullin, a French dancer and ballet-master who had been engaged
Gazette, stated that a “new five act Opera, … the music by Mr. Moss for both the 1819 and 1820 seasons at the King’s Theatre.13 Félicité
and Mr. Sor, is in rehearsal at the English Opera House.” It seems was also on the roster of the King’s Theatre dancers, and the young
unlikely that Sor’s name would have been given such a prominent girl had become the darling of the audience in a Russian-style pas de
place in the advance publicity if his role in the five-hour operatic deux, La Cosaque.14 The Hullins appear regularly in announcements
drama had been confined to merely two songs. of ballets in London in the first half of 1822, but disappear from the
The critics were quite severe in their verdict upon the produc- newspapers after July. We may thus conclude that the father took
tion, partly because of its length and partly due to lack of dramatic his family back to Paris, where Félicité was to prepare for her official
development, but also because the plot of the two last acts had little début at the Opéra.15 Jeffery mentions her two preliminary examina-
or nothing to do with the original Gil Blas story. But the individual tions there in September and November.16
performers mostly fared well, and the music, whoever composed it On 5 February 1823, she had the first of a series of five début
(only two reviews mention the composer(s) by name), was positively presentations under the auspices of Albert (the other presentations
received by the majority of the critics. The Morning Chronicle (16 were on 19 and 26 February, and 5 and 10 March). The response
Aug.) wrote that the music “possessed a good deal of merit” and the after her first appearance, in which she danced a pas de deux with
Examiner (18 Aug.) that it was often “feeling and elegant.” Similar Albert, was mixed. The review in the Journal de Paris (10 Feb.)
brief and general characterizations appeared in some other news- was fairly positive, whereas that of Le Miroir des spectacles (7 Feb.)
papers and periodicals.8 Only the London Literary Gazette (17 Aug.) was more disapproving, stating that her dancing lacked suppleness
was negative, stating, without mentioning Sor, that “the music by and harmony, and that “she jumps and does not dance.” Le Réveil
Mr. Moss is very mediocre.” (7 Feb.) was similarly negative and remarked that one cannot dance
By 8 September, there had been eighteen performances, and at the Opéra as one does at the common theatres. Anyhow, this does
the Examiner reported that future representations of Gil Blas would not necessarily indicate that Félicité Hullin was a mediocre dancer.
be confined to the two first acts. At the premiere, these acts, which The negative reviews may well have arisen as a result of the chang-
were the ones modeled most closely on Lesage’s novel, had been best ing aesthetic in dancing: a new style with emphasis on difficult
received by the critics. Here the popular actress-singer Miss technical feats was rapidly developing at the expense of the old
Fanny Kelly (1790-1882) played the role of young Gil Blas at age qualities of grace, ease and elegance.17 Not all critics welcomed this
seventeen; incidentally, she is also reported to have learnt the guitar development.
under Sor.9 On 21 September, the Morning Chronicle wrote that The At some stage during this period, she presumably received
Youthful Days of Gil Blas (a name now applying to the new two- an invitation to join the Moscow Ballet. Sor and Félicité set out
guitarfoundation.org Soundboard Scholar No. 1 17
 Fernando Sor on the Move … (cont.)
together, leaving Paris during the late spring of 1823 and arriving delighted to see again in Paris, will be greatly missed in London.”
in Moscow in November.18 But was she in fact the reason Sor left Albert, in fact, had his last appearance in London on 23 April before
London? he returned to France.22 And with him came Cendrillon.
There is no doubt that they departed England at about the same There were moves to have the new ballet staged at the Opéra.
time—Sor perhaps a month or two later—but that may have been Already on 5 June 1822, another notice in Le Miroir reported that
coincidental. There is no evidence that their romantic relationship it would not be long before Cendrillon would appear in Paris, the
had commenced by this time; it may just as well have evolved later selection board at the Opéra had just pronounced in favor of it.
while they were both in Paris for several months. As we shall see Undoubtedly, Albert’s reputation had occasioned this. In contrast,
shortly, Sor had his own reasons to go there. Sor was far less known; he had not appeared in Paris for about
It is not known when or in what manner Félicité received her seven years and, although some may still have remembered his guitar
presumed invitation to Moscow, but it is rather unlikely that it playing from that time, none of his orchestral music had ever been
would have come while she was still a juvenile dancer in London. performed there.
The Russian envoys would surely have gone to Paris, the world’s On 4 October, Le Réveil cited a notice in the Courrier des Spec-
ballet metropolis, to find a new prima ballerina for their next tacles of the previous day announcing that Sor has come from
season.19 Thus an invitation must have come as a result of her pres- London, where he lives, to Paris, here attending the production of
ence there, most certainly after her official début. If so, then there a work “for which he composed the music”23 Sor was indeed back
would have been no causal connection between her leaving London in France already. On 4 October he played in a soirée musicale at
and her journey to Moscow. Nor would there have been any such Manuel García’s Paris residence. During the next six months, there
connection for Sor, even if the first flowering of their relationship are reports of a number of concerts in which he played. We shall
had occurred in London.20 return to that.
I would like to propose another, more likely explanation. When Sor’s presence during the rehearsal period of Cendrillon
Sor left London, he was not heading for Russia—that decision came was of great importance. Albert, who had produced the ballet in
later—but for Paris, and the reason was the forthcoming production London, was also the ballet-master of the Paris staging, in addition to
of Cendrillon there. That Cendrillon was to be staged at the grand dancing a leading role. In this period the ballet-master not only
opera must have been a special attraction for him; for the first time choreographed the dances, but was also responsible for adapting the
his music would extend to a wide audience in Paris. It is quite un- story for the ballet scenario in addition to being the producer of the
derstandable that he wanted to be present for that. When Sor first stage action; he was literally the compositeur of the ballet. The com-
arrived in Paris in 1813, he had aspired—sans succès—to become poser of the music had a lesser role. As ballet-master, Albert would
an opera composer, as the article in Ledhuy’s Encyclopédie vividly surely have needed modifications and adjustments to the music as the
reports.21 So now, ten years later, he finally had the opportunity to requirements of the new production arose; according to Sandra
show Paris what he was good for with respect to music for the stage. Noll Hammond, many changes were made in the choreography and
Certainly writing music for ballet was less significant than being an score for the Paris performance.24 Sor’s presence secured his musical
opera composer, but a successful result would surely be noticed and control and made possible the implementation of necessary changes
could thus prepare the ground for something more ambitious. With and additions in close collaboration with Albert.
London’s favorable reviews fresh in his mind, he had reason to be The ballet of Sor’s time was very different from the later
optimistic. Romantic ballet with which we are familiar today.25 The ballet-
pantomime genre, to which Cendrillon belonged, was a mute
The preparations for Cendrillon in Paris drama where the narrative was unfolded mainly through mimed
The Ledhuy article reveals nothing about the length of Sor’s scenes with little or no dancing. The actual dance scenes often
Paris sojourn, only that he arrived during the rehearsal period of comprised only about half of a ballet. The structure of most pas
Cendrillon. The impression one receives is that this was just a brief followed a strict formula, and this made it challenging for a com-
interlude on the road to Moscow (an interpretation Jeffery adheres poser to create music with sufficient variety and dramatic develop-
to in his Sor monograph). It may therefore come as a surprise that ment to prevent monotony. Sor did not avoid that criticism, as we
Sor was back in France already by early October 1822, five months shall see.
before the premiere, and that the preparations for the staging in Paris The music was often an amalgam of music composed for the
were already in progress. occasion and re-arrangements of familiar musical material by other
Cendrillon’s success in London had been noted in Paris. Shortly admired composers. The London production of Cendrillon had con-
after the London premiere, Le Miroir des spectacles (9 April 1822) tained a fair amount of borrowings (including extracts from Mozart’s
published a notice referring to the Morning Post review cited at the Le Nozze di Figaro) as the Morning Post review indicated; the Paris
beginning of this article. Here we also read that “Albert represents production was similar in that respect. This practice was encour-
the prince wonderfully, and this talented dancer, whom we will be aged by many critics; the rationale was that well-known music could

18 Soundboard Scholar No. 1 guitarfoundation.org

serve useful programmatic ends. In a long discourse on ballet music Relatively few reports of Sor’s actual performances have yet
from 1822, the influential critic Castil-Blaze argued that a recog- come to light; the Sor-related parts of the reviews are therefore pre-
nizable opera air, even shorn of its words, preserves a memorable sented here in their entirety.34 (The original French text of all the
expression that could help to clarify the enigmatic language of the quotations are in the Appendix. For easy cross-reference, they are
mime. However, to Castil-Blaze, there was an additional, purely provided with identification numbers.)
musical dimension: most composers were not able to write ballet
music of sufficient quality to sustain the musical attention through- 1822
out a whole spectacle. The inclusion of familiar music would thus 4 October. A soirée musicale at Manuel García’s residence:
also raise the musical appeal of a ballet.26 There was nonetheless a Mr. Sor gained all the applause with his guitar: it is impossible to give
growing tendency through the 1820s and early 1830s to produce greater charm to such an unrewarding instrument. The guitar can be
ballet scores with fewer borrowings and more originally composed taken no further. – Journal de Paris, 8 Oct. (A1)
music, although this was a hotly debated issue.27 Sor was, in fact,
criticized for not incorporating more borrowed material. 9 October. A second soirée musicale at García’s residence:
On 25 November 1822, the Journal de Paris reported that Cen- Mr. Sor, the Amphion of the guitar. – Journal de Paris, 14 Oct. (A2)
drillon would be performed immediately after Sapho, a new opera
by Anton Reicha. The premiere was scheduled for early January. 27 November. Inauguration of the Cercle harmonique:35
However, on 6 January 1823, the Journal de Paris announced that … a guitar solo performed by Mr. Sor, who has brought this
the ballet would not be put on until the beginning of February. instrument to the highest degree of perfection.
But there were further delays. On 3 February, Le Réveil gave notice – Le Miroir des spectacles, 1 Dec. (A3)
that Cendrillon was to be staged in the course of that month. That
did not happen either, as the premiere finally took place first on 3 The review mentions that other instrumentalists included the
March. The set designer, Monsieur Cicéri, was answerable for the violinist Francesco Vaccari (Francisco Vacari) and the young pianist
postponements, at least partially; he was criticized for having taken Henry Herz, in addition to some singers. Le Miroir claimed that
two months to create his sumptuous scenery, thereby delaying the the audience numbered more than six hundred, the Journal de Paris
production.28 (2 Dec.) that it was nearly four hundred.

Concerts in Paris 13 December. Sor gave a concert at the premises of the Cercle
Sor appeared in a number of concerts in the French capital harmonique.36 No proper review has come to light, but there is a
during this long production period. Jeffery includes one reference to brief mention in connection with an announcement of a new Vaccari
a concert in February 1823, originally reported in the Harmonicon.29 concert:
Furthermore, Luis Briso de Montiano has recently shown that Sor The concert given by Mr. Sor, the guitarist, in the beautiful premises
participated in some private concerts at the Paris residence of the of Mr. Garcia, attracted a large and very brilliant audience.
celebrated Spanish tenor Manuel García at the end of 1822.30 I have This virtuoso received much applause, and deserved it.
found further details of these events, along with references to several – Le Miroir des spectacles, 19 Dec. (A4)
other concerts; thus we now know of some eleven or twelve occa-
sions between October 1822 and April 1823 when Sor performed Sor’s concert had been announced in Journal de Paris (13 Dec.),
in Paris. according to which many unnamed French and foreign artists par-
It appears that Manuel García took Sor under his wing during ticipated. Sor probably performed his Cinquième Fantaisie, Op. 16,
the first months; the majority of the concerts in 1822 occurred which was published in early 1823 (see below).
either at García’s residence or at the premises of the Cercle harmo-
nique, an exclusive concert series and venue run by him.31 García 15 December. Concert of the young pianist, Mlle. Elisa Berlot. Two
and Sor would have known each other from London where they had reviews are known:
performed in the same concert on at least one occasion.32 The third concert of Miss Berlot the day before yesterday attracted
Several of the concerts were reviewed, indicating that the key a large and brilliant gathering … but the repeated bravos, testimonies
performers were prominent members of the Paris musical scene. of the most vivid and unanimous satisfaction, were bestowed on
Sor’s guitar playing was considered extraordinary despite the fre- Miss Berlot … and Mr. Sor, who was heard three times on the guitar.
quent disparaging comments about the instrument per se.33 He was This amateur has charmed the audience with the perfection, the
unanimously praised for his performances, in some cases even hailed lightness and the method he demonstrated in the performance of
as the highpoint of the evening. This notwithstanding, only one of various pieces that he played. Under the fingers of Mr. Sor, the guitar
his own two benefit concerts occasioned a faint echo in the press. is no longer an instrument limited in its resources, cold in its

guitarfoundation.org Soundboard Scholar No. 1 19

 Fernando Sor on the Move … (cont.)
expression, soundless and tedious; it is a harp, a dazzling clavier, a Mr. Vogt and Mr. Soor each achieved on his own instrument the
harmonious viol. As a performer, Mr. Sor has without question no success to which they have long been accustomed. Everyone knows
equal; as a composer for the guitar, he has few rivals. – Le Miroir des how the former makes the oboe speak; the latter succeeded in making
spectacles, 17 Dec. (A5) the guitar do the same, which is more difficult. Carcassi is the only
guitarist who can be compared to Mr. Soor. —Le Miroir des spectacles,
... but the honors of the evening were for Mr. Sor, who drew forth 11 March. (A9)
the most ravishing sounds from his guitar. – Le Réveil, 18 Dec. (A6)
19 March. Another concert of the pianist Elisa Berlot. Sor played an
24 December. Concert of Vaccari at García’s residence (or, more unspecified solo as announced in Le Réveil (18 March).
probably, the premises of the Cercle); unclear if Sor also partici-
pated.37 (Announced in Le Miroir des spectacles, 17 Dec.) 13 April. Another concert of Lagoanère. The young harpist
Théodore Labarre, Guillou (flute) and Sor were among the
1823 participating instrumentalists. (Announced in the Journal de Paris,
16 January. Concert of the violinist Chevalier Michel Ange 12 April.)
Lagoanère at the salons of M. Dietz. A great number of contributing
performers, including Sor. (Announced in Le Miroir des spectacles, The reception of Cendrillon in Paris
9 Jan.) Cendrillon was finally premiered on 3 March 1823. It was a
great success, not least due to Cicéri’s lavish stage settings. It was per-
2 February. Concert of Joseph Guillou, first flute at the Opéra and formed over a hundred times, and staged anew in Paris several times
professor at the Conservatoire.38 Other performers included the during the next decades.39 Previous writers have generally agreed
famous violinist Pierre Baillot. According to an announcement in that the performance also was a great triumph for Sor the compos-
the Journal des Débats (2 Feb.), Sor played an unspecified Air varié. er. Nonetheless, few contemporary reviews have been known; the
Two reviews are known: conclusion seems mainly to be founded on the success of the ballet
Mr. Baillot was heard with amazement rather than pleasure ... Mr. as a whole.40 Cendrillon was, however, duly reviewed in the press
Soor [sic], in contrast, charmed everyone with the graceful harmonies although, as was the norm with ballets, the music was in most cases
he drew from his guitar. Under the fingers of this amateur, the guitar treated only summarily at the end.
is no longer that thankless clavier from which barely a few sounds The reviews disclose a wide range of opinions, from quite
escaped before he questioned it; now it is an instrument whose vocab- complimentary to highly critical, no doubt reflecting differences in
ulary is established. It expresses what it could only hint at before; musical taste and perhaps expertise. The Journal de Paris (8 March)
[now] it speaks, formerly it stuttered. Who knows if Mr. Soor will not carried a brief but generally encouraging comment:
one day be called the Racine of the guitar? – Le Miroir des spectacles, The music of this ballet, which we owe to Mr. Sor, already known
3 Feb. (A7) as an excellent guitarist, has shown us once more that he is a pleasing
composer. One might wish for more new ideas in it, but it has grace
The guitar is an instrument whose resources are quite limited, and and vivacity. (A10)
which up to now has only served to accompany romances and light
songs. In the hands of Mr. Soor, it becomes the faithful and expressive Le Moniteur Universel (12 March) was less convinced, but not
interpreter of the most varied inspirations, and what he can draw all negative:
from it is truly prodigious. Whoever has not heard Mr. Soor play Mr. Sor, who performs wonders on the guitar, has not done so in
the guitar can never conceive that this praise still falls short of the composition; but the music is pleasing, light, and there are some
truth. – Journal de Paris, 3. Feb. (A8) [borrowed] masterpieces that he has adapted skillfully. (A11)

6 March. Sor, “le célèbre guitarriste,” gave a soirée musicale at the Le Miroir des spectacles published a brief notice on Cendrillon
salons of M. Dietz. No further details known. (Announced in Le the day after the premiere and remarked that the music was “lively
Miroir des spectacles, 5 March.) and graceful” (A12). However, in a comprehensive report appearing
after the third performance, on 10 March, the reviewer had changed
8 March. Concert of the pianist Henry Herz at the salons of M. his opinion; the music had faded upon repeated hearing: “I am
Pape. Other contributors included Gustave Vogt, celebrated oboist almost tempted to retract the praises I have given to the music of
and professor at the Conservatoire. Sor played an unspecified Air Cendrillon. If one makes an exception for the overture, it is uniform
varié according to an announcement in the Journal des Débats (8 and mediocre” (A13).
March).

20 Soundboard Scholar No. 1 guitarfoundation.org

 The most extensive but also most disapproving reviews of the a calamitous characterization), it was that they depicted nothing—
music appeared in the Journal des Débats and the Gazette de France that is, they lacked the necessary qualities for describing musically
(both on 10 March). In the former, Castil-Blaze wrote:41 the story of the ballet. However, the writer alludes to music’s de-
The music of Mr. Sor, one has to admit, is far from according with scriptive or imitative function in broader terms. By the reference to
what one has the right to require from an artist in the creation of a imitative music, musique imitative (a term which in this context has
work as important as a ballet in three acts and in a theatre such as nothing to do with imitative counterpoint), he adhered to a notion
that of the Academie royale de musique; he had to struggle, moreover, dominating much discourse on music in France at the time, and
against fearsome competition from the excessively light but very which had done so since Rousseau and the encyclopedists: instru-
inventive Nicolo [Isouard], and from the composer [Gioachino mental music, in order to have any sense or meaning, should imitate
Rossini] who, today, receives the plaudits of Europe.42 Too proud to or evoke human sentiments or natural phenomena.
make useful borrowings from them, too weak to carry out the equiv- Despite such biting reviews, the sheer number of performances
alent, he has had to suffer by comparison. One is hard put to explain of Cendrillon shows that the general public were enthusiastic—per-
how a performing artist, who has earned for himself a well-deserved haps because “the ears were indulgent because the eyes were fully
reputation as a guitarist, could suddenly have raised himself from the satisfied,” but perhaps also because Sor’s musical style may have
niceties proper to that instrument to the vast and sublime concep- resonated better with the taste of ordinary audiences. Le Miroir des
tions of a grand dramatic action, interesting and impassioned; for it is spectacles suggested this by remarking after the premiere that “Mr.
precisely from this angle that M. Albert has envisaged his subject. Sor, composer of the music, Mr. Cicéri creator of the sets, and Mr.
However, the weakness of the music has not at all limited the success Albert, composer of the ballet, were vigorously called for.” (A12)
of the work; the ears were indulgent because the eyes were fully As we have seen, there was a striking contrast in the Paris recep-
satisfied. (A14) tion of Sor as guitarist and composer for that instrument, and of him
as composer of “real” music. A certain derogatory tone is evident in
The anonymous reviewer of the Gazette de France followed in the two final Cendrillon reviews: it is impossible for a guitar player,
the same footsteps: even the best, to rise “from the niceties proper to that instrument.”
Albert should boast all the more justifiably of success … The scene A similarly divided attitude cannot be seen in the London reports.
-maker and the scene-shifter will have still more reasons to share But there Sor had been able to build his reputation through several
it than the composer of the music. After an excessively noisy overture, years of activity and networking. It is interesting to note that, when
there follows a crowd of little airs of an extreme thinness and pallor, Cendrillon was restaged in London in 1834, the review in the Morn-
one after the other; still, their greatest fault is not this weakness: it is ing Post was quite different from that of the same paper twelve years
that they portray nothing, call nothing to mind and that, in a word, earlier, cited at the beginning of this article. This may, of course,
they speak no more to the soul than to the ear. It is said that Mr. Sor reflect a significant change in musical taste in general and in relation
is the premier man in the world for the guitar; Cendrillon will to ballet music in particular, but it may likewise reflect the fact that
probably not bring him the same reputation as a composer of Sor’s name was now apparently unknown to the reviewer:
imitative and danceable music. (A15) The music, composed by a Monsieur Sor, possesses very little that
requires notice. It is exactly that sort of monotonous trifling which
Sor was not left much honor by these two critics; his music would never take away the admiration of the audience from the
seemed to lack originality and dramatic strength, qualities neces- proceedings on the stage. (The Morning Post, 7 May 1834)
sary to carry the weight of a full-length three-act scenic production.
These are harsh judgments on someone who hoped to become an Guitar compositions and publications
opera composer. After the generally encouraging response in Lon- During the half year Sor stayed in France, or just after, several
don, such diatribes must have been disappointing. Yet they must of his guitar works were published by Meissonnier, his regular Paris
be seen in the broader context of the changing aesthetics of ballet publisher. They would have been opp. 16-20, the arrangement of
music at the time, and the fact that many writers opposed the shift the Marche from Cendrillon, and perhaps also Op. 15a. Of these,
toward greater use of original (rather than borrowed) music in the the Cinquième Fantaisie, Op. 16, was advertised in Le Miroir des
scores. It should also be remembered that this was right at the begin- spectacles on 25 February 1823, with the note “performed with
ning of a Rossini craze in Paris. Since, in the opinion of Castil-Blaze, success by the composer at his concert.” This refers most certainly to
Sor’s music could not compare in quality with the scores of the two the concert of 13 December 1822.43
most renowned composers of operas about Cinderella, Rossini and Sor had appeared together with the violinist Francesco
Isouard, he ought to have borrowed from their works in order to Vaccari on at least one occasion in the final months of 1822. This
raise the musical standard of Cendrillon. casts new light on the origin of op. 21, Les Adieux, which was pub-
In the eyes of the critic of the Gazette de France, the greatest lished in 1824 and dedicated to him. Previously it was only known
fault of Sor’s airs was not their “extreme thinness and pallor” (in itself that the two musicians met in London in 1815/16, and it has thus

guitarfoundation.org Soundboard Scholar No. 1 21

 Fernando Sor on the Move … (cont.)
been assumed that the work somehow originated at that time.44 Was Sor invited to Russia?
However, their reunion in Paris in 1822 makes this the most proba- Sor may in fact have played a more decisive role in this new move
ble time of the origin. than normally assumed. A newspaper notice from Warsaw, where the
The work exists in two distinct early editions. One was pub- party halted for a week or two in October 1823, states that Sor was
lished by Meissonnier in Paris in the fall (before November) of 1824, on his way to Moscow, “where he has been summoned to arrange
and titled Les Adieux. The other had the Spanish title La Despedida and compose ballet music.”54 This indicates that he went to Russia in
(with the same literal meaning), and was published in Madrid by his own right, not merely as Félicité’s consort, and that he had been
Bartolomé Wirmbs at his Establecimiento de Grabado y Estampa- invited there by virtue of his proficiency as a ballet composer.55
do; it was advertised in the Gaceta de Madrid on 29 April 1824. Were Sor and Félicité married? We do not know with certainty;
It is reasonable to assume that, in Paris, Sor had given a copy of there was nothing unusual in ballerinas having affairs with older,
his manuscript to Vaccari, who arranged with Wirmbs to have it wealthy men—“liaisons sweeten almost every ballerina biography,”
published when he was back in Spain for a brief period in the fall of as Lynn Garafola has succinctly remarked.56 The backstage of the
1823.45 However, I disagree with Brian Jeffery that this makes the Opéra was a privileged venue of flirtation and dalliance, often an
Wirmbs edition a better or more reliable source than the Meisson- opening for a kind of “prostitution légère.”57 On the other hand,
nier edition.46 The Meissonnier edition is almost certainly not based in contemporary Russian sources and later ballet literature, Félicité
on that of Wirmbs, as Jeffery claims; the divergences—although Hullin is regularly named Hullin-Sor. And after their split in 1826,
mostly minor—are too abundant and of a kind strongly suggesting when Sor returned to Paris, she remained single in the sense that
that the two printed versions were prepared independently of each she did not marry until as late as 1838 or 1839 (sources differ).
other, from different manuscripts. I agree with Kenneth Hartdegen This seems to indicate that they indeed had been married and, if
that the Spanish edition has many notational details suggesting that they received the Catholic sacrament of marriage, they remained so
it was edited by a violinist, doubtless Vaccari himself.47 Thus this is when they parted. Sor died in 1839, making it only then possible for
not a more reliable source (in the sense that it reflects purely Sor’s Félicité to remarry.
original text) than the edition of Meissonnier, to whom Sor would
have given another copy of the music before leaving Paris. In fact, it Postscript
may be less reliable.48 As this article was about to be printed, Gerhard Penn informed
me of a most interesting notice in a Viennese journal of early 1834,
Leaving Paris again there reprinted from a Berlin newspaper of about the same time:
Within a month or two after the premiere of Cendrillon, Sor Fernand [sic] Sor, who earlier had caused a sensation in London
left Paris. The most apparent reason was Félicité Hullin and her al- ... and soon had become a favorite of the ladies, found himself
leged invitation to Moscow. However, there was in fact a more ur- compelled to leave London and England all of a sudden and to hurry
gent cause: He was forced to leave. As observed by James Radomski, over to the beckoning coasts of France because of an amorous
a shift in the political winds made Spanish liberals personae non adventure involving one of the leading families, which was of
gratae in France in 1823.49 A civil war had broken out in Spain; King consequence.58
Fernando VII appealed to France for help to quell the struggle of
the liberal constitutionalists. A French royalist army under the Duc An amorous affair “of consequence” almost certainly alludes to
d’Angoulême entered Spain in the spring of 1823. Sor having fathered an illegitimate child. This, of course, may have
The position of Spanish liberals in Paris became more and more been just a baseless rumor. However, Sor stayed for some time in
delicate, and in March they were formally expelled. On 13 March, Berlin on the way to Russia in 1823, and it is quite possible that this
the Journal des Débats announced that “the Spaniards who are in story, recounted years later by the writer of the Berliner Figaro, had
Paris have received the order to leave at once,” and on 27 March become generally known at that time.
it reported that “the Spaniards who are in Paris are preparing to If Sor were involved in such a scandal, he may well have been
depart.”50 Manuel García headed towards London, probably in ordered to leave England. For a woman of high society to bear a
late March;51 Francesco Vaccari had crossed the Channel already in child outside marriage was, at that time in Britain, an utter disgrace.
February.52 Under such circumstances, a person of influence could easily have
The departure to Russia should be seen in this light. Having pulled the strings to get Sor banished from British soil.
commenced a romantic relationship with Félicité Hullin, and real- For the time being, we have no further information that can
izing that he could not remain in Paris in any case, Sor probably felt verify or refute this titillating tale. If there is some truth to it, the
that casting his lot with Hullin and heading east with her were good forthcoming opening of Cendrillon in Paris would have come to
options. The last report of a concert in which he played in Paris was Sor as manna from heaven. It also supports my assumption that his
in mid-April. Likewise, there are no further notices in the press of romantic relationship with young Félicité Hullin would have com-
Félicité after that time either,53 so they probably left soon after. menced after he had left London—unless, of course, he had been
riding two horses at the same time.
22 Soundboard Scholar No. 1 guitarfoundation.org
Appendix
French source documents.
Concert reviews Reviews of Cendrillon
A1: Journal de Paris, 8 Oct. 1822. A10: Journal de Paris, 8 March 1823.
M. Sor enleva tous les suffrages sur la guitare : il est impossible de donner plus de La musique de ce ballet, due à M. Sor, déjà connu comme un excellente guitariste,
charme à un instrument aussi ingrat, c’est le nec plus ultrà de la guitare. nous a de plus montré en lui un compositeur agréable. On pourrait y désirer plus
d’idées neuves, mais elle a de la grâce et de la vivacité.
A2: Journal de Paris, 14 Oct. 1822. M. Sor, l’Amphion de la guitare.
A11: Le Moniteur Universel, 12 March 1823.
A3: Le Miroir des spectacles, 1 Dec. 1822.
M. Sor, qui fait des prodiges sur la guittarre, n’en a pas fait un en composition ;
… un solo de guitare exécuté par M. Sor qui a porté cet instrument au plus haut
mais elle est agréable, facile, et il y a des morceaux de maître habilement adaptés.
degré de perfection.
A12: Le Miroir des spectacles, 4 March 1823.
A4: Le Miroir des spectacles, 19 Dec. 1822.
Une musique vive et gracieuse… M. Sor, auteur de la musique, M. Cicéri des
Le concert donné … par M. Sor, le guitariste, dans le beau local de M. Garcia,
décorations, et M. Albert, auteur du ballet, ont été vivement demandés …
avait attiré une nombreuse et très-brillante compagnie. Ce virtuose a reçu beaucoup
d’applaudissemens, et les a mérités. A13: Le Miroir des spectacles, 10 March 1823.
Je serais presque tenté de rétracter les éloges que j’avais accordés à la musique du
A5: Le Miroir des spectacles, 17 Dec. 1822.
ballet de Cendrillon. Si j’en excepte l’ouverture, elle est uniforme et médiocre.
Le troisième concert de Mlle Berlot avait attiré avant-hier une assemblée nombreuse
et brillante. La clarinette de M. Frédéric Duvernoy, la flute de M. Nermel, le violon A14: Journal des Débats, 10 March 1823.
de M. Nargeot, et la voix agréable de M. Romagnési ont été vivement applaudis La musique de M. Soor, il faut l’avouer, est loin de répondre à ce qu’on avoit droit
; mais les bravos réitérés, les témoignages de la satisfaction la plus vive et la plus d’exiger d’un artiste qui se produit dans un ouvrage aussi important qu’un ballet
unanime ont été prodigués à Mlle Berlot … et à M. Sor qui s’est fait entendre trois en trois actes et sur un théâtre tel que celui de l’Académie royale de musique : il
fois sur la guitare. Cet amateur a séduit tout l’auditoire par le fini, la légèreté et la avoit d’ailleurs à lutter contre une concurrence redoutable, avec le trop facile mais
méthode qu’il a déployés dans l’exécution des morceaux différens qu’il a joués. Sous très ingénieux Nicolo, et avec le compositeur qui enlève aujourd’hui les suffrages
les doigts de M. Sor, la guitare n’est plus un instrument borné dans ses ressources, de l’Europe : trop fier pour leur faire d’utiles emprunts, trop foible pour soutenir le
froid dans son expression, insonore et fastidieux ; c’est une harpe, un clavier brillant, parallèle, il a dû souffrir de la comparaison. On a de la peine à s’expliquer comment
une viole harmonieuse. Comme exécutant, M. Sor n’a sans doute point d’égal ; un artiste exécutant qui s’est fait sur la guitare une juste réputation, auroit pu s’élever
comme compositeur de guitare, il compte peu de rivaux. tout à coup du genre d’agrémens qui sont propre à cet instrument, aux vastes et
sublimes conceptions d’une action dramatique grande, intéressante et passionnée ;
A6: Le Réveil, 18 Dec. 1822.
car c’est uniquement sous ce point de vue que M. Albert a envisagé son sujet.
…mais les honneurs de cette soirée ont été pour M. Sor, qui a tiré les sons les plus
Cependant la foiblesse de la musique n’a point nui au succès de l’ouvrage ; les
ravissans de sa guitare.
oreilles ont été indulgentes, parce que les yeux étoient pleinement satisfaits.
En nous rappelant l’impression générale que le talent prodigieux de cet artiste a
produite, nous ne doutons plus du succès merveilleux qu’obtiendrait le conseil que A15: Gazette de France, 10 March 1823.
nous avons donné plus haut aux espagnols royalistes, si leurs guitares vibraient de Albert doit se glorifier d’autant plus légitimement du succès… Le décorateur et
sons aussi touchans que ceux de l’instrument de M. Sor. le machiniste auraient plus de droits encore à le partager que le compositeur de la
musique. Après une ouverture excessivement bruyante, arrivent à la suite les uns des
A7: Le Miroir des spectacles, 3 Feb. 1823.
autres une foule de petits airs d’une maigreur et d’une pâleur extrêmes ; leur plus
M. Baillot a été entendu plutôt avec étonnement qu’avec plaisir… M. Soor [sic],
grand défaut n’est pas encore dans cette faiblesse ; c’est qu’ils ne peignent rien, ne
au contraire, a séduit tout le monde par les gracieux accords qu’il a tiré de sa guitare.
rappellent rien, et qu’en un mot, ils ne parlent pas plus à l’esprit qu’à l’oreille. On
Sous les doigts de cet amateur, la guitare n’est plus cet ingrat clavier dont quelques
dit que M. Sor est le premier homme du monde sur la guitare : Cendrillon ne lui
sons sortaient à peine avant qu’il l’eût interrogé ; c’est maintenant un instrument
acquerra probablement pas la même réputation comme compositeur de musique
dont le vocabulaire est établi. Il exprime ce qu’il ne pouvait qu’indiquer autrefois ;
imitative et dansante.
il parle, il bégayait jadis. Qui sait si M. Soor ne sera pas appellé un jour le Racine
de la guitare. A note on newspaper research
A great number of British and French newspapers and periodicals are cited above.
A8: Journal de Paris, 3 Feb. 1823.
They were mostly accessed via electronic databases. The British digitized sources
La guitare est un instrument dont les moyens sont bien restreints, et qui jusqu’à
are from the British Newspaper Archive, under the auspices of the British Library
présent ne servait qu’à accompagner des romances et des chansons légères. Dans les
(Examiner, Morning Chronicle, Morning Post) and the Hathi Trust Digital Library
mains de M. Soor [sic], il devient l’interprète fidèle et expressif des inspirations les
(London Literary Gazette, London Magazine, New Monthly Magazine and Literary
plus variées, et le parti qu’il sait en tirer tient vraiment du prodige. Celui qui n’a pas
Journal). The French sources can all be accessed via the Gallica Digital Library,
entendu M. Soor jouer de la guitare ne pourra jamais concevoir que cet éloge soit
under the auspices of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, with the exception of
encore au-dessous de la vérité.
Le Miroir des spectacles (July-Dec. 1822) and the Journal de Paris, which have not
yet been digitized. They were examined through microfilms at the Bibliothèque
A9: Le Miroir des spectacles, 11 March 1823.
nationale in Paris.
MM. Vogt et Soor ont obtenu, chacun sur son instrument, le succès auquel ils sont
accoutumés depuis longtems. Tout le monde sait comment le premier fait parler
le hautbois ; l’autre est venu à bout de faire parler la guittarre [sic], ce qui est plus
difficile. Carcassi est le seul guittariste qui puisse être comparé à M. Soor.

guitarfoundation.org Soundboard Scholar No. 1 23

 ENDNOTES
A preliminary version of this study was read at a meeting of The Consortium for Guitar Research at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, in April 2014. I am particularly grateful
to Brian Jeffery for sharing with me his notes on Gil Blas, and to Christopher Page and Thomas Heck for their many valuable suggestions and help with the translations of the
original French texts. Thanks also to Jukka Savijoki and to the two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments.

1 Brian Jeffery, Fernando Sor, Composer and Guitarist, 2d edition (London: Tecla Editions, 1994).
2 Wolf Moser, “Fernando Sor: The Life and Works of a Reluctant Guitarist,” Classical Guitar 26, no. 3 (2007): 20–24, and no. 4: 20–25. Moser here presents a very different and
thought-provoking perspective on Sor.
3 For a general study of Sor’s activity and success in England, please refer to Jeffery, Fernando Sor, Chapter 3. See also Christopher Page, “New light on the London years of
Fernando Sor, 1815–1822,” Early Music 41, no. 4 (2013): 557–569.
4 A review from The Times is quoted in Sandra Noll Hammond, “Sor and the ballet of his time,” in Estudios sobre Fernando Sor, ed. Luis Gásser (Madrid: Ediciones del
ICCMU, 2003), 195, and in Michael Christoforidis and Elizabeth Kertesz, “Cendrillon, Cinderella and Spectacle: Insights into Sor’s most Successful Work,” in Estudios sobre
Fernando Sor, 140.
5 The composer of this music was probably Franz Ignaz Beck (1734–1809), whose overture and incidental music to the melodrama Pandore were first performed in Paris in
1789.
6 It is briefly mentioned in Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 71.
7 The Sor songs are listed in Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 185. Their titles make it clear that they were from Gil Blas, as do the titles of the Moss compositions (copies in British Library
and elsewhere). The date of their entry at Stationers’ Hall, 21 Aug., shows that their publication must have been in preparation well before the premiere, which had occurred
less than a week earlier.
8 The New Monthly Magazine and Literary Journal (Sept. 1822, p. 397); the London Magazine (Sept. 1822, p. 280). Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 71, quotes an excerpt without the
name of the newspaper in the Endhoven Collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum (“tolerably pretty music by Mr. Moss and Mr. Sor”).
9 Dictionary of National Biography, 1885–1900, vol. 30, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kelly,_Frances_Maria_(DNB00).
10 It is generally assumed that the Sor article in Ledhuy’s Encyclopédie to a large extent was written by Sor himself; see Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 106. See also the detailed discussion
in Kenneth Angus Hartdegen, “Fernando Sor’s Theory of Harmony Applied to the Guitar: History, Bibliography and Context,” PhD diss (University of Auckland, 2011), 27
32, https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/11142.html.
11 “Sor partit de Londres pour aller en Russie. A son passage il trouva Cendrillon en répétition au grand opéra, et avant de continuer son voyage il put jouir du succès de sa pièce.”
Ledhuy, Encyclopédie, 166.
12 Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 71.
13 Hammond, “Sor and the ballet,” 192.
14 Artists were normally identified by their family name only and it is not always clear if “Mlle Hullin” refers to Félicité or her elder sister, Virginie. However, in some cases, as in
the list of dancers engaged for the 1819 season, announced in the Morning Post and the Morning Chronicle on 18 Jan. 1819, she is identified as “Mademoiselle F. Hullin.” Her
appearance in La Cosaque or the Pas Russe is reported in the press at various times in 1819 and 1820.
15 Various newspaper reports show that, by May 1823, Jean-Baptiste Hullin was back in London where he was put in charge of the juvenile ballet company at the Vauxhall
Gardens, a position he held until 1829.
16 Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 66–7, 71.
17 For more on this, see John Chapman, “XXX and the Changing Ballet Aesthetic; 1828-32,” Dance Research: The Journal of the Society of Dance Research 2, no. 1 (1984):
35–47, in particular 37. See also Hammond, “Sor and the ballet,” 193–4.
18 In Russia Félicité Hullin became a leading choreographer and dance teacher; she had a seminal influence on the development of Russian ballet.
19 John Ebers, the manager of the King’s Theatre at the time Cendrillon was staged there, also made trips to Paris to hire dancers for his theatre. In his memoirs, Seven Years of the
King’s Theatre (London 1828), he stated that “the perfection acquired at these [Paris] schools is immense, and evidently un-attainable in any [other] country” (quoted in
Hammond, Sor and the Ballet, 190).
20 Kenneth Hartdegen, “Fernando Sor’s Theory,” 99 and 212–13, has suggested another possible reason for Sor’s sudden departure: that of heavy debt. As a founding member of
the cooperative publishing enterprise, the Regent’s (later Royal) Harmonic Institution, Sor could have been involved in the disastrous building venture to renovate the Argyll
Rooms in 1819, which ultimately ended with failure and great loss. Intriguing as this hypothesis may seem, it can nevertheless most probably be dismissed. Sor was not among
the twenty-three active members of the Harmonic Institution listed in the February 1819 issue of the short-lived music periodical, the English Musical Gazette. See Leanne
Langley, “A Place for Music: John Nash, Regent Street and the Philharmonic Society of London,” The Electronic British Library Journal, 2013 [ebljarticle122013], 28–9,
http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2013articles/article12.html.
21 Ledhuy, Encyclopédie, 165.
22 Morning Post, 23 April 1822. Another French dancer, Monsieur Paul, took his role in the remaining London performances of Cendrillon that season.
23 “M. Sor, qu’on peut regarder comme le premier des guitaristes de l’époque, et duquel l’éminence du talent en ce genre fait presque oublier qu’il est aussi un compositeur
distingué, est arrivé de Londres, qu’il habite, à Paris où l’on assure qu’il vient d’assister à la mise en scène d’un ouvrage dont il a composé la musique.” The awkwardness of the
French in this passage suggests that its author was not a native speaker (the italics are original, introduced by Le Réveil to highlight the grammatical errors of the source
quoted). Might it have been Sor himself? Although the text actually says that “he [Sor] has just attended the production of a work” (“il vient d’assister”), this can hardly have
been the case. I suspect that the writer’s intention was to express that Sor had come to Paris in order to assist in a forthcoming production. Unfortunately, no copy of the
Courrier des Spectacles of 3 Oct. 1822 is known to exist.
24 Hammond, “Sor and the ballet,” 184.

24 Soundboard Scholar No. 1 guitarfoundation.org

25 Valuable background information and details about Cendrillon and the ballet art form in general are found in Hammond, “Sor and the ballet,” and in Christoforidis and
Kertesz, “Cendrillon, Cinderella and Spectacle.”
26 This illuminating essay from Journal des Débats, 28 Sept. 1822, is quoted in Ivor Guest, The Romantic Ballet in Paris (Hampshire: Dance Books, 2008), 18–20, and
Chapman, “XXX and the Changing Ballet Aesthetic,” 39–41.
27 Marian Smith, “About the House,” in Reading Critics Reading: Opera and Ballet Criticism in France from the Revolution to 1848, ed. Roger Parker and Mary Ann Smart
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 227–31.
28 Le Réveil, 10 March 1823.
29 Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 76.
30 Luis Briso de Montiano, “Fernando Sor en París camino de Rusia: Concierto de Nochebuena,” last modified March 1, 2014, http://fernandosor.es/fernando-sor-en-paris-
camino-de-rusia-concierto-de-nochebuena
31 For more information on the Cercle de la rue de Richelieu, see James Radomski, Manuel García (1775-1832): Chronicle of the Life of a bel canto Tenor at the dawn of
Romanticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 154–6.
32 21 July 1816 (Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 46). There is also a possibility that they could have met in Madrid in the early summer of 1802, see Hartdegen, “Fernando Sor’s Theory,” 160.
33 For a general survey of the hostile attitude towards the guitar from leading critics in this period, see Erik Stenstadvold, ‘“We hate the guitar’: prejudice and polemic in the music
press in early nineteenth-century Europe,” Early Music 41 no. 4 (2013): 595–604.
34 Most of the concerts were also announced in one or several newspapers. These announcements are only mentioned here if they contain relevant information not found in the
reviews.
35 This is probably the concert mentioned in the notice in El Indicador on 1 Jan. 1823; see Briso, “Fernando Sor en París.”
36 This may have been the unspecified concert mentioned in the first part of the notice in El Indicador on 8 Jan. 1823; see Briso, “Fernando Sor en París.”
37 Sor is not mentioned in the announcement in Le Miroir des spectacles. However, the notice in El Indicador on 8 Jan. 1823 (Briso, “Fernando Sor en París”) gives the
impression that he participated.
38 Sor would have known Guillou from his first period in Paris; they had played together in a concert given by Guillou on 7 January 1815. The program of this concert was
detailed two days previously in Journal des Débats; Sor and Guillou played in a “new fantaisie for guitar, flute and cello [basse]” by Sor, a lost work.
39 In economic terms, Cendrillon may have been quite lucrative for Sor. Jean Mongrédien, French Music from the Enlightenment to Romanticism (Portland: Amadeus Press, 1996),
71, has shown that with opera, the composer received a royalty for each performance, shared with the librettist. If similar arrangements applied to ballet, Cendrillon must have
supplied Sor with a steady income over several years.
40 Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 67, quotes a paragraph from Ivor Guest’s book, Ballet in Paris, in which the sumptuous production is described in some detail. However, that passage
says nothing about the music. Jeffery’s only reference to a contemporary assessment is that of the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung, whose correspondent briefly summed up the
ballet as “Schöne Tänze, herrliche Dekorationen und eine recht angenehme Musik” – “Beautiful dances, fine decor and quite pleasant music” (in Jeffery’s translation, “extremely
pleasant music,” a slight interpretive overstatement). Among the very few who have consulted original French sources are Christoforidis and Kertesz, “Cendrillon, Cinderella
and Spectacle,” 140–41, who discuss reviews in the Journal des Débats and Le Moniteur Universel.
41 It is now generally acknowledged that Castil-Blaze was the author of the anonymous musical articles, signed “XXX,” in the Journal des Débats in this period.
42 Nicolo Isouard (1775–1818) had an enormous success at the Opéra-Comique in 1810 with the fairy-tale opera Cendrillon. The work was revived regularly over the next
decades. Rossini’s opera La Cenerentola had been staged at the Théâtre Italien less than a year before the ballet Cendrillon was premiered, and was still running.
43 For a more detailed discussion of Meissonnier’s Sor editions, see my forthcoming study, “Sor and Meissonnier.”
44 Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 41–2, 46.
45 According to Diccionario biográfico, 665, Vaccari travelled from Paris to Madrid in October 1823.
46 See Jeffery’s discussion of op. 21 in the notes to Fernando Sor: The New Complete Works for Guitar, 2d ed., edited by Brian Jeffery (London: Tecla Editions, 2004), vol. 3.
47 Hartdegen, “Fernando Sor’s Theory,” 957ff.
48 That is not to say that Vaccari’s version is without interest; on the contrary, precisely because it was edited by an experienced fellow musician, it gives us valuable insight into
how freely musicians in those days would treat the music of another composer. (Another conspicuous example is Aguado’s edition of Sor’s op. 14.)
49 Radomski, Manuel García, 157–8.
50 Radomski, Manuel García, 158.
51 Radomski, Manuel García, 158.
52 Diccionario biográfico del Trienio Liberal, ed. Alberto Gil Novales (Madrid: El Museo Universal, 1991), 665.
53 Her two sisters continued dancing at the Paris Opéra later that season; in the press advertisements they appear as “Hullin” and “Hullin 3e” (Le Réveil, 27 April).
54 Kurier Warszawski, 12 Oct. 1823. Quoted in Jeffery, Fernando Sor, 77.
55 This raises the question, Was the principal aim of the Russian envoys in Paris to secure the services of Sor the composer, rather than Hullin the dancer? If so, then who followed
whom to Russia?
56 Lynn Garafola, “The Travesty Dancer in Nineteenth-Century Ballet,” Dance Research Journal 17 no. 2 and 18 no. 1 (1985–86): 36.
http://academiccommons.columbia.educatalog/ac:152248.html
57 Smith, “About the House,” 217.
58 “Fernand [sic] Sor, der früher in London Furore machte, … und bald ein Liebling der Damen wurde, sah sich genöthigt, wegen eines zärtlichen Abenteuers in einem der ersten
Häuser, das von Folgen war, London und England plötzlich zu verlassen und nach Frankreichs winkenden Küsten hinüber zu eilen.” Allgemeine Theaterzeitung und
Originalblatt für Kunst, Literatur, Musik, Mode und geselliges Leben, no. 36, 19 Feb. 1834, p. 144; there it is said to be taken from a recent review of a concert of Franz Stoll in
the Berliner Figaro (I have not had a chance to check that source). I am grateful to Gerhard Penn for allowing me to be the first to publicize this tantalizing notice.

guitarfoundation.org Soundboard Scholar No. 1 25