Handel and his Rivals

[Paul]

...neither Handel nor Bach was accounted the "top rank" of their profession in their own lifetime. ...In the field of Italian opera, it's an awkard truth that the operas written for the Royal Academy in London by Bononcini, Lotti, and Porpora consistently outsold Handel's operas for the same theatre (both in terms of numbers of seats sold, and number of performances which took place).  Even the argument that the public had gone "for the singers" will not cut the mustard, because the self-same singers & orchestra were performing in Handels' operas as his Academy colleagues - providing a perfect "test case" like-for-like comparison...

Well, with regard to Handel the above is attributable more to politics, petty rivalries among singers and partisanship between differing factions, than to anything concerning compositional prowess. A clear historical account of the whole saga was given in January 1785 by no lesser person than Charles Burney.

In Burney’s book entitled An Account of the Musical Performances in Westminster Abbey and the Pantheon, May 26th, 27th, 29th; and June the 3rd, and 5th, 1784 in Commemoration of Handel much interesting information is offered. So painstakingly does Burney thirst for historical truth that (as he indicates) some portions of the book were omitted or rewritten prior to publication in the light of clearer documentation that came to light. (The copy I own bears at the front the signature of Thomas Dupuis – composer and organist, who is listed as one of the Musical Directors of the Commemoration – with the date 1785, and this precedes a note undoubtedly in Burney’s own hand that reads “From the Author and the Royal Society of Musicians”...

...A few annotations and corrections by Burney himself are also to be found occasionally within the text.)

With regard to Handel’s perceived status we can see in Burney’s Preface on p. v a quote from Alexander Pope (an exact contemporary of Handel), together with an acerbic comment upon it by Burney:

Prior to this, on p. iii, Burney (who had, of course, been personally acquainted with Handel) wrote his own praise:

The difficult competition Handel faced – exacerbated by political machinations – is spelled out by Burney in the following with particular reference to Bononcini and Attilio (though with no mention as yet of the high-ranking supporters of these who, for purely political reasons, helped them wage war on Handel):

The epigram by Swift mentioned here is this:

Strange all this Difference should be
'Twixt Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee!

But actually these lines were only the final couplet of a slightly longer epigram originally by John Byrom (another contemporary commentator) who wrote (thereby originating the phrase ‘Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee):

Some say, compar'd to Bononcini
That Mynheer Handel's but a Ninny
Others aver, that he to Handel
Is scarcely fit to hold a Candle
Strange all this Difference should be
'Twixt Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee!

(To ‘tweedle’ meant simply to play upon an instrument in a trifling manner!)

The political machinations underlying Handel’s return from Dresden in 1720 are succinctly stated by Burney, who also accounts for the resounding success of Handel’s opera Radamisto which played to a packed house. Unfortunately already the partisanship surrounding the followers of Bononcini and Attilio were to the forefront, and Burney accounts for the “competition” arranged whereby the three composers were to collaborate in the composition of an opera called Mutius scaevole wherein the three Acts were set respectively by Bononcini, Attilio and  Handel. Burney says that Handel’s setting was acclaimed the best, with Bononcini’s coming a close second. Burney goes on to say that there was little to distinguish in quality between Handel and Bononcini, and that the latter possessed a superior mastery in setting the Italian language (which was appreciated only by the Italians). In craftsmanship, however, Handel was “superior”. He finally goes on to recount – showing the excessive partisanship of the English audiences – the bitter rivalry between two of the leading singers (Cuzzoni and Faustina), and how those who supported one applauded while the rest who supported the other hissed! Such was the political and social atmosphere of the time!...

Handel’s main difficulties seemed to be temperamental (which no doubt gave ammunition to his political and artistic adversaries).  As Burney recounts, his leading singers (notably Senesino) and instrumentalists deserted him (probably because they could no longer put up with his temper!). From that time onwards, Handel had to write for inferior singers whose singing styles were not to his liking. He lost, it seems, the motivation to write really distinguished music for his soloists, and Burney gives him credit at least for ‘making up’ in his writing with wonderful orchestral writing...

It seems, therefore, that Handel’s ultimate demise was his own short temper, and that this was played upon by his political opponents who strongly backed Handel’s musical rivals.

It should be remembered however that Bononcini was in England only between 1720 and 1732, whereas Handel arrived in London as early as 1712, and became a nationalised Briton in 1727 (remaining there until his death in 1759). Unlike Bononcini, he made a marked impact upon English music and taste, and his Commemoration festival marks this to good effect.

[IanP]

I'd just like to point out that the book of Burney mentioned by Paul can be downloaded, entirely for free (and entirely legally) in PDF form here.

[EDIT: This is a much fuller edition, which seems to resemble that posted by Paul.]

[Reiner Torheit]

The banana-skin under this argument, though, is that during the days of the Academy, the same team of singers (Durastanti, Bernardi aka "Senesino", Robinson, Boschi etc) was performing ALL the operas...   those of Handel, and of the other composers at the Academy too (Bononcini, Porpora, Lotti etc).  They were contracted by the Academy for this exact job.

This situation actually provides the perfect "science lab" test-bed,  since the circumstances were identical, and only the identity of the composer changes between the examples.

Handel is comprehensively out-performed and out-sold by the other composers in this period (with the only exception being GIULIO CESARE) - the stats on numbers of performances of each work survive.  They are given in the Appendix to this book:

[Paul]

But it is not really such a perfect "science lab" precisely because the specimens were contaminated by the infectious diseases of politics and partisanship. These have nothing per se to do with quality. There is no doubting the fact that the rival Opera of the Nobility - whether or not the same persons were engaged by the Royal Academy - outsold (and out-did) Handel and his troop. But this does not bear so much upon the relative qualities of the works concerned as upon the petty loyalties and wayward 'tribalism' of the English public, egged on at every stage by sponsors whose thoughts were more directed to political power and control than to the artistic merits of the competing composers.

That said, the works of Bononcini and Porpora were certainly of very high quality and fully deserved their success. That Handel faltered under their impact was in no way because his own efforts were artistically inferior, but rather because he was (by all accounts) a truly terrifying and shocking person to work with, and displayed such a short and violent temper that the best musicians (and indeed those Handel had expressly himself brought back to England from his journey to Dresden) turned against him, preferring instead to work with his rivals.

[Paul]

...And who could blame them too?! Handel was not a person I could possibly ever have worked with (given the opportunity). One of the pages Burney inserted into his book (based upon reliable evidence that came to light before its publication) contains as a footnote chilling accounts of the bullying and unprofessional manner in which Handel treated his singers.

On p. *24 is to be found the following account where Handel a) verbally abused a singer who questioned a piece he was expected to sing (Burney here through his spelling carefully reproducing Handel's abrupt and heavy Germanic accent), and b) threatened Cuzzoni (no less!) with murder unless she instantly obeyed his every command.

No wonder he was (despite his high artistic endeavours) shunned so openly!

[Reiner Torheit]

But it is not really such a perfect "science lab" precisely because the specimens were contaminated by the infectious diseases of politics and partisanship. These have nothing per se to do with quality. There is no doubting the fact that the rival Opera of the Nobility - whether or not the same persons were engaged by the Royal Academy - outsold

Apples and Oranges.  [...] your "Opera Of The Nobility" (a fiction of poor historians - such a troupe never existed under this name) was actually founded [...] In 1735!!  Prior to that, no such competition existed.  [...]

From 1720 to 1728 (the period of the "First Academy") Handel, Bononcini, Lotti and others all wrote equally for the troupe of the Royal Academy of Music... which was the only Italian opera in London, and existed by Royal Patent which forbade all others to stage Italian Opera.

...And who could blame them too?! Handel was not a person I could possibly ever have worked with (given the opportunity).

ROFL!!!

[...]

[Paul]

According to Burney the "First Academy" folded in 1729 - and presumably its patent died with it. The "Opera of the Nobility" (founded 1733/4 actually) takes its name (even if it never existed) it seems from Burney's account (line 2 below)...



This organisation based at Lincoln's Inn was, therefore, directly competing with the "Second Academy" which ran from 1729-1734. Burney's account indicates some of the effects of divided loyalties.

[Reiner Torheit]

According to Burney the "First Academy" folded in 1729 - and presumably its patent died with it.

The "First Academy's" productions ended in 1728...  although it was formally wound-up in 1729, that year's opera season had not yet begun. Handel & Heidegger re-purchased the effects (costumes, scenery, props, a harpsichord, sundry effects) of the Academy for a peppercorn price at Auction.  In fact a cynical outside observer might be tempted to cry "fix!"...  the opera season of 1728 had been a success.  Could it have been a "constructive bankruptcy" - which enabled Handel, Bononcini & Heidegger to rid themselves of the amateur management of dilettantist shareholders (the English noblemen who had first established the Academy after seeing Italian opera during their "Grand Tour" days in Italy)? 

A clear element of discord in the "First Academy" was the primacy accorded to the "poets", Rolli & Riva, in the running of the theatre.  But neither man was accomplished in the theatre in any way.  Their inadequacies as stage-directors  (poets were, by convention, supposed to stage their own work) were highlighted when Handel ditched their services as librettists in favour of Nicola Haym... a Roman jew employed in the orchestra as a cellist, and with no "literary" qualifications.  However, Haym's ready intellect must have taught him several things about writing and staging opera...

• the London audience couldn't understand the niceties of Italian verse, and tolerated it with some difficulty in dull plots
• the audience responded much better to well-staged pieces in which the meaning became plain from the action
• grand spectacle, battle scenes, glorious costumes, bedroom scenes, and intrigue sold well. Versifying didn't.
• the poets considered themselves too lofty to attend or direct rehearsals - leaving the action to the capricious nature of the performers. Haym, by contrast, held his own rehearsals, showed performers what he wanted and why, and stage-directed "in the modern manner"

Obviously the "poets" were most annoyed to have been sidelined in this way,  and that sidelining became complete when the "First Academy" closed-down and their services were dispensed with.  Haym first came to public attention in 1713 with TESEO, but it was his 1720 libretto for RADAMISTO (coincidentally Senesino's first appearance, although in the second cast) that established his credentials.  Handel's output in the 1723 & 1724 seasons were based entirely on Haym's work (Rolli wrote for Bononcini & Lotti only in those seasons),  and Handel scooped the board with four "hit" operas in a row.. OTTONE, FLAVIO, GIULIO CESARE & TAMERLANO...  all with Haym librettos, with scenery, costumes and stage-direction also by Haym.

However, if the "New Academy" was predicated on a partnership between Heidegger, Handel, Haym and Bononcini, Haym's sudden death in 1729 ended such hopes,  and the composers were forced to reach out to classical authors and existing librettos (Salvi, Pariati, Metastasio) for the works in the next year.  It's tempting to see some outside influence from Aaron Hill (who had written the libretto of RINALDO in English, and had Rossi render it into Italian) here - he clearly hoped to convince Handel to write in English.

[Paul]

Many thanks for that Reiner - a most interesting and insightful account. I'm particularly interested in the idea of the "put-up bankruptcy". From my reading of events, the whole escapade of opera management, Handel's role in it, and its changing patterns is shrouded in so much mystery and uncertainty. It's easy to go along with "accepted accounts", but I suspect that there is more to the whole thing than lies on the surface. They were funny times indeed!

I suppose Walpole's Licensing Act of 1737 (which still persisted until 1968!) put paid to all the smaller opera/theatre companies. I understand that it was intended to exercise strict control over (inter alia) Opera libretti and their content. But it seems to have been something of a 'straw man' there.

[Reiner Torheit]

I'm particularly interested in the idea of the "put-up bankruptcy". From my reading of events, the whole escapade of opera management, Handel's role in it, and its changing patterns is shrouded in so much mystery and uncertainty.

There may be nothing to it, of course - it's purely my own hypothesis.  But it does appear a bit fishy...  the opera is doing well, the performances are selling well...  then suddenly bankruptcy is declared..  a bankruptcy that removes the shareholders from the management of the theatre, removes the "poets" appointed by the shareholders as the "managers" (Rolli and Riva instantly disappear from the roster of librettists - presumably they packed their bags and returned to Italy, deprived of their salaries?)...  and a rigged auction puts all the assets of the theatre (and its Patent! Which was renewed) in the hands of a "Phoenix" management?  And the 1729 opera season goes on almost as normal?   Senesino is released from contract, and the lead castratos (who are, mysteriously, already contracted to take over?) are Annibale pio Fabri (known as "Il Balino") and Antonio Bernacci. A new star soprano appears - Anna Maria Strada...  and the extravagant personalities of the "Rival Queens" (Faustina Bordoni and Francesca Cuzzoni) are released.  (In fact Bordoni went to Dresden to take up an appointment, where she quickly contrived to make a fortunate marriage to the Kapellmeister and became Faustina Hasse).

You are right, of course, about the politics - but that kicked-in a bit later.  Primarily the cause was the split between Handel and Senesino... who had left London,  but came back for the 1732 season,  and lasted until 1734.  However, although he was employed at the Academy until 1734,  he sang nothing for Handel at all in the 1734 season... but the reason isn't clear.   Did he refuse to sing for Handel?  Or did Handel refuse to cast him?  Whatever the reason, Orlando (1733) was his final Handel role * - in which he sang opposite Strada (who was now singing under the name "del Po" after marriage).  Had the great man been sidelined?  His supporters began to generate a campaign of hate against Handel..  boycotting his premieres, and scheduling social events (anything from gambling evenings to horse-races) to clash with the opening nights of Handel operas.   

Finally in 1734 came the much-discussed "resignation" of Senesino.  The "Holy Handel" brigade of musicologists have long claimed that it came in June 1734, and that Senesino had been conniving behind Handel's back to open a rival Italian opera.  But this arises from a misreading of the documentation...  it wasn't in "June", but in January!   So the six months it took Senesino to set up his new company (which Burney called "The Opera Of The Nobility" since it was they who were his backers - but in reality it was Senesino's troupe) were absolutely out in the open and above board. 

But this raises a fresh question.  The "Holy Handel" musicologists, who cannot see anything wrong ever in Handel's behaviour (because he wrote those oratorios, and is therefore of unimpeachable character) claim that Handel dimissed Senesino for treachery, over planning the new Italian Opera behind Handel's back.  But if he didn't...  and was doing it openly since January of that year...  then WHY did Senesino resign?   Pamphleteers of the time claimed that Handel had fired Senesino... he hadn't "resigned".  And moreover, fired him in the most unpleasant and unfair of ways,  with no warning and "with no offence stated".  This might be entirely in character for the notoriously quick-tempered Handel, of course...  but clearly keeping Senesino on the Subs Bench for the entire previous season points to some longer-term rift between the two men.

A public eager to sieze upon the rift between the King and the Prince of Wales leapt on the chance to exploit this situation, since Handel enjoyed the King's patronage - but the Prince Of Wales was able to finance a rival opera project.  The cause of "poor Senesino" was taken up with eagernesss by the King's rivals.

Walpole, btw, hated Italian opera, and did everything he could to avoid having to attend performances ;)

* excluding the revival of OTTONE in 1734, which the "Opera Of The Nobility" presented in a rush to beat Handel himself to a fresh premiere. Handel found himself suddenly facing a rival production of his own opera, with the singers who had jumped ship.  And most critically of all, Senesino - who was enough of a businessman to put box-office takings ahead of personal pride - had contracted the new castrato star of Europe, Farinelli, to appear alongside him in the production.  It was the only time Farinelli sang a Handel role, despite claims made to the contrary in the film "Farinelli".  Handel is said to have bought himself a ticket in the centre of the stalls, plonked himself down with great condescension, and laughed all the way through the performance.

[Paul]

... Handel is said to have bought himself a ticket in the centre of the stalls, plonked himself down with great condescension, and laughed all the way through the performance.

I can believe that very easily!  ;D ;D ;D