Polymath of the Baroque: Agostino Steffani and His Music

Polymath of the Baroque: Agostino Steffani and His Music

COLIN TIMMS

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

P   B




Agostino Steffani as suffragan bishop of Münster: oil painting, , by Gerhard Kappers (Bertha Jordaan-van Heek Stiftung, Haus Welbergen, Ochtrup; by permission)

P   B
Agostino Steffani and His Music C T

1 

1

Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi São Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto

Copyright ©  by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.  Madison Avenue, New York, New York  www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Timms, Colin. Polymath of the baroque : Agostino Steffani and his music / Colin Timms. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN --- . Steffani, Agostino, ‒. . Composers—Italy—Biography. I. Title. ML.S T  '.— dc 

         Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

T    S

This page intentionally left blank

P




I first heard of Steffani on a Saturday morning in  or , when Philip Radcliffe mentioned his name and played a few bars of his music—on the piano—in one of his famous ‘history’ lectures to music undergraduates at the University of Cambridge. My interest in Italian composers was later encouraged there by Michael Talbot, then working on Albinoni, and at King’s College London by Thurston Dart, who supervised my M.Mus. on Severi and my earliest researches into Steffani. The presence of the latter’s autograph scores in the British Library made him an obvious choice for a Ph.D. dissertation on his chamber duets. I knew little of his operas, solo cantatas, or sacred music when I decided, in the s, to embark on this book: the work that was required to make good these deficiencies explains why it has taken so long to complete. Over the years I have incurred debts of gratitude to many people for assistance, encouragement, or advice. In addition to those named above, I am particularly grateful to Brian Trowell, for continuing supervision and support. The late Alec Hyatt King and especially Oliver Neighbour granted me liberal access to the Royal Music manuscripts in the British Library and to much else besides. Many other librarians, archivists, and curators, in this country, Europe, America, and elsewhere allowed me to examine their holdings in person, answered written enquiries, supplied photographic reproductions, and granted permission for them to be reproduced: I cannot name all of them here but gratefully acknowledge their assistance. Lowell Lindgren drew my attention to a new Steffani cantata and generously shared his discovery of the composer’s letters to Giuseppe Riva. Rebecca Herissone alerted me to the Steffani transcriptions in the Magdalene College partbooks. Other information or material was kindly given or lent by Donald Burrows, Tim Crawford, Victor Crowther, Elizabeth Dunstan, Harry Diack Johnstone, the late J. Merrill Knapp, Pierluigi Petrobelli, Howard Picton, Dorothea Schröder, Marianne Tilch, and Peter Wollny. For assistance of other kinds I am indebted to Andrew Barker, Benedict Benedikz, Eddy Bénimédourène, Irena Cholij, Desmond Costa, Norbert Dubowy, Nigel Fortune, Anna Greig, Rainer Heyink, Anthony Hicks, Ian Ledsham, Andrea Luppi, Monika Pfützenreutter, Paul and Lucia Roberts, Ruth Taylor, Richard Verdi, and John Whenham; I apologize to anyone inadvertently omitted. Jenny Whenham typed the first draft of chapters – ; Michael Talbot read and improved them and chapter ; Duncan Fielden produced the music examples. The research on which this study is based was made possible by financial assistance from many sources. I am grateful to the Italian government and the University

viii

 of London for funding research in Italy and the purchase of microfilms, respectively; to the Faculty of Arts, School of Performance Studies, School of Humanities, and Department of Music of the University of Birmingham for travel and research grants; to the British Academy, for overseas conference grants and small personal research grants; to the University of Birmingham, for periods of study leave; to the Arts and Humanities Research Board, for the period of research leave during which the first draft of this book was completed and the research grant that facilitated the inclusion of many music examples and illustrations; to the Handel Institute, for assistance with reproduction fees; and to the Georg-Friedrich-Händel-Gesellschaft and Bärenreiter Verlag for permission to reprint material from Händel-Jahrbuch, ; to colleagues, friends, and family, for patience and support; and to those at Oxford University Press who have assisted in the production of this volume. My greatest debt, however, is to my late wife, Sue, and our children, Naomi and Christopher. For many years Steffani was virtually a member of the family, and sometimes a very demanding one. Sue would have loved to see this book. C. T. Birmingham February 




C

List of Abbreviations

xi

A Note on Currencies Introduction

xiii

xv

P I: T L

 Castelfranco and Padua, – 



 Munich –

 Court and Chamber Musician Director of Chamber Music

 

 Hanover –

 Musical and Operatic Background Kapellmeister  Envoyé Extraordinaire 

 Düsseldorf  – Statesman and Bishop Musician 



 

 Apostolic Vicar of North Germany  – The Provostship of Seltz  Problems in Padua  Retirement and Return  Coda 

P II: T M

 The Sacred Works Psalmodia vespertina () Early Manuscript Works Sacer Ianus quadrifrons () Later Manuscript Works Doubtful Works 

    



x



 The Operas, I: General Survey

 Subject and Spectacle  Steffani’s Writing for the Voice  Aria Technique and Form  Instruments and Accompaniments  Duets  Overtures and Dances  Reception 

 The Operas, II: Case Studies

 Music and Drama in Alarico il Baltha  Niobe, Amphion, and Max Emanuel  Problems in the Revision of Alessandro  Ariosto, Mauro, and Steffani: Orlando generoso Arminio: Apologia pro Pasticcio  The Question of Tassilone 



 The Chamber Music

 Cantatas for Solo Voice  Chamber Duets  Canon and Chronology  Content and Style  Structure  Revisions  Reception  Other Works 

Conclusion:

Personality and Achievement



Documents  Steffani’s Autobiography ()  Steffani’s Letter to Giacomo Antonio Stievani () Arrangements for Opera in Munich in  

Appendix A:

Appendix B:

Catalogue of Steffani’s Musical Works

Appendix C:

Analyses of Steffani’s Operas

Notes



Bibliography Index







 

L  A




Bibliographical Abbreviations CE DBI DTB Grove MGG NCE Opera Grove RISM

The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton, – ) Dizionario biografico degli italiani, directed by Alberto Maria Ghisalberti (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana,  – ) Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Bayern (= Denkmäler Deutscher Tonkunst, Zweite Folge),  vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, then Augsburg: Filser,  – ) The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, nd ed., ed. Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell,  vols. (London: Macmillan, ) Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Friedrich Blume et al.,  vols. (Kassel: Bärenreiter,  –) New Catholic Encyclopedia (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, –; reprint Palatine, Ill.: Jack Heraty, ) The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, ed. Stanley Sadie and Christina Bashford,  vols. (London: Macmillan, ) Répertoire international des sources musicales (Kassel: Bärenreiter, and Munich: Henle,  –)

Libraries and Archives Libraries and archives are generally referred to by RISM sigla (which are listed also in Grove); the British Library, for example, is GB-Lbl. Two additional sigla have been devised: D-Mbsa I-Rscge

Munich, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Rome, Sacra Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione seu de Propaganda Fide xi

xii



Other Abbreviations and Conventions A B bc bsn C M MS(S) org rec S T va vn Acts/scenes: Clefs: Keys: Dates:

alto bass basso continuo bassoon cantus mezzo-soprano manuscript(s) organ recorder(s) soprano (male or female) tenor viola(s) violin(s) II/ means Act II, scene . G denotes a treble clef, C a tenor, etc. upper case denotes a major key, lower case a minor. Catholic countries employed New Style, which had been introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in , but protestant Hanover and England used Old Style until  March  and  September , respectively; Old Style was ten days behind New in the seventeenth century and eleven days behind in the eighteenth (Hatton, George I, ).

Letters perform various symbolic functions in this book. A poetical rhyme scheme is shown by a run of lower-case letters (for example, abba). Italic letters denote musical forms: lower case (aba) for internal (movement) form, upper case (ABA) for external (work) form. Melodic phrases in a piece of music are labelled in parentheses— (a), (b), etc.—in the text but without parentheses in the tables. Letters in single quotes (‘a’, ‘b’, etc.) refer to the aria types defined in Chapter  and shown in Appendix C, Table A.. In quotations from sources, abbreviations, when first used, are expanded, letters added being shown in italic; added words or explanations are given in square brackets. For translations from Latin I am grateful to Desmond Costa and Ruth Taylor; those from French, German, and Italian are my own.

A N  C




One cannot study the life of such a cosmopolitan figure as Steffani without considering the relative value of the currencies used in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe. The information that follows is taken largely from the articles on ‘Coins’ and on individual currencies in the first edition of Chambers, Cyclopaedia (), and partly from Fuld, The Book of World-Famous Music. South Germany and Austria used the gold and silver florin (or gulden) and the copper kreuzer and pfennig: there were  pfennigs to a kreuzer and  kreuzer to a florin. Central and northern Germany also used the silver thaler (‘dollar’ or ‘rixdollar’), which was worth  kreuzer; furthermore, the thaler was worth  groschen (or  pfennigs) in Leipzig and  marks (or  schillings) in Hamburg or Berlin. The florin (or gulden) was roughly equivalent to  shillings sterling, the thaler to s. d. (in Nuremberg) or s. d. (in Hamburg); there were therefore just under . thalers to the pound. Steffani wrote in  that  thalers were worth about one-third of a pound, or s. d. In Venice the silver ducat (or justin) was worth s. d., that is, just under three-quarters of a Roman scudo; the gold zecchino (sequin) was worth about s., or  thalers. It is hard to establish the purchasing power of such amounts. According to de Vries, who shows that exchange rates were relatively stable between  and , ‘the daily wage of skilled manual labor in Holland, where wages may well have been the highest in Europe, were usually near  guilder per day throughout most of the th and th centuries’ (Economy of Europe, p. x). If a Dutch labourer worked for  days, his annual earnings ( guilders) must have been equivalent to £ sterling, or  thalers. Steffani’s annual salary as Kapellmeister at Hanover was , thalers, plus expenses of  thalers per day. In  his employer, Duke Ernst August, paid  thalers for a pair of boots with buckles; at the same time, a calf cost  thaler  groschen, a goose cost  groschen, sixty eggs cost  groschen, and a pound of beef cost  pfennigs (Fischer, Musik in Hannover, ).

xiii

This page intentionally left blank

I




Steffani was a remarkable figure. Born in  at Castelfranco, on the Venetian terra firma, he was taken to Germany at the age of thirteen and, apart from three years in Italy, remained there— at the courts of Munich, Hanover, and Düsseldorf — for the rest of his life. He began as a musician — singer, organist, harpsichordist, and composer—but like many other artists became an accomplished courtier and diplomat. Unusually, however, he proved so adept in these roles that at Hanover he was given major diplomatic responsibility and at Düsseldorf was appointed president of the Palatine government. A prominent politician and administrator in middle age, in later years he was essentially a man of the church. Alongside music and diplomacy, and threading through both, he had pursued an ecclesiastical career that culminated in his appointment as bishop of Spiga and apostolic vicar of north Germany. He thus was deeply involved in affairs of church and state at a time of great upheaval in Europe. It would be difficult for one person to write a truly comprehensive account of such a versatile and industrious figure. The emphasis in this book is on Steffani’s musical activities and compositions: his diplomatic and ecclesiastical careers are discussed, but mainly to round out a portrait of the man, gain insight into his character, and thus inform an assessment of his musical works. One justification for this approach, perhaps, is that while his achievements as a diplomat and bishop have been overtaken by subsequent events, his music survives and can still be performed and enjoyed. During his lifetime his musical activities probably helped to smooth his path in public life, while his eminence as a man of affairs lent his compositions a curiosity value that they would otherwise have lacked. He may have been regarded as a phenomenon, but he was widely loved and respected. He was also extremely well known. Today he is little more than a name in the histories of music, and his compositions are largely unknown. The neglect is entirely unjustified: Steffani was one of the finest composers of his age. Alfred Einstein described him as ‘obviously the greatest Italian composer between Carissimi and Scarlatti’;1 for Scarlatti one might substitute Handel. A wonderful melodist and skilled contrapuntist, he also possessed a finely tuned ear for harmony (horizontal as well as vertical), texture, and the sonorities of voices and instruments. Sensuous beauty, elegance, and grace are the hallmarks of his music, which also displays a scrupulous attention to the rhythm, sound, and meaning of words, and to the subtleties of dramatic situation. He made a decisive contribution to the development of opera in Germany and was universally admired for his chamxv

xvi

 ber duets, ‘the smoothly finished counterpoint of which even Handel could only imitate but not surpass’.2 In an age when Italian musicians found employment all over Europe, Steffani was one of the most enduring links between his native land and the north—not just Germany, but England as well (he was president of the Academy of Vocal, later named Ancient, Music) — and one of the earliest and most effective channels through which the French style was disseminated in Germany and combined with the Italian to form the musical language of Handel and Bach. In historical terms he was a bridge between the mid- and the late Baroque and between the French and Italian styles, both of which he cultivated on German soil. Handel and Bach are only the greatest of the composers who came under his influence in the early eighteenth century. Information on Steffani began to appear soon after his death: Mattheson listed some of his operas in his chronology of Hamburg productions in Der musicalische Patriot () and praised him in Der vollkommene Capellmeister (); Walther drew on Mattheson for his entry on Steffani in his Musicalisches Lexikon (). But a major milestone was reached with the publication in about  of the Memoirs of the Life of Sig. Agostino Steffani, some time Master of the Electoral Chapel at Hanover, and afterwards Bishop of Spiga. Since these predate Mainwaring’s Memoirs of the Life of the Late George Frederic Handel (), they may be regarded as the earliest biography of a composer; unlike Mainwaring’s Memoirs, however, they were anonymous, undated, and printed in large oblong format for binding into manuscripts of their subject’s duets. They were reprinted in  in The Gentleman’s Magazine, with a letter identifying their author as John Hawkins. A note in a copy of the Memoirs in the British Library states that they were ‘Probably printed by John Johnson, [Cheap]side, London’.3 According to Walpole, they were published in , but they must have been printed by mid-August , when Hawkins sent a copy to James Harris, a supporter of Handel and father of the first earl of Malmesbury.4 Hawkins’s principal source, as he himself wrote, was ‘Mr Handel, to whose laudable concern for the memory of this great genius [Steffani], as also to that of the truly learned Dr Pepusch, the author of these memoirs is indebted for the greater part of his information’. Hawkins gathered his information in ‘the early part’ of his life5 — that is, probably the s, when he became a member of the Academy of Ancient Music and acquainted with Pepusch (his interest in Steffani may have been quickened by the latter’s association with the academy). Factual details in the Memoirs are occasionally garbled or suspect (the memories of Handel and Pepusch could be unreliable), but the portrait of Steffani that emerges is broadly accurate and sympathetic. The first substantial account of his life in Italian was published in Venice in . Its author, the music theorist, mathematician, and architect Count Giordano Riccati, may have been prompted to write his account by the commendation of Steffani that had appeared in Padre Martini’s Esemplare, ossia Saggio fondamentale ( –), although he did not rely on it. As a native of Castelfranco, he may also have been motivated by local pride, for he made use of local historical information and of the collection of Steffani’s papers in the archives of the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide in Rome (now known as the Fondo Spiga). Given the nature of these sources, it is understandable that Riccati’s account is rather patchy, but it remains, nevertheless, an original and valuable contribution.

 A new era in the history of Steffani studies was opened by Friedrich Chrysander, whose discussion of the composer in his biography of Handel (– ) is still one of the most comprehensive accounts of his life and works. Drawing on archives and libraries in north Germany, Chrysander examined Steffani’s sacred music and chamber duets in some detail and sought to establish his output of operas at Hanover. Discussion of the latter was hampered, however, by the fact that Chrysander knew only two of the scores: Le rivali concordi and La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo. Access to the Steffani sources in the Royal Music Library was enjoyed by W. G. Cusins, author of the remarkable article on him in the first edition of Grove’s Dictionary. A performer, composer, and Master of the Queen’s Music, Cusins responded enthusiastically and perceptively to Steffani’s works: it was he, not Chrysander, who recognized La lotta as a piece from which Handel had borrowed in Theodora. Further light was shed on Steffani’s life in the decades around . Between  and  Franz Wilhelm Woker painted a detailed picture of his ecclesiastical career, providing a context for Adolph Tibus’s account () of his period as suffragan of Münster. The background to his achievements as a composer was sketched in histories of music or opera at Munich, Hanover, and Düsseldorf, and Arthur Neisser’s dissertation on his opera Servio Tullio was published in . The same decades witnessed the edition of archival materials relating to Steffani, including correspondence with patrons, and culminated in Einstein’s detailed study () of his Munich years. Acquaintance with his music was encouraged by the publication in , , and  of three volumes in the Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Bayern: one contained chamber duets, cantatas, and motets; another, the opera Alarico il Baltha; and the third, extracts from his other operas. The third volume also included an essay by Hugo Riemann on ‘Steffani as Opera-composer’. An assessment of his cantatas, by Eugen Schmitz, followed in .6 Since World War II the volume of research on Steffani has grown significantly. In  and  Josef Loschelder published extracts from letters in the Fondo Spiga, and five years later William Baxter Jr. completed a dissertation on his life and works. New biographical information was found by Nicoletta Billio D’Arpa (– ); the Fondo Spiga was inventoried by Michael Feldkamp (), and Steffani’s correspondence with Giuseppe Riva was edited (Timms, ; Lindgren and Timms, forthcoming). His operas, too, attracted increasing attention. Gerhard Croll edited Tassilone (), completed a bibliographical study of his life and dramatic works (), produced an essay on his Düsseldorf operas (), and contributed the ‘Steffani’ article to MGG (). Three years earlier, Andrea Della Corte had discussed Alarico and Tassilone; three years later, Philip Keppler investigated Steffani’s Hanover operas, later the subject of a dissertation by Candace Marles (). The political background to these operas had been provided by Georg Schnath in his monumental Geschichte Hannovers (– ), while the artistic context was painted by Heinrich Sievers (, ), Schrewe and Schmidt (), Wallbrecht (), and Schneider (). Two of Steffani’s Hanover operas have been published in facsimile editions — the two that were known by Chrysander. The time is now ripe for an assessment of Steffani’s music in relation to its contexts. The study presented in this volume is partly a work of synthesis, partly the fruit

xvii

xviii

 of original research. The biographical chapters are indebted to the findings of earlier scholars, but they also incorporate new material from archives, especially those in Munich, Hanover, and Rome, and the discussion of Steffani’s music is based on personal examination of the scores and librettos. As the first published book on Steffani’s life and music, this volume must serve an introductory purpose. It is hoped that it will increase awareness and appreciation of the composer and his works and stimulate interest in both among scholars, performers, music lovers, and those interested in Italian culture in northern Europe in the years around . It will not be the last word on its subject. As I finished writing, I acquired a copy—too late in one sense — of Claudia Kaufold’s -page book () on Steffani’s diplomatic activity at Hanover. A similar volume could be written on every other phase of his extraordinary career. Letters from Steffani, and documents about him, must be lying, awaiting discovery, in many of the courtly archives of Europe. If his Hanover operas seem likely to yield a crop of new Handel ‘borrowings’,7 the production of La libertà contenta at the Barber Institute, University of Birmingham, in November  showed that his stage works have the power to move and entertain a modern audience.8 Further research remains to be done, and it promises to yield important and exciting results.

P I
T L

This page intentionally left blank


C  P  ‒

Castelfranco is a pleasant, fortified town, situated in the fertile plain to the northwest of Venice and marking the intersection of several important routes—from Venice to Bassano, Trent, and Bolzano; from Padua north to Asolo and Belluno; and from Treviso west to Vicenza. Less than  kilometres to the north the land begins to rise toward the foothills of the Dolomites; from there the River Lástego flows down via Castelfranco to join the Brenta near Padua. The town is dominated by its handsome castle surrounded by a moat, with its straight walls and imposing tower over the east gate (Fig. .). The fortress was built in – by the comune of Treviso as a defence against the Paduans, who responded by building a similar castle at nearby Cittadella. Almost perfectly square in design, the fortress of Castelfranco had four gates and bridges and eight towers. When it was finished, Treviso sent a colony of one hundred noble families to occupy it, granting them houses and farms free of taxes and charges: hence the name ‘Castelfranco’. During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the most turbulent period in its history, the city was dominated by a variety of powers, but in , along with Treviso, it finally came under the jurisdiction of Venice. It remained so until the fall of the Venetian Republic in . Apart from the years  –, following the League of Cambrai, and despite the later wars of succession in Spain and Poland, in which Venice was neutral but her territories were traversed by belligerents, these four centuries of Venetian rule were a period of relative peace and stability. The tallest tower of the castle still proudly displays the symbol of Venice, the lion of St Mark, which was brought to Castelfranco by the Venetian patrician Pietro Gradenigo in the sixteenth century. Inside the castle walls, in the centre, stands the cathedral of San Liberale. One of its chapels houses a celebrated painting of the Virgin Enthroned with Saints George and Francis by Giorgione, who was born in the town in about . It is here, in the (then) church of Santa Maria e San Liberale, on  July , that Steffani was baptised.1 He was one day old. His parents were Camillo and Paolina de Stievani; there were two godfathers — Gherardo Gherardini and Domenigo Rubini—but apparently no godmother. Steffani never forgot that he was a subject of the Most Serene Republic of Venice. Information on his background is found in a manuscript ‘Catalogo historico cronologico . . . di Castelfranco’, compiled between  and  by Nadal [Natale] Melchiori,2 an artist who was born there in . ‘Stievani’ was the local dialectal form of the family name, of which the normal spelling would have been ‘Stefani’, with the 



 

       .  Castelfranco in the eighteenth century (La cinta muraria di Castelfranco): oil painting, studio of Pietro Longhi (Comune di Castelfranco Veneto; by permission)

stress on the first syllable. Agostino inserted an extra ‘f ’ when he settled in Germany, to ensure that this stress would be retained. His ancestors moved to Castelfranco in about  from Padua, but more distant forbears can be traced to Venice. In  a certain Giulia Fermana (or Perina) Da Ponte left them some houses in the contrada (district) of San Marcuola, in the vicinity of the Ghetto; the deeds later fell into the hands of the Labia family, and Steffani tried to retrieve them when he was in Padua in .3 Shortly after his death in , his cousin, Antonio Scapinelli, archpriest of Castelfranco, drew up a family tree in support of his claim to a share of Steffani’s estate (Fig. .).4 From this it emerges that Agostino’s father married twice. His first wife, Helena, bore a daughter, Helena Perina (born  June ) but died in childbirth or shortly thereafter. His second wife, Paolina Terzago, who may have been a cousin, bore seven children, of whom the only ones to reach maturity were her first son, Ventura Giacomo (born  January ); her fifth, Agostino; and her only daughter, Ippolita (born  July ). Agostino appears to have been named after his closest brother, Agostino Francesco (born  December ). Their father probably died in ,5 but their mother lived for a further ten years, attaining the age of seventy-two.6 There is little information on the family’s status or circumstances. Even the occupation of Steffani’s father remains unknown. Hawkins, presumably relaying information from Handel, wrote that the composer’s parents ‘were not distinguished for their rank in life’,7 but the document nominating him as bishop in  states that he came from a respectable Catholic family (‘ex Catholicis honestisque parentibus’),8 and Steffani’s autobiographical letter of that year spells out what kind of luxury the word

   ‒ Gasparo = Paolina Terzago

Giacomo

(1) Helena = Camillo = (2) Paolina Terzago

Angela = Bartolomeo Scapinelli

Helena Perina (b. 29.6.45)

Pietro Giovanni (b. 11.8.49) Ventura Giacomo (b. 2.1.48)

Agostino Francesco (b. 3.12.52)

Francesco Innocente (b. 28.12.50)

Ippolita (b. 19.7.56)

Agostino (b. 25.7.54)

Francesco Domenico (b. 2.9.57)

Antonio Scapinelli (d. 1735), archpriest of Castelfranco

?

Antonio Scapinelli Doctor of Medicine, known 1713 and 1718 Bartolomeo Scapinelli Doctor of Law, 1731

 .

Steffani’s immediate family in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

‘honestus’ could imply.9 Melchiori included the family in a register of those ‘who were, and are, of good standing in the generality of the citizens (‘cittadini’) and accustomed to enter the councils of the community’.10 If the cittadini of Castelfranco belonged to the layer of society immediately below the patriciate, as did those of Venice, the Steffani were probably a professional family and reasonably well off. This was evidently the case with the Terzago, and apparently with the Scapinelli, with whom, also, the Steffani were related by marriage: Antonio’s cousin, another Antonio, was a doctor of medicine and was elected ‘cavalier di comun’ at the first attempt in ; his son Bartolomeo graduated as a doctor of law at the University of Padua in . It was with Ventura and Agostino, however, that the Steffani achieved distinction. Melchiori’s account of the family is concerned almost exclusively with these brothers. Like Agostino, Ventura studied music as a boy; in , at about nineteen years of age, he published a book of poetry. At some stage he was adopted by his wealthy maternal uncle Marc’Antonio Terzago, ‘collaterale’ (treasurer or chief cashier) of Padua, whose surname he used throughout his distinguished career and whose fortune he inherited. How much money Ventura possessed is not known, but when Venice attempted to raise funds to finance the War of Candia (– ), his friends tried in vain to persuade him to purchase noble status at a cost of , Venetian ducats. Like his younger brother, he also served two electors of Bavaria as librettist, secretary, and counsellor; Steffani set four of his librettos. In  Ventura himself was appointed ‘collaterale’ of Padua, whither he returned in  to discharge his responsibilities ‘con prudenza e splendore’.11 He died of a fever at Brugine on  October  at the age of forty-five.12 Agostino assumed, since Ventura did not marry,





  that he would be his brother’s principal heir, but he seems to have inherited little of his fortune.13 Though Castelfranco saw his birth, Padua is the place that Steffani came to regard as his home town (‘patria’). An ancient city and the see of a bishop, Padua had long been an important religious, cultural, and commercial centre. In addition to the Giotto frescoes in the Scrovegni chapel (the Madonna dell’Arena, built in ), the city could boast one of the oldest universities in Europe and the famous Basilica del Santo. At the university, founded in , Prosdocimus de Beldemandis had taught music in the fifteenth century and Galileo had been professor of mathematics for eighteen years ( –). Dante, Petrarch, Bembo, and Tasso had been counted among its students, who in the seventeenth century numbered roughly ,. The basilica is the shrine of St Anthony, a Franciscan friar and priest, celebrated for the eloquence of his preaching, who died at Padua in  at the age of thirty-six. Building began in  and continued into the fifteenth century; bronzes for the high altar and a choir screen of marble were furnished by Donatello. The choir itself, the ‘cappella’, was officially established in ; two great organs were completed in , and a third was added in . Secular music was encouraged in the sixteenth century by a variety of learned academies and in the seventeenth by Pio Enea degli Obizzi, a local nobleman and generous patron of the arts.14 Opera came to Padua, in the shape of Domenico Gabrielli’s Mauritio, at the relatively late date of . Steffani was sent to school in Padua and there made a number of life-long friends. Riccati’s statement that his first studies were undertaken ‘in patria’ with teachers maintained by the comune15 may refer to his early years in Castelfranco, but the composer himself informs us that he studied in Padua ‘with many other boys’.16 Among these was the young Count Girolamo Frigimelica Roberti, who as a poet was to write librettos for Carlo Francesco Pollarolo, Alessandro Scarlatti, and Caldara and to become principe of the Accademia dei Ricovrati in Padua, and as an architect designed villas in Padua, Vicenza, Modena, and Stra. Steffani recalled their childhood in a letter of : ‘I should be all the more sensible of such a dear memory, for neither the passing of fifty years, nor the distance of a thousand miles, nor the horrible parapet of the frozen Alps has been able to make me forget the consideration with which Your Most Illustrious Lordship honoured me at the beginning of my adolescence’.17 Another schoolfriend, Angelo Maria De’ Lazzara, became a canon of the Basilica del Santo; on  March  Frigimelica Roberti wrote to Steffani from ‘la stanza del nostro Signor Abbate Lazara’ in Venice.18 Melchiori says that Steffani maintained a palace (‘teneva di continuo palaggio’) in Padua, but this seems unlikely: in  he stayed in Ca’ Contarini and in the palace of Frigimelica Roberti, who was then in Modena,19 before finding accommodation of his own. It was also in Padua that Steffani embarked in earnest on his musical education and career. From October  to July , when he was between the ages of ten and thirteen, he was a treble in the choir of the Basilica del Santo.20 The cappella during this period comprised about sixteen singers, three violinists, two players of the viola and one or two of the violone, one bassoonist, and three organists; in  and  there was also a theorbist. The maestro di cappella was Antonio Dalla Tavola, who had published a collection of Masses for three to eight voices and continuo (Venice, )

   ‒ and composed the music for L’amor pudico, an equestrian ballet devised by Pio Enea degli Obizzi and performed in Padua in .21 Dalla Tavola was highly regarded at the Santo as a musician and organizer of musical events. When he died in , he owned over two hundred manuscript compositions and about one hundred printed collections of music, including works by such north Italian composers as Costanzo Porta, Giovanni Croce, Monteverdi, Alessandro Grandi, and Giovanni Rovetta, and the Roman Orazio Tarditi. He presumably introduced Steffani to some of this repertory, as well as to the rudiments of music: the hexachords and solmization, the church modes, and the intricacies of mensural notation. Such experience as a choirboy was decisive for Steffani’s development as a composer: it explains why his works are nearly all vocal and how he became such a master of melody. His talent was clearly prodigious. He must have shown before going to Padua that he had a promising voice and an aptitude for music, as well as a high level of general intelligence. At his audition for the cappella of the Santo he sang with ‘vivacity’ and to the ‘great satisfaction’ of all present. Even at the age of ten, he was paid at a relatively high rate. During some months of his employment, he and a falsettist, Anselmo Marconi, were the only sopranos available, although there should have been four, which was the average number of singers in each of the other voice ranges. He must, therefore, have had a strong voice, possibly a beautiful one, with accurate intonation and a reliable technique. That he was better than the average choirboy of his age is suggested by the fact that he was frequently asked to sing on special occasions elsewhere—for example, in Ferrara on the feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross (May , at the request of ‘Marchese Obizi’ [probably Pio Enea], and May ), in Vicenza (May ), in Monselice on the feast of St James (July  and ), and at two churches in Padua, the Eremitani (August  and May ) and the Gesuiti (Good Friday, ). There may have been other such occasions, for he was often recorded as absent. At the ages of eleven and twelve he also sang in opera in Venice. The opportunity for this arose from the presence at the basilica of Carlo Pallavicino, who was roughly twenty years older than Steffani and about to make his name as an opera composer. Pallavicino has long been known as an organist in Padua from December  to August , prior to his appointment as vice-Kapellmeister at Dresden, but it is now known that he was active at the Santo from as early as , first as a treble, then from , after his voice had broken, as a tenor. During carnival  he sang in an opera in Venice, and in late February he was appointed third organist in Padua, a new post entitled ‘organista ai concerti’. In January  he wrote to the ‘Presidenti dell’Arca’, the governors of the basilica, requesting permission to take Steffani, Antonio Viviani (bass), and Nicolò Piva (violin) to Venice, to appear in an opera of his own composition; he promised that they would be back in Padua for the celebration of the ‘Santissima Lingua’, the feast of the Translation of the Tongue of St Anthony, on  February. Permission was granted, and the threesome presumably took part in the première of Pallavicino’s first opera, Demetrio, at the Teatro San Moisè; Steffani probably sang one of the two ‘young’ roles — Aurilla, the daughter of Demetrio, or Zerbillo, a page22 —and thus became familiar at an early age with the musical style and the world of Venetian opera.





  His performance must have made a good impression, for in the following December one of the ‘presidenti’, Ubertino Descalzo, acting on behalf of the podestà (the Venetian governor) of Padua, Carlo Ruzini, asked his colleagues to allow Steffani to sing in Venice again, in an opera during the forthcoming carnival. Permission was granted, as before, but this time the prodigy did not arrive back in time for the ‘Santissima Lingua’ and was consequently suspended from duty. Apologizing to the ‘presidenti’, he insisted that he had wanted to honour his commitment but had been prevented from returning by a very important person (‘sogetto riguardevole’): maybe a nobleman had so enjoyed his performance in the theatre as to command him to sing again, possibly on more than one occasion and possibly in private. Steffani asked to be reinstated in his post, and his request was granted on account of his long and good service (‘longa servitù et buon servitio’). The episode suggests that, even at the tender age of twelve, he had a good idea of his own worth, could see that the authorities at the basilica needed him, and knew how to elicit the desired response from his superiors—a skill that would prove useful in later life. The last document relating to him at the Santo is a simple statement of his leaving to enter the service of the elector of Bavaria: ‘. Luglio [Agostino da Castelfranco] Andò a servir l’Altezza Serenissima del Duca di Baviera’. Hawkins conjectured that Steffani had, ‘in his infancy, been a singer in the choir of some neighbouring cathedral church, or chapel’ and asserted that the youngster ‘had not served above two years in the choir, when a nobleman of Germany, who had been at Venice to be present at the diversions of the carnival, happened, upon some public occasion, to hear him sing, and was so pleased with his voice and behaviour, and those signs of genius, which by this time he began to discover, that upon application to the chapel-master, he procured his discharge from the choir, and took him to Bavaria, the place of his residence’.23 This account, which presumably was passed on by Handel, is confirmed by Steffani in his autobiographical letter of July  to Count Antonio Maria Fede, the Tuscan and Palatine diplomatic resident in Rome during the Saxon’s years in the city: ‘I was taken to the first [court] as a boy by the late Elector Ferdinand Maria who, when I was presented to him in Padua, where I studied with many other boys, was attracted by a certain something about me — to what end I do not know — and, having taken me to Munich with him, placed me in the care of Count Tattenbach, his then master of the horse’. 24 Elsewhere in this letter Steffani claimed to have served the Bavarian court for twenty-two years, which, since he left there in , would mean that he arrived in . Ferdinand Maria had planned to go to Italy that year, but his visit was postponed to . The electoral party left Munich on  April, travelled via Trent and Verona, reached Padua on  May, and arrived in Venice on  May.25 On  June they left again for Padua, where they stayed, in the Castello Cattaio, until  July; during these five weeks they went to Mass and Vespers at a number of local churches, including the Basilica del Santo. It is probably here that they heard Steffani sing, not on the stage in Venice and not during carnival.26 His statement that he was presented to the elector in Padua is unequivocal and credible, but the idea that he did not know why the elector was interested in him is a self-effacing fiction reflecting the fact that,

   ‒ when he wrote this letter, he was on the verge of nomination as a bishop and anxious to conceal his musical past. That the electoral party travelled back to Munich via Castelfranco lends further weight to the accounts of both Steffani and Hawkins. Before taking the boy to Munich, the elector presumably wanted to consult his parents. The latter must have been apprehensive: Agostino was very young, and they could not know what would become of him in a foreign land. But they may also have felt honoured and excited: at Munich he would receive a good Catholic education, make contacts at court, and have far greater opportunities for advancement than he would, as their younger son, at home. The offer could hardly be refused, and five years later Steffani’s father evidently felt that the family had been right to accept it.27 The party continued its journey with little delay, travelling via Bassano, Trent, Bressanone (Brixen), Innsbruck, and Tegernsee. They reached Munich on Monday,  July , Steffani’s thirteenth birthday.




M ‒

Munich must have made an immediate impression on the thirteen-year-old Steffani.1 Founded in the twelfth century by Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony and Bavaria, who fortified an ancient monastic settlement (‘Mönche’ [Ger.]: monks) that had grown up on the banks of the River Isar, the city had been the seat of the ruling Wittelsbach dukes for more than four hundred years and capital of Bavaria for over a century. The elevation of the duchy to an electorate—the eighth in the so-called Holy Roman Empire—in  had made the Wittelsbachs one of the most powerful dynasties in Europe (an elector was one of the small number of German princes entitled to take part in the election of the emperor). The prestige of the Wittelsbachs was displayed in the splendid buildings of the electoral residence (‘Residenz’: Fig. .), which were enlarged and improved in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and housed a magnificent library and art collection. Music at the court had flourished in the later sixteenth century under Orlande de Lassus, with whom both Andrea and Giovanni Gabrieli had come to work, but the establishment had been reduced on the accession of Maximilian I in . During the Thirty Years’ War (–) Munich had been occupied by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, and the population of the city had fallen from , to ,; it had recovered by . After the war, however, the chapel had been restored and the foundations laid for Munich’s illustrious tradition of opera. North of the Alps only Vienna and Paris, and possibly Dresden, could rival Munich in the later seventeenth century as a place where the talents of a musical and intelligent Italian youth could be developed. The cultural orientation of the court during this period reflected political and geographical factors. The Wittelsbach electors were hungry for power and anxious to be regarded as rivals of the Austrian Hapsburgs; they bolstered their position by repeatedly entering into alliance with the French. On the other hand, when Vienna was threatened by the Turks, Bavaria came to her aid. The Wittelsbachs were sandwiched between Hapsburgs and Bourbons, the Empire and France, but lacked the power to stand up to either. Their position was reflected in, and reinforced by, the electors’ marriages: Maximilian I and his grandson Maximilian II Emanuel espoused Austrians in  and , respectively, while in  Ferdinand Maria, Steffani’s patron, married Henrietta Adelaide of Savoy, a cousin of Louis XIV (Figs. . and .). During the second half of the century the Wittelsbachs adapted and erected buildings in the Munich Residenz and in the city and its environs.2 In preparation for Ferdinand Maria’s wedding celebrations, Maximilian I converted a granary into an 

 ‒

       .  The electoral residence (‘Residenz’) in Munich: engraving, ca. , by Michael Wening (Münchner Stadtmuseum; by permission)

opera house, a development completed in . Ferdinand Maria expressed gratitude (and relief ) at the birth of Maximilian Emanuel in  by commissioning the construction, just outside the Residenz, of an enormous new church dedicated to Cajetan, a founder of the Theatine order and patron of Bavaria since ; the church was inspired by that of Sant’Andrea della Valle in Rome and built between  and  (the façade was added in the s). Construction had scarcely begun before the elector started work on a magnificent new summer residence, the Nymphenburg palace, in the country to the west of the city. St Cajetan (the ‘Theatinerkirche’) and the Nymphenburg palace were both being built when Steffani arrived. Seven years later the Residenz was damaged by fire; the process of restoration extended over thirty years—the last five of Ferdinand Maria’s life ( –) and the first quarter-century of his son’s reign. Maximilian II Emanuel also instigated the building, on the north side of Munich, of the miniature Lustheim palace, modelled on the Palazzo Madama in Rome, and the extensive palace of Schleißheim, which was inspired by Versailles. French cultural influence grew stronger than Italian in the eighteenth century, predominating in the work of the two François Cuvilliés, father and son. Munich was one of the first places north of the Alps where Italian opera was embraced.3 Drama with music had been known there for a very long time: medieval school dramas had been followed by the Latin plays of the Jesuits, who had been invited to settle by Albrecht V in ; Italian commedia dell’arte, with music by Lassus, had been presented in  on the wedding of Duke Wilhelm and Renée of Lorraine; and





 

       .  Elector Ferdinand Maria of Bavaria: oil painting, ca. , studio of Stefano Bombelli (Residenzmuseum München, Foto BSV; by permission of the Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen)

a five-hour comedy with four changes of scene had been sung in the Residenz in February . But it was Ferdinand Maria and Henrietta Adelaide who introduced opera. Only sixteen when she married, Henrietta was an amateur singer, guitarist, and poet, and, having been brought up in Turin, essentially Italian in outlook. In , the year of his accession, Ferdinand Maria appointed as court chaplain and harpist an Italian, Giovanni Battista Maccioni, who both taught the young electress to play the harp and collaborated with her on a number of librettos. Two years later, for a visit of Emperor Ferdinand III, Maccioni wrote the words and music of a dramatic cantata, L’arpa festante, that laid the foundations for the history of opera in Munich.

 ‒

       .  Electress Henrietta Adelaide: oil painting, ca. , studio of Stefano Bombelli (Residenzmuseum München, Foto Schmidt/Nietmann [BSV]; by permission of the Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen)

The cultivation of opera, ballet, and music in general was strongly encouraged by the elector and electress, and especially by Henrietta Adelaide, who attracted numerous Italian musicians, literati, architects, painters, and craftsmen to the court. Dramatic works were performed, from , in the converted granary, the earliest large, free-standing theatre building in Germany. Known at first as the ‘Comœdihaus’ and later as the ‘Salvatortheater’, it was inaugurated as an opera house by La ninfa ritrosa, composed possibly by the court singer Pietro Zambonini. Oronte, the first opera by the Kapellmeister, Johann Caspar Kerll, was produced in . In the next ten years, and in most decades after Steffani’s arrival, there was at least one new opera a year.





  Only three of the librettos name Kerll as composer, but he probably wrote about eight. The birth of Maximilian Emanuel in  was celebrated by a threefold musicodramatic extravaganza: a ‘drama regio musicale’ Fedra incoronata (opera), a ‘drama guerrieroso’ Antiopa giustificata (tourney), and a ‘drama di foco’ Medea vendicativa (fireworks display).4 Having returned to Italy in , Maccioni assisted, as Bavarian agent in Rome, in the recruitment of Kerll’s successor, Ercole Bernabei, who, together with his son Giuseppe Antonio, composed all the Munich operas and tourneys between  and . Munich’s achievements in opera during the third quarter of the century would bear comparison with those of any city other than Venice. Information on the court’s musical establishment may be gleaned from the ‘Besoldungsbücher’—annual ledgers recording payments to court employees of all kinds.5 The entries in each book are grouped according to administrative department. Musicians appear under two headings—‘Musicanten’ and ‘Instrumentisten und Trometer’ (or ‘Trombpetter’, etc.—the spelling varies). One might assume that the ‘Musicanten’ were singers, but the categories are not entirely separate: the instrumentalist and singer Johann Christoph Pez appears as a ‘Musicant’,6 while the ‘Cammer Musicus und Harpfenist’ (harpist) Diego Calvani is listed among the ‘Instrumentisten’. When Kerll became Kapellmeister in , the musical establishment comprised nineteen singers, three organists, seventeen instrumentalists, and fifteen to twenty trumpeters.7 The figures were very similar in , when Kerll was succeeded by Ercole Bernabei, although by then there were slightly more singers and marginally fewer instrumentalists. Eleven of the ‘Musicanten’, including Bernabei and Steffani, were Italians; two of the ‘Instrumentisten’ were harpists, one a lutenist, and another a cornettist; none of the musicians was a woman. During the s, increases in some areas were largely offset by reductions in others, but there was also a significant change: between  and , the period of Steffani’s Munich operas, the number of bowed string instrumentalists rose from three to eight.8 The ledgers also indicate the relative value attached to the various posts and their incumbents. The extremes are represented by the Kapellmeister (, florins per annum) and the choirboys ( florins each). An exceptionally high salary of  florins was paid to a small number of selected ‘Musicanten’ described as ‘first-class’ (‘di prima Classe’),9 but most instrumentalists, including trumpeters and string players, received between  and  florins; a court organist could count on . Salaries were paid quarterly; a pro rata payment was calculated precisely when an employee arrived or left during a quarter, and his wife or heir normally received his salary for the quarter in which he died. Many musicians regularly received an ‘addition’—an extra payment or a fee for some special duty. Franz Zeiller was given  florins extra in  and  – for teaching the ‘discantist’ Alexander Hackh or Hagge the viola da gamba;10 the organist Georg Zellner received  florins for tuning keyboard instruments;11 Johann Carl Seyringer earned  florins for maintaining the instrument room,  for copying scores and parts, and  for stringing theorboes and violins.12 Zambonini and d’Ardespin were among a number of musicians employed also as valets (‘Cammerdiener’) at a salary of  florins per annum. Some musicians were given supplementary rations of bread, beer, or wine (in addition to staple fare), or were allotted extra

 ‒ money for them. Italians were occasionally helped with the expense of travelling to or from their native land, and the ‘violist’ (or violinist) Dominicus Mayr was enabled to visit Paris.13 The impression conveyed by the ledgers is that Munich valued its musicians and treated them fairly and generously. Steffani was fortunate to be at a court where he would be well looked after and given opportunities to contribute to a distinguished musical and operatic tradition.

Court and Chamber Musician On his arrival in July  the thirteen-year-old Steffani was placed in the care of Count Gottfried Wilhelm of Rheinstein and Tattenbach, a chamber counsellor (‘Kammerrath’) and Master of the Horse. Although the court was Catholic and the electress Italian, and despite the presence of Italian musicians and artists, Steffani must have found the language and customs of Munich entirely foreign, even if also somewhat exciting or fascinating. In addition to some German, the count presumably taught him about the life and history of the court. Having been recruited as a singer, Steffani doubtless put his talent to good use. He is not listed as a salaried musician during his first year, nor is there any evidence that he was a member of the orchestra.14 Nevertheless, in early  he was given  florins for the New Year and ‘the other thing’. Einstein suggested that this ‘other thing’ was an appearance on  November  in Kerll’s tourney Le pretensioni del sole, in which the role of Aurora was sung by the ‘gratioso et gratiosissimo Soprano’ Agostino.15 It is not certain that Steffani was the singer in question, but he had been a treble in Padua and there was no other Agostino at Munich who could have taken the part. Be that as it may, his musical ability became so apparent that, after a year, Count Rheinstein and Tattenbach was reimbursed his expenses16 and Steffani was transferred into the care of the Kapellmeister. From July  to October —between the ages of fourteen and seventeen— Steffani was given organ lessons (and board and lodging) by Kerll, for which the latter received the considerable sum of  florins per annum on top of his salary.17 From the same date Steffani was appointed a court and chamber musician (‘Hof- und Cammer Musico’) and granted a daily allowance of one and a half measures of wine and two loaves.18 He presumably was given a general education and required to perform musical duties, but there is no documentary evidence of either. He may have been expected to sing in the chapel choir, which was only a little larger than that in the Paduan basilica, but he was never listed as one of the ‘Cantorey Knaben’, who were all German. He was doubtless an ambitious and diligent pupil, and fortunate in having such an eminent teacher. Kerll, who had been a pupil of Giovanni Valentini in Vienna and of Carissimi, and possibly Frescobaldi, in Rome, was one of the finest organists, harpsichordists, and composers of his day. That Steffani made excellent progress and became an accomplished performer is suggested by his subsequent activity as an organist and by later reports of his harpsichord playing. In addition to keyboard performance, Kerll probably taught him figured bass and counterpoint and gave him his first instruction in composition.





  A further indication of Steffani’s progress is the fact that, after just over two years with Kerll, his salary was raised to  florins per annum.19 That by the age of sixteen he was earning the same as the court organist is a sure sign of the esteem in which he was held. His salary remained at this level for four years. During the same period, however, he was also given an annual allowance for clothing and linen. In autumn  he submitted a request for a long list of items, including a coat of Dutch wool, breeches, a waistcoat, silk stockings, two hats, a sword, eight shirts, four vests, six bed-covers, and six night-caps.20 Before an answer could be given, the chamberlain’s and tailor’s offices were asked for estimates of the costs, and a statement was drawn up of the expense of maintaining Steffani during the previous year (Table .).21 A similar statement was drawn up for , when the total, excluding gratuities from the elector, amounted to  florins, of which clothing and linen accounted for over . Steffani must have needed new clothes, for he was in his mid-teens and probably growing fast. Nevertheless, the treasury was concerned about the cost of maintaining him and the scale of his demands. After due deliberation, it was decreed that as from  October  he should be given an annual allowance of  florins, paid in quarterly instalments, with which to purchase all his clothing and linen.22 Steffani’s request reveals something of his character during his teenage years. He presumably felt that he needed, deserved, or maybe had a right to the clothing and other items that he listed, and he was willing to ask for them outright. That his petition was cast in the first person singular, however, rather than the third, betrays a degree of brashness or arrogance, suggesting that he had not yet acquired the modesty and diplomacy characteristic of his maturity. His request also implies that he was socially and financially ambitious. Such ambition could have been fired by the example of Kerll, on whom the emperor had conferred a title of nobility in  and Ferdinand Maria had bestowed the status of counsellor, and may help explain why relations between Steffani and his teacher came to an end. Musical considerations may also have played a part, for Kerll’s progressive ideas on composition created such friction between him and other musicians in Munich that he resigned in  and moved to Vienna. Although Steffani was by this time in Rome, his relationship with Kerll does not appear to have improved. The latter’s name is conspicuously absent from the preface to his former pupil’s first publication, and  .

Cost of Steffani’s maintenance in 

Specification How much the Court and Chamber Musician Agostino Steffani costs per year To the Kapellmeister, for subsistence and tuition 11⁄2 measures of wine and  loaves daily Clothing from the tailor’s department Linen from the chamberlain’s office

fl.  fl. , kr.  fl.  fl. 

Total for the year 

fl. , kr. 

 ‒ in September , when Steffani was back in Munich, he persuaded the treasury to withhold payment of  florins that were due to Kerll; only when Steffani stated that he had received satisfaction from Kerll, in December , was the money released.23 The two men also appear to have been reconciled in August , when Steffani witnessed the attestations of several Roman composers in respect of Kerll’s Litanies for six voices.24 It is not known whether Steffani had fallen out with Kerll by autumn , but on  October, after three and a quarter years with him, he was transferred into the care of a treasury official and valet named Augustin Sayler. An experienced and trusted courtier, Sayler was presumably expected to take the Italian teenager in hand, in exchange for expenses of  florins per quarter.25 Meanwhile, arrangements were made for Steffani’s musical education to be continued elsewhere. After exactly a year with Sayler, at the beginning of October , the young musician was sent to Rome, ‘there, in accordance with your [the elector’s] most gracious wish and command, to perfect himself further in his art’.26 If asked where he would most like to continue his education, Steffani might well have answered ‘Rome’. The Eternal City in the later seventeenth century afforded unparalleled opportunities for a young musician to study and practise his art, hear a wide range of works by other composers, observe the most accomplished performers in Italy, and come into contact with wealthy princes of church and state, vying with each other in their patronage of the arts. An army of choirmasters, organists, and singers were employed in the city’s churches, of which many were being rebuilt or refurbished in Baroque style. As the bulwark of the Counter-Reformation, Rome was inevitably the bastion of the stile antico, but it also resounded to sacred works for two or more choirs and others for a handful of solo voices. Although opera had initially been staged in private or semi-private theatres, a public opera house, the Tordinona, was inaugurated in  and remained open for four years. The oratorio and secular cantata were flourishing more abundantly in Rome than anywhere else at the time, along with the kind of orchestration that was to lead to the concerto grosso. In the early s Carissimi, Stradella, Pasquini, Corelli (from at least ), and Alessandro Scarlatti—some of the greatest Italian composers of the period—were all to be found in Rome. Steffani was to be there for a year and three-quarters. His travel and subsistence expenses were paid by the Munich exchequer, and on Friday  September  he was sent  crowns extra to help with the cost of an illness.27 He may have travelled in the company of Matteo Salvietti, a ‘first-class’ chamber musician who had been in Munich since 28 but was now leaving, or of the eminent Theatine preacher Padre Agostino Bozzomo. On  October , apparently, Ferdinand Maria wrote to Bozzomo, saying that he was glad that he had arrived safely in Rome, grateful for the news that he had sent about Steffani, and hopeful that the young musician would return to Munich.29 The latter appears to have travelled via Castelfranco, for on  October his father wrote to the elector, thanking him for all that he had done for his son.30 This was probably Steffani’s first visit home in five years, and his family appears to have been pleased with his development. He arrived in Rome bearing a letter of introduction from Electress Henrietta Adelaide to Cardinal Paluzzo Altieri.31 She could hardly have chosen a more presti-





  gious patron for her protégé. A cardinal since , Altieri experienced a meteoric rise to power after the election of the Altieri Pope Clement X in .32 Then, or soon after, Paluzzo was made archbishop of Ravenna; vicar of Rome; chancellor to the pope; secretary of briefs; prefect of the Congregation of Propaganda; protector of the Santa Casa at Loreto; protector of Ireland and of the Augustinian, Carmelite, and Dominican orders; legate of Avignon and Urbino; and governor of Tivoli. Within a very short time, he had become ‘the most considerable person’ (‘il più riguardabile soggetto’) in Rome, with an annual income of over , scudi. Assisted by generous subsidies from the pope (, scudi per month for six years), he made the Palazzo Altieri one of the grandest residences in the city. It is not known whether he responded to Henrietta Adelaide’s request for patronage of Steffani, but he certainly took an interest in other musicians, and his brother Gaspare was a patron of Stradella.33 Steffani could have served him as a singer, harpsichordist, or composer and may have been introduced by him to fashionable Roman society. Steffani’s teacher was to be Ercole Bernabei, whom Munich presumably had approached in advance via Maccioni.34 A pupil of Orazio Benevoli, and possibly of Stradella, Bernabei was one of the most distinguished church musicians in Rome. In the s and s he had been organist at San Luigi dei Francesi and maestro di cappella at San Giovanni in Laterano, and from  he had assisted each year in the performance of oratorio at San Marcello. Although he had published a book of secular works (Concerto madrigalesco) in , most of his music was liturgical and composed in the stile antico or the polychoral idiom. In June , largely through the influence of Queen Christina of Sweden, Bernabei succeeded Benevoli as director of the Cappella Giulia at the Vatican. He was thus at the pinnacle of his career when Steffani went to him for lessons. He may have given his young pupil further instruction on the organ, but the focus was on composition. As a musician in Rome it was perhaps inevitable that Steffani should have become a member of the Congregazione dei Musici di Roma, an organisation that had been founded in the late sixteenth century and was to develop, as the Congregazione (later Accademia) di Santa Cecilia, into one of the most important musical institutions in the city. In the seventeenth century it tried to establish a monopoly of the profession, which only papal singers were not required to join. The members provided music on a regular basis in the church in which the organisation was housed at the time, and they mounted an annual celebration of the feast of St Cecilia ( November), the patron saint of music. Steffani was given the task of visiting the sick and had to minister to his teacher; he also composed a polyphonic antiphon setting, Triduanas a Domino, for St Cecilia’s day in .35 This piece, three psalm settings, and another sacred work (Sperate in Deo), all from the same period, are preserved in a manuscript in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (Mu MS ), most of which appears to be in Steffani’s hand. In Rome he seems also to have written the secular solo cantata Occhi miei, lo miraste, which survives in a contemporary Roman manuscript (D-HVs, Kestner vol. ). But the principal fruit of his study with Bernabei was his Psalmodia vespertina volans octo plenis vocibus concinenda (Rome, ), a printed collection of thirteen vesper psalms, with Magnificat, scored for two choirs and organ. Since the dedication to the Bavarian elector and elec-

 ‒ tress is dated  January, the settings must have been composed in , probably before the Fitzwilliam pieces. An undated payment from Munich of fl.  kr. , ‘in order that in Rome he may have various musical things copied out’,36 may refer to the preparation of fair copy for the printer. Steffani paid tribute in the preface to the example set by his teacher, ‘whose style I pride myself on imitating not in part but totally’.37 At the same time, however, he referred to the rapid progress he had made in composition. That he wrote so much in little over a year suggests that he had started to compose during his time with Kerll and makes the omission of the latter’s name from the preface very pointed; it could also explain why Steffani was ill in September . While it seems that he had indeed made rapid progress, to state this twice, in both preface and dedication, was immodest and immature. But then, as he proudly proclaimed on the title page, he was only nineteen. A vivid impression of his character at this age is conveyed by the following epigram, with double acrostic, which appeared at the beginning of the Psalmodia: Augeat Augustine augusta sorte, Ut merito debet praemia, fama, Germine ab Herculeo iam germen germinat. Virtus virtutem; lumen, & inde, Sors tua nunc virtus est; dum fati aemula Tanti operis luci, gloria maior Inclita si peperit iuventus germina; NOmini & augustum firmat, et auget

Suprema Tibi Edit Faces Floret Adest Nomen Opus.

[May your reputation increase, Agostino, with a noble destiny / As it owes you deservedly outstanding rewards. / From a Herculean seed now a shoot is sprouting. / Excellence produces excellence, light and then torches. / Your destiny is excellent now; / while, a rival of fate, it flourishes, / Greater glory attends the light of such a great work, / If youth has brought forth its celebrated seeds. / Reputation attends a name, establishes it as noble and increases its work.]

This is an extremely self-conscious creation, marked in structure and style by a profusion of literary conceits. The epigram is an example of ring composition with a chiastic structure, ‘augeat . . . augusta’ returning at the end as ‘augustum . . . auget’; these same words, and ‘germine . . . germen germinat’, exemplify the device of paronomasia; line  exhibits polyptoton (‘virtus virtutem’), and lines –  (‘nomen / nomini’) display both polyptoton and traductio.38 Then there is the double acrostic. The author clearly possessed an admirable command of Latin and rhetorical figures of speech and was highly skilled in the composition of verse; he was also very conscious of his poetical talent and Steffani’s musical ability and itching to exhibit them both. If the epigram was written by the composer himself, as seems likely, it displays exuberance, arrogance, and unawareness of the impression that ostentation might make—all signs of youth. Steffani’s return to Munich was bound up with the appointment of Bernabei as Kapellmeister there. As soon as Kerll resigned and moved to Vienna, in , Maccioni was ordered to try to find a replacement in Rome.39 He first approached





  Giuseppe Corsi (‘il Celano’), a pupil of Carissimi who had been maestro di cappella of several Roman churches; but he declined. On  August  Maccioni recommended Giuseppe Spoglia, who was ‘young, well-born, placid, God-fearing, and amenable, to the extent of being capable of becoming maestro di cappella’; but Ferdinand Maria was afraid that he might be too young or would lack the authority to direct a Kapelle of temperamental individuals and so advised Maccioni to look for somebody older. The latter then proposed Bernabei. The elector approved, advising Maccioni in autumn  to conduct negotiations without the knowledge of Steffani, who, as an ambitious young man, might have set his sights on the appointment and might ‘with some art entertain his master on the subject’.40 Inevitably Steffani discovered what was afoot. Just as negotiations were drawing to their close, in March , he told Bernabei, wrongly, it seems, that the salary on offer was less than what Kerll had been paid. Whether Steffani thought he was right or wrong, whether he was trying to protect his master’s interests or attempting to scupper the negotiations, the elector’s caution had been well-placed. Fortunately, Maccioni was able to reassure Bernabei, who resigned from the Cappella Giulia on  April; he also reported that Bernabei planned to set off for Munich about  May and that his pupil wanted to return with him and act as his interpreter. The elector agreed and hoped that they would leave as soon as possible. They travelled via Venice, where Steffani received  scudi for expenses, presumably visited Castelfranco, and eventually reached Munich on  July.41 Steffani had come a long way in less than two years. After his return to Munich, Steffani became active as a court organist. It is uncertain, however, when he was appointed to such a post. He is described as a ‘court and chamber organist’ (‘Hof und Cammer Organisten’) in a decree dated  July ,42 and Woker suggested that his appointment took effect on  March ,43 but Steffani had already described himself as ‘musico-organista’ to the elector and electress of Bavaria on the title page of his Psalmodia vespertina (). This was probably not an empty boast. There had been two organists at Munich in  –, when the composer was in Rome, and there were three from  to at least , when he left Munich for good; between  and , however, there was only one organist on the books at a time—Georg Zellner to  and André Rauscher from .44 It is tempting, therefore, to suggest that Steffani was appointed second organist from the date of his return and that he assisted first Zellner then Rauscher. Maybe one player was responsible for the court chapel and the other for the tiny ‘Rich Chapel’ or ‘Secret Chamber Chapel’, originally the private oratory of Maximilian I. Steffani may also have helped Bernabei write music for chapel services. Hawkins stated that he composed ‘several masses, motets, kyries, magnificats, and other essays in the church style, which . . . were occasionally performed in the chapel at Munich’;45 some such music may have survived in his Sacer Ianus quadrifrons (), but if Hawkins was right, a considerable amount has been lost. He also wrote that ‘the direction of his [Steffani’s] musical studies . . . was committed to Sig. Ercole Bernabei, then chapel-master to the elector of Bavaria’,46 but there is no evidence of formal tuition continuing in Munich. Soon after returning, Steffani asked the elector for a further increase in his emoluments.47 The reason he gave is that his family would soon be joining him in Munich and would add significantly to his expenses, but he presumably felt also that his grow-

 ‒ ing experience, and activity as an organist, should be more amply rewarded. His request was approved: from  July his salary was doubled to  florins, and he was also given an annual allowance of fl.  kr.  for wine and beer and a daily supplement of two rolls and two loaves.48 His salary, which remained at this level until , was now twice that of the official court organist and nearly half that of the Kapellmeister. Despite his standing, however, and the fact that he was now twenty-one years old, he was apparently still in the custody of Augustin Sayler, for on  September  the latter was granted  florins to enable Steffani to make a journey.49 The payment suggests that the latter returned to Italy that autumn, perhaps to make arrangements for his parents’ removal. His father transferred to Munich in ; his mother, brother, and sister moved there in early .50 His half-sister, Helena Perina, was placed in a convent (‘Monastero delle Zitelle’) in Padua; she later moved in with a family named Franchini and died in . Steffani’s sister, Ippolita, entered the Convent of the Visitation in Munich, with whose first four members he had first crossed the Alps; she was Mother Superior in  and two years later met Durastanti. Steffani’s brother, Ventura Terzago, was initially employed as a replacement for the court poet Domenico Gisberti, who had returned to Venice in . He was appointed on a temporary basis from  April  to provide ‘certain compositions’; his salary was  florins per annum.51 After a year his appointment was confirmed and his salary increased to  florins.52 On  July , however, after making a visit to his ‘patria’ to put his affairs in order, Terzago succeeded Carlo Begnudelli Basso as a privy councillor and secretary, with a salary of  florins.53 In this capacity he made several further journeys to Italy—to Rome in early  and to Venice in  and . In spite of these additional responsibilities, however, he wrote the librettos of virtually all the Italian operas and tourneys performed in Munich between  and  (Table .).54 He may also have adapted Apolloni’s La Dori, first set by Cesti (Innsbruck, ), for Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei in : he certainly wrote a new prologue and signed the dedication. The arrival of Steffani’s family may have prompted Ercole Bernabei to consider the position of his own two musical sons, Giuseppe Antonio and Vincenzo, with whom Steffani had presumably become acquainted in Rome. Giuseppe Antonio was  .

Librettos by Ventura Terzago

Date

Title

Genre

Composer

         

Alvilda in Abo Enea in Italia Giulio Cesare ricovrato all’ombra L’Ermione Il litigio del cielo e della terra conciliato dalla felice Bavaria Marco Aurelio Solone Audacia e rispetto Servio Tullio Erote ed Anterote

Opera Opera Tourney Opera Tourney Opera Opera Tourney Opera Tourney

G. A. Bernabei G. A. Bernabei G. A. Bernabei G. A. Bernabei E. Bernabei Steffani Steffani Steffani Steffani E. Bernabei





  about five years older than Steffani and had succeeded his father as maestro di cappella of San Luigi dei Francesi and organist for the oratorios at San Marcello. In  he was invited to follow his father to Munich and serve as vice-Kapellmeister.55 Maccioni approved, reporting that he was counted in Rome ‘amongst the foremost virtuosi, both as a keyboard player and as a composer for church, chamber, and theatre’ and that his artistry was combined with a fear of God, ‘for he is a good priest’. On  April Bernabei sent the Bavarian elector an example of his recent work, a motet for four basses, and requested permission to dedicate a collection of such pieces to him. The book is not known to have been published, but the composer arrived in Munich on  June. His brother Vincenzo, an outstanding keyboard player about six years younger than Steffani, was appointed a court organist in .56 The appointment of Giuseppe Antonio as vice-Kapellmeister had implications for Steffani’s career. These may have struck him as bleak at the time, but with hindsight he may have regarded the appointment as a blessing in disguise. Bernabei was immediately given a significantly higher salary than Steffani (, florins), commissioned to set Terzago’s librettos, and assured of succeeding his father as Kapellmeister. Steffani doubtless felt angry and hurt at being passed over in this way, and the episode clearly caused friction between him and the Kapellmeister’s son. This may be one reason why Ferdinand Maria sent Steffani abroad for a second period of study. That his destination on this occasion was Paris may have been due partly to the fact that Henrietta Adelaide, a cousin of Louis XIV, had died in . Steffani probably left Munich soon after  July , when he was granted  florins ‘ex gratia for a certain purpose’;57 if, as seems likely, he went straight to Paris and left there in May , he could have spent as long as nine months in the French capital. This period was of vital importance for his personal and musical development and for his future career. In culture as in politics, France was one of the most powerful forces in Europe. Patronage of the arts was not dispersed, as in Rome, among a multitude of aristocrats, prelates, and foreign residents but concentrated overwhelmingly on the court of Louis XIV. Every branch of cultivated activity—including architecture, drama, music, dance, manners, and dress—was governed by the concept of ‘good taste’ (‘bon goût’) that emanated from the king himself. The influence of French style was felt throughout Europe, but nowhere more strongly than in the neighbouring courts of western Germany and the Low Countries; England and Italy were not unaffected. For Steffani to be sent to the fountainhead of French culture was a natural step. Other musicians from Germany had gone there recently, including Georg Muffat, Johann Fischer, Johann Caspar Ferdinand Fischer, and Johann Philipp Förtsch, all of whom had been there in the s or s but left, and Johann Sigismund Kusser, who studied with Lully for six years between  and ; Kusser may have met Steffani in Paris before going on, in the s, to stage his operas in Hamburg and elsewere in Germany. Italians, too, went to Paris: the bass viol player and composer Theobaldo di Gatti moved there in about  and remained, as a naturalized French citizen, for the rest of his life; the composer Paolo Lorenzani arrived there only weeks after Steffani and stayed for nearly twenty years. Very little is known of Steffani’s activities in Paris. The musical life of the court in – was completely dominated by Lully, who was then at the height of his

 ‒ powers. Together with Colbert Lully had prevented the performance of Italian music for over ten years, making room for his own tragédies lyriques, ballets, comédies-ballets, and sacred music. The only stage work by him to have been premièred during Steffani’s visit is Bellérophon, a tragédie that was first performed at the Académie Royale de Musique on  January ; Steffani may have been present, for ‘all Paris was there’.58 Even if he was not, he may have attended a later performance and certainly became familiar with Lully’s musical style—his overtures, dances, orchestration, and rhythmic conventions. He may also have attended the comédie italienne and met the Venetian actress, singer, and poet Brigida Bianchi (–), who lived in Paris from about . Six of his chamber duets are settings of poems by her that were published in Paris in  and . If he found the texts in her books, he is more likely to have done so in Paris than anywhere else.59 Steffani does not appear to have purchased the volumes, for they are not in the ‘registro’ of his library drawn up in . This catalogue does, however, include over forty French titles published before , which he could have acquired in Paris; most of them are historical or biographical works, including memoirs, but there also are editions of Montaigne and Paul Scarron.60 All that is known for certain about Steffani’s sojourn in Paris is that he played before the king, presumably on the harpsichord. The evidence for this appears in a report of his visit to Turin, where he stopped on his way back to Munich. The court of Savoy may have taken a special interest in a musical visitor who had known Henrietta Adelaide in Bavaria. On  May , the Bavarian resident, Johann Bartholomäus Schalck, wrote as follows to Ferdinand Maria: Agostino Steffani, Your Electoral Highness’s court musician, has arrived in Turin in the past few days. I have presented him to Madama Reale [Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours, regent of Savoy  – ] and told her at length of his virtù. She therefore desires to hear him at the next opportunity. In France he had the honour of playing before the king. Yesterday he played to Cardinal [d’Estrées]; his skill and dexterity were admired by the entire assembled company. As soon as Madama Reale has heard him, he will immediately set out on his journey in order to be back in Munich as soon as possible.61 A week later the diplomat wrote: Yesterday Agostino Steffani . . . was heard by Madama Reale in the Camera di Parada. His elegant and delicate playing was approved by the entire court, and Madama Reale said to him two or three times: ‘Vous jouez fort bien, vous jouez parfaitement bien’. He will now begin his journey as soon as possible and most dutifully instal himself at home again.62 These are the only known accounts of Steffani’s playing. The earlier report suggests that he was detained in Turin so that ‘Madama Reale’ could hear him. Both draw attention to the dexterity and delicacy of his style and imply that the quality of his fingerwork was exceptional. In addition to the organ he must have studied the harpsichord and possibly also the clavichord. What music he played in Paris or Turin is a matter of speculation. Since he left no keyboard works of his own, he may have per-





  formed music by one of his teachers—Kerll is the obvious candidate; perhaps in Paris he had studied the works of the clavecinistes; perhaps he simply improvised. Be that as it may, while Steffani entertained his hosts in Turin, Ferdinand Maria died in Munich. If the former was unaware of his patron’s demise, the latter may never have known how effective an ambassador his court and chamber musician could be.

Director of Chamber Music The electorate of Ferdinand’s son, Maximilian II Emanuel (Fig. .), brought major advances in Steffani’s career as a musician and courtier. Although Max Emanuel is remembered above all as a soldier—he helped defeat the Turks at Vienna in , at Ofen (Budapest) in , and at Belgrade in —he was also exceedingly interested in the arts and an extremely generous patron. Steffani had known him and his sister Violanta Beatrice since they were children. Both were active lovers of music. Max Emanuel, who had studied with Kerll, d’Ardespin, and maybe Steffani, played the flute, guitar, and bass viol (not only in private) and also sang as a tenor.63 Having known him for so long, Agostino may have been hoping for special consideration. This could not come at once, for the son and heir was only seventeen, and Ercole and Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei had been asked to compose the three dramatic works that would mark the two major court events of —Max Emanuel’s attaining the age of majority and his sister Maria Anna Christina’s marriage to the dauphin Louis of France.64 Steffani’s position vis-à-vis Giuseppe Antonio was reviewed by Max Emanuel later that year. An undated chit among the Steffani papers in Munich—showing that his salary ( florins) plus allowance for wine and beer (fl.  kr. ) amounted to fl.  kr.  less than Bernabei’s salary (fl. ,)—clearly relates to this process.65 As a result of the review Steffani was appointed from  January  to the new post of director of chamber music (‘Camer Music Director’), with a total salary (‘all in’) identical to that of the vice-Kapellmeister. If the appointment put the twenty-six-yearold Steffani in charge of part of the court’s musical life, the decree also confirmed Bernabei as his senior in the musical hierarchy:66 the arrangement was designed to reward both men and create equilibrium. But it did not work. It was now Bernabei’s turn to feel jealous and aggrieved, and these feelings must soon have been intensified—in February, when Steffani’s first opera, Marco Aurelio, was produced; in October, when it was revived; and in , when Steffani composed a serenata for the wedding of Countess Preysing.67 The opera, based on the life of the Roman emperorelect Marcus Aurelius, is concerned with the attitude of a man in authority to his duties and his wife: it may have been intended as an object lesson for the new elector, who was beginning to contemplate marriage. The influence of the director of chamber music around this time may be illustrated by the experience of August Kühnel, an outstanding bass viol player at the court of Zeitz.68 Kühnel visited Munich in , was liked by the elector and the musicians, and, despite being a Lutheran, was offered a post from  September for a year at the exceptionally high salary of , florins;69 his name and salary were en-

 ‒

       .  Elector Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria: oil painting, after Joseph Vivien () (Residenzmuseum München, Foto BSV; by permission of the Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen)

tered into the ledger for .70 Soon after his appointment, however, he seems to have gone back to Zeitz to arrange for the removal of his family, and on  February his payment at Munich was stopped. The reason for this appears to have been his religion, which Steffani had led him to hope would not prevent his appointment. Kühnel wrote to him but received no reply. On  September  he wrote to a court secretary, enclosing a further letter to Steffani, who had promised to respond; but again no answer was forthcoming. The reason for Steffani’s silence is apparently that he was waiting to see whether Max Emanuel would marry Princess Eleonore Erdmuthe of Eisenach, who was a Lutheran; the implication is that if this marriage went ahead,





  Kühnel would be permitted to take up his appointment. Steffani may not have done anything wrong, but he does not emerge from this episode with credit. The most important point, however, is that as director of chamber music he had authority to engage and dismiss musicians. In fact, he may have started doing this before his new appointment took effect: the travel expenses from Rome ( florins) of the court and chamber musician Francesco Cagliaroli, who was appointed on  July , were first paid by Steffani, then reimbursed to him.71 Steffani’s rivalry with Bernabei and his treatment of Kühnel were undoubtedly related to the fact that he had recently been made a priest. Bernabei, a priest himself, must have regarded Steffani’s ordination as a further threat, while Kühnel was apparently a victim of the latter’s religious zeal. The earliest reference to Steffani as a priest dates from  November , when he was also described as the ‘court and chamber musician and organist, and faithful and well-beloved Agostino Steffani’.72 On his claim for Cagliaroli’s travel expenses he signed his name as ‘D. A. Steffani’: the ‘D.’ (for ‘Don’) suggests that he was a priest when he submitted the claim, which, though undated, must have originated in the summer of . Perhaps he was ordained around  July, his twenty-sixth birthday. The path to the priesthood must have begun about ten years before, however, and we may assume that he was trained by the Theatines, to whom the spiritual life of the colony of foreign artists in Munich had been entrusted since the period of Lassus.73 The Theatine order, or Congregation of Regular Clerics, had been founded in  by Giovanni Pietro Carafa, bishop of Chieti (Theate), Gaetano di Thiene (Cajetan), and others.74 Carafa, later Pope Paul IV, was the first superior, but the brotherhood owed much to Cajetan, its superior from . In an age of widespread corruption, it was dedicated to asceticism and apostolic work under vows of chastity, obedience, and absolute poverty. Although it was eventually eclipsed by the Jesuits, founded in , the Theatine order spread throughout Italy and across most of Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, building churches, oratories, and hospitals. They collaborated in the foundation of the Urban College in Rome, under the auspices of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, and were the first to establish papal missions overseas. The presence of the Theatines in Munich was consolidated by the building of the Theatinerkirche, which was commissioned on Max Emanuel’s birth in  and consecrated on his thirteenth birthday.75 During its construction, in , Cajetan was canonized. Steffani’s ordination marked the beginning of a long and distinguished career in the church. He did not voluntarily espouse the Theatine ideal of poverty, but during the last quarter of his life he was responsible for much of the missionary work of the church in north Germany. In the early s Max Emanuel made representations in Rome in the hope of securing him a benefice. On  December  he informed his diplomatic resident, Abbate Pompeo Scarlatti, that he had received the papal bull appointing Steffani abbot of Löpsingen, a small parish in the county of OettingenWallerstein, north of Augsburg;76 the parish was protestant, but the benefice had remained in Catholic hands and was held as a sinecure alternately by the chapter of Augsburg Cathedral and the count of Oettingen. The appointment of Steffani and his retention of office were not achieved without struggle. The cathedral chapter was

 ‒ angry at being deprived of the income and implored Max Emanuel to find him a different benefice elsewhere. On  September , by which time Steffani had left Munich, Prince Albrecht Ernst von Oettingen appealed to him to resign on the ground that the benefice had traditionally been held by somebody with a seat (‘fixam sedem’) in the area. Steffani resisted all calls for his resignation, however, and between  and , when he was nominated bishop, defiantly signed himself ‘Abbate di Lepsing’. But the aggravation continued: in  he informed the prince that he had held the benefice for twenty-five or twenty-six years—‘a bit long for people who would like to succeed me: unable to take it away from me, they try to torment me’; in  he sought help from the imperial vice-chancellor, Friedrich Karl von Schönborn, because his income from the abbacy was being reduced.77 The reason for his tenacity, of course, is that the benefice was a valuable source of income—in – it brought him a total of , thalers—out of which, however, he had to pay a pastor for providing religious services. In the early s Max Emanuel also gave Steffani his earliest opportunity as a diplomat. The confidence placed in him suggests that he had acquired the necessary abilities and experience. He was familiar with Italian, German, French, and Latin and blessed with sharp powers of observation and comprehension. In addition to music he had studied theology and presumably philosophy, history, and mathematics; he had travelled in Italy, Germany, and France, acquired the polished manners of courtly society, and shed, one assumes, the brashness or arrogance of his teenage years. On  November  he was given the staggering sum of , florins, and on  August  a further ,, ‘for certain reasons and favours’:78 the size of these sums, which were similar to the Kapellmeister’s annual salary, and the vagueness of the records suggest that the ‘reasons and favours’ were secret and that he was already undertaking diplomatic missions. His main diplomatic responsibility at Munich was to assist with the negotiations preceding the elector’s marriage. An account of his role is found in his letter of  July  to Count Fede: All Upper Germany knows that at the court of Bavaria I enjoyed the honour of the most intimate confidence of the present, most unfortunate prince, so that, to give Your Most Illustrious Lordship an idea, in the delicate affair of his first marriage this Lord used only Count Friedrich von Preysing, Canon of Salzburg, to see the princess of Eisenach, who later died as electress of Saxony, and me to examine the princess of Hanover, who died as queen of Prussia. My star at that time had such powerful influence at the Bavarian court that I, and I alone, resisted for eight months on end the entire council of state of the imperial court, and that of the elector, both of whom wanted to give to him as wife the Archduchess Maria Antonia, whom he then married because the princess of Hanover, tired of waiting for decisions from Munich, was given to the present king of Prussia, the then widowed electoral prince of Brandenburg.79 Although Steffani’s ‘I, and I alone’ is exaggerated, for Preysing, at least, was also involved, his account is otherwise substantially correct. A match between the elector and





  Princess Sophie Charlotte was much desired, not least by Hanover and the pope. Negotiations began in earnest in . Around the end of the year the Hanoverian agent, Abbate Lodovico Ballati, was in Munich and Steffani was in Hanover. Steffani returned to Munich with a gold chain weighing a pound and a half and singing the praise of the princess, but the affair dragged on through . In September Max Emanuel covered himself in glory at the siege of Vienna; in the following month Duchess Sophie of Hanover informed Ballati that ‘poor Steffani is begging Signor Ortensio [Mauro] to get this response agreed’. But it was not to be: Sophie Charlotte was given to Friedrich, electoral prince of Brandenburg, in , and Max Emanuel married Maria Antonia in the following year. Steffani may have been on the wrong side on this occasion, but he had discharged his responsibility with dignity and aplomb and won the affection of the Hanoverian court, including that of Sophie Charlotte, who became the most passionate admirer of his music, and of Mauro, his future librettist. Between  and , when he finally left Munich, Steffani was kept busy with composition, suffered a couple of illnesses, and made recuperative visits to Italy. On  March  Johann Jaecklin, the court printer, was ordered ‘to print the motets that he [Steffani] had composed’.80 They were published as Sacer Ianus quadrifrons, tribus vocibus vel duabus qualibet praetermissa modulandus toward the end of the following year. Dedicated to Max Emanuel on  November , the collection paid tribute to the multitalented elector. Some of the motets celebrate his triumph over the Turks and must have been composed after September ; others could have been written rather earlier, though presumably after Max Emanuel’s accession. As Steffani explained in the preface, the book contains forty-eight motets in twelve. Each of the dozen is scored for three voices and continuo, of which any voice may be omitted (si placet); every motet can be performed in four ways and counted as four different pieces: hence the ‘four-fronted Janus’ of the title. The twenty-month delay in the publication of the motets was probably due to a variety of factors, including Steffani’s preoccupation with dramatic works. No new opera had been performed at Munich since : Terzago had been busy with politics and may not have had time to write librettos, and his brother had been engaged in diplomatic activity. In carnival , however, two new works were produced— the opera Solone and the tourney Audacia e rispetto—both with music by Steffani.81 Although the scores are lost, the librettos survive. The opera was based on the life of the Athenian legislator and poet Solon (ca.  –ca.  B.C.). The librettist, Terzago, had taken the subject not from Plutarch but from Les amours des grands hommes, a popular work by Marie Catherine Hortense Desjardins (Madame de Villedieu), first published in Paris in .82 He admitted to reducing ‘a most famous wise man of Greece to treading the boards of Bavaria in the shape of a lover’83 and claimed that the moral of the opera was twofold: that it is futile to try to resist the inevitable; and that the more the amorous passion takes hold, the more it is to be feared.84 The Baroque tourney, which was descended from the medieval tournament, was a stylized equestrian contest preceded by a musical introduction; it flourished mainly in northern Italy, Paris, Vienna, and Munich.85 The libretto of Audacia e rispetto, Prerogative d’Amore disputate in Campo di Marte is attributed to Terzago, but his name does not appear in the wordbook.86 The subject of the dispute was whether boldness or defer-

 ‒ ence is more useful to a lover in winning the heart of his beloved. Three carriages entered the arena from different sides: that in the centre was Cupid’s; Audacia amorosa, on the right, was accompanied by Merito and Confidenza; Amorosa rispetto, to the left, was attended by Costanza and Segretezza. The carriage of Audacia was followed by a squadron of seventeen unmarried knights, including the elector and the counts of Tattenbach and Sanfré; that of Rispetto led a train of seventeen married ‘cavalieri’, among them Maximilian and Felice von Preysing. As well as the names and titles of the horsemen, the wordbook gives details of the décor, accoutrements of the carriages and horses, and costumes and arms of the riders. As the carriages approached each other, there was a ‘sinfonia strepitosa’ of harpsichords, trumpets, kettledrums, and as many other instruments as possible.87 In the middle of the arena the carriages formed a semi-circular stage on which the principal characters sang the dispute to a recitative, two arias, and a duet—all in operatic style. The carriages then departed, leaving the arena to the horsemen, while ‘sweet harmony’ gave way to the ‘noisy sound of trumpets and drums’.88 Challenges were exchanged, and the tournament began—three courses with each of five weapons (lance, spear, ball, pistol, and sword). When it was over, the carriages returned, and in a concluding aria Cupid awarded a prize to each squadron, on the ground that in love a man must possess both ‘audacia’ and ‘rispetto’. The publication of Steffani’s motets was delayed also by illness. During the first half of  he applied to the elector for permission and financial assistance ‘to try both the air and the doctors of Italy’.89 He had been suffering for eight months from catarrh and dizziness, and all the remedies that he had tried had proved ineffective. He hoped that the elector would help by rewarding him, as promised, ‘for the music I provided for the last two operas’, and suggested travelling back to Munich together with ‘those two singers’. The elector granted his request, and on  June awarded him  florins for his operas and visit.90 The date of the award helps to ‘place’ his request, which is not dated; it also confirms that the two ‘operas’ in question were Solone and Audacia e rispetto and suggests that ‘quelle due cantatrici’ with whom he might return would be coming from Italy to sing in the opera the following year.91 It is not certain that Steffani visited Italy in , but having received financial assistance he presumably did so between July and September. Riccati asserted that he was appointed that year as a tenor in the choir of the Basilica del Santo at Padua,92 but although he had diligently examined the ledgers of the basilica with the ‘most erudite’ Count [Giovanni] Domenico Polcastro, he had found no record of Steffani’s appointment. He sought to explain this by supposing that the latter had been in post for only a few months before the princes of Brunswick and Hanover, passing through Padua in , had taken him into their service. Chrysander claimed to have seen archival evidence that Steffani was in Hanover in  but did not cite it.93 It cannot be stated too strongly that the composer did not enter Hanoverian service before , nor via the route described by Riccati, whose account is a distorted echo of Steffani’s recruitment by Munich. It is true, however, that Duke Ernst August of Hanover visited Padua in , and among his retinue was Ortensio Mauro. When Steffani was in Padua in the s, he met people who remembered seeing Mauro nearly forty years earlier. On  July  he wrote to his old friend:





  . . . Padua, where you left a memory that should satisfy you. There are some people who still remember seeing you, and remember it with pleasure. They are not very numerous, however, for I myself have only a few friends left there from those days—Count Francesco Cittadella, Count Girolamo Frigimelica, Abbot Lazara (who remembers seeing you in  in the house of a [certain] Tiepolo whom I do not know), the counts Zacco; and there the litany ends.94 The letter is regrettably vague about whether Steffani himself visited Padua in : it implies, but does not make clear, that he did. If he was in the area, he may have gone also to Venice: at the time of his ordination, if not before, his father had given him a house in the Ghetto, the money having come from his rich uncle, Marc’Antonio Terzago.95 Assuming that Steffani did go to Italy in , he probably returned to Munich by early October, when Max Emanuel introduced his new bride to the court. In December the elector made further representations to Rome, in the hope that Steffani could be found a benefice in the Veneto: he cited his subject’s Venetian citizenship, good character, and twenty years of faithful service, as well as his desire to return to Italy, poor health, and need for a cure.96 The Bavarian resident in Rome, Abbate Pompeo Scarlatti, promised to assist, and the elector’s fourteen-year-old brother, Prince Joseph Clemens, who in  was to become archbishop of Cologne, also weighed in, with a recommendation dated  February  to Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni senior: he hoped that Steffani would be able, by Easter, to seek a remedy for his illness, ‘which currently confines him to bed’. Given that the composer still needed a cure, Einstein conjectured (in the absence of evidence) that he went to Italy in .97 Be that as it may, it seems safe to assume, since he remained active for over forty more years, that his illness, though persistent, was not serious. The symptoms of which he complained suggest that he was exhausted, presumably through overwork: in  –  he had been involved in the elector’s marriage negotiations, protracted and probably stressful; in –  he had composed twelve motets, an opera, and a tourney. It is hardly surprising that after carnival  he needed a cure. Steffani had little time for rest, however, for his motets needed seeing through the press and he had to compose the opera for . This carnival would be the first since Max Emanuel’s marriage on  July  to the sixteen-year-old Archduchess Maria Antonia, and the most lavish that Munich had seen. The union had brought together the houses of Bavaria and Austria, as had that of Maximilian I and Maria Anna exactly fifty years before, and was laden with historical and political significance. The wedding had been celebrated in Vienna,98 but extravagant festivities were planned for Munich, where preparations for the couple’s arrival were in hand.99 Coaches and clothing had been ordered from Paris, carpets and furniture from Turin; decorators, actors, and tourney organizers were being recruited in Italy. The couple entered the city on  October. At the Isartor a triumphal arch had been erected, and on the Marienplatz stood two thrones joined by rigging that supported a trumpeter. To the sound of trumpets and drums, supper was served in the Residenz on a new golden dinner service, valued by the Abbé Lantery at , scudi. The party then

 ‒ attended a play at the Jesuit college. On  October there was a tourney followed by a fireworks display, and later that month there were further Jesuit plays and Italian comedies. The elector spent much of the autumn on his favourite pastime, hunting, but returned to the Residenz for the birthdays of the empress (on  November) and the dowager Queen Maria Anna of Spain (on  December). According to Lantery, who feared that the court now spent more in a quarter than it had under Ferdinand Maria in a year, the birthday of the Electress Maria Antonia (on  January) was celebrated with unprecedented splendour.100 The principal dramatic entertainment in carnival  was Steffani’s opera Servio Tullio, which was premièred on  January. The subject, Servius Tullius, flattered the elector by comparing him with the sixth king of ancient Rome and thus, indirectly, with the emperor.101 The libretto, with a eulogistic prologue, was written by Ventura Terzago and published in separate Italian and German editions. These included thirteen plates by the court engraver Michael Wening, two of them showing the interior of the Salvatortheater, the others depicting the sets for the opera (Figs. . and .). The latter were designed, together with the machines, by the Venetian stage designers Gasparo and Domenico Mauro. The ballets at the ends of the prologue and acts were devised by François Rodier, the court choreographer and dancing master, who had

       .  The Salvator theatre in Munich: engraving by Michael Wening from the libretto of Steffani’s Servio Tullio () (Deutsches Theatermuseum, Munich; by permission)





 

       .  Stage design by Gasparo and Domenico Mauro for Steffani’s Servio Tullio (): engraving by Michael Wening from the libretto of the opera (Deutsches Theatermuseum, Munich; by permission)

previously collaborated with Steffani on Marco Aurelio and Solone, and were performed by twelve courtiers (six men and six women) whose names and titles appeared in the wordbook. The music for the ballets was composed by Melchior d’Ardespin, a cornettist at Munich from  and director of the court orchestra from .102 The opera was more ambitious and extravagant than any seen in Munich before and remained unsurpassed for some decades. Lantery described it as a ‘marvellous success’, ‘something truly magnificent in every respect’.103 The production cost , florins, nearly twenty-five times the salary of the composer, and , florins were spent on opera over the year as a whole. Servio Tullio was expensive, but news of it spread across Europe, strengthening the position of Steffani and Munich on the operatic map of the continent. Carnival did not end with this opera. On  February there was a tourney, Erote ed Anterote (libretto by Terzago, music by Ercole Bernabei), devised by a Count Sagramosa from Verona.104 Later that month Joseph Clemens and other members of the court took part in a production of Racine’s Andromaque, and on  February the first performance was given of a new opera by Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei, Ascanio in Alba.

 ‒ The period from then to Holy Week was spent on further hunting. In May the electoral couple went to Vienna; in the summer Max Emanuel helped to liberate Ofen (Budapest) from  years of Turkish occupation, and in October he returned to Munich with Maria Antonia for a further round of hunting, sledging, comedies, and games. Steffani’s next opera, Alarico il Baltha, cioè L’audace re de’ Gothi, was premièred on  January , the electress’s eighteenth birthday, and celebrated her husband’s successful summer campaign. Two days later, however, Max Emanuel set off, without his unloved wife, to enjoy the carnival in Venice. The libretto of the opera, on the life of Alaric I (ca. – ), king of the Visigoths, was the first written for Munich by Luigi Orlandi. Terzago had been sent to Italy with , florins in  to recruit singers for the forthcoming production.105 Orlandi, a Mantuan, was appointed secretary and poet in his absence, and he remained at the court for ten years. His wife Angela was engaged as a singer and apparently took part in the performance. The orchestra was strengthened for the occasion by the appointment of new players from France.106 The casts of Steffani’s Munich operas cannot be reconstructed, unfortunately. The names of the singers do not appear in the wordbooks, and only a handful of the musicians on the court payroll can be identified with confidence as singers. Steffani’s suggestion that he travel back from Italy in the company of two singers, and Terzago’s latest mission to the peninsula, suggest that some cast members, at least, were recruited ad hoc. This may explain why no women are listed as musicians in the ledgers;107 it was certainly the case with the Austrian soprano castrato Clementin Hader, a member of the imperial Hofkapelle from , who sang at Munich in  and  (in Servio Tullio and Ascanio in Alba), entered service there in , doubtless appeared in Steffani’s Niobe, regina di Tebe (), and later sang for him in Hanover.108 If salaried singers were, however, employed in the casts of Steffani’s operas, they presumably were drawn from the musicians ‘di prima Classe’. The names of those in this category between  and  are listed in Table .. With the possible exception of Maculinus, who was described as old in , all of these musicians were Italian. Since Zambonini had possibly composed La ninfa ritrosa () and appeared in Kerll’s L’Erinto (),109 he too must have been old, though it was only in  that he was raised to first class. ‘Antonino’ Pio had sung in Venice in , Pietro Lemoles ‘di Messina’ in Naples in , and Giovanni Battista Moratelli in Venice in ;110 the last may have been related to Sebastiano Moratelli (–), Kapellmeister to the Wittelsbach Elector Johann Wilhelm at Düsseldorf. There appear to have been links with Hanover, too. Gottin or Cottin (or Codin)—the name appears in all forms— may be the bass ‘Cottini’ who had belonged to the Hanover Schloßkapelle in the late s, sang opera in Italy in the s and in  – , was salaried at Modena (as Antonio Pietrogalli, detto Cottini) from  to , and was appointed at Munich on  November .111 Navara was possibly the bass of that name employed at Hanover in the late s,112 and Giovanni ‘Augustino’ Granara sang there in the s (Giovanni ‘Battista’ Granara appeared in Palermo in 113). One wonders whether ‘Lutti’ was the alto and composer Antonio Lotti, who may have been born in Hanover and whose whereabouts in the s are virtually unknown. Other musicians who may





   .

Munich musicians ‘di prima Classe’, – 

Name

’81

’82

’83

’84

’85

’86

’87

’88

Pietro Zambonini Thomas Maculinus Vincenzo Venturi (S) Joseppe Barberio (A) Dario Mancini Pietro Lemoles Caspar Dormiglia Phillipp Pantono (T) Antonio Pio Joann Francesco Navara Antoni Gottin or Cottin Antonio Lutti Alexander Gerardini Joann Augustin Granara Johann Baptista Moradelli Johann Baptist Granara (A) Giovanni Giacomo Rivardini

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x

x x

x x

x

x

x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x

Total per year

11

11

10

12

13

13

13

x x x x x x x x 13

    : An ‘x’ indicates employment, but the Granaras, Moradelli, and Rivardini were appointed too late to sing in the carnival of their first year. The voice types of Venturi and Barberio are given on f. , and that of Pantono on f. , of D-Mbsa, FS.

have sung in opera at Munich, though their salaries were less than ‘first-class’, include the bass Dominico Christoph Ristorini (– ), Georg Del Ponto (– ), and Francesco Cagliaroli (– ). Carefully preserved, ironically, are the names of ten instrumentalists from the city and parish of Munich who reinforced the court orchestra for the opera in .114 These players may have been recruited by Johann Christoph Pez, a musician formerly at St Peter’s and the Jesuit school who had joined the court on  May . On  March  Max Emanuel authorized payment of the instrumentalists for their part in the recent opera and ballets. The request gives the dates and places of rehearsals of the opera and of the performances of both kinds of work, the names of the players (but not their instruments), and the amounts due to them for each rehearsal ( fl.) and performance ( fl.). The document thus gives detailed information on the mounting of opera and ballet in seventeenth-century Munich and on the schedule of the  carnival. The players in question attended four opera rehearsals in the Residenz (on , , and  November and  December ) and three in the Salvatortheater ( and  December and  January ); the performances took place on , , and  January and  February.115 The same ten musicians also played for five ballets in the HerkulesSaal of the Residenz—on  and  January,  and  February, and  March. None of the works is named, but the opera must have been Niobe, which is unusually richly scored and makes exceptional demands of the orchestra; the ballets,

 ‒ which cannot be identified, may have been social balls. Among the other diversions of carnival was a tourney, La gloria festeggiante, for the electress’s birthday, and a ‘componimento dramatico’, Diana amante, first performed on  February; the words of both were by Orlandi, and the music was by Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei.116 Orlandi also wrote the libretto of Niobe, Steffani’s first opera based on Greek legend; the source was Ovid’s Metamorphoses, book VI, of which the composer (in , at least) had an Amsterdam () edition. Like his first opera, Marco Aurelio, his last opera for Munich survives in autograph manuscript. This is not true of the lost Solone and Audacia e rispetto or of Servio Tullio and Alarico, of which only scribal copies are known. In , probably in the spring, the court bookbinder, Mathias Kayser, was paid  florins for work done for Steffani;117 the score of Niobe may have been part of the job. That Steffani’s operas were highly valued by the electoral family is shown by the letters of Max Emanuel’s sister, Violanta Beatrice. Long after the composer had moved to Hanover, and she to Florence as the bride of Grand-Prince Ferdinando De’ Medici, she remembered the music that she had heard at Munich in her teens. It had clearly made a lasting impression. Her letter to Steffani of  January  ends with this persuasive postscript: ‘I go to the opera, but I assure you that I no longer hear Servio Tullio or Alarico, nor anything like them—and that without idling, I still have a very vivid memory’.118 Those words were written by a woman who in Tuscany had heard operas by Perti, Gabrielli, and others and was a prominent patron of singers.119 Several years earlier, on  August , she had praised Steffani’s musical style and asked him to send her a copy of the arias from his first Munich opera: If I were the only one to applaud your massive (‘massiccio’) and florid style, I could perhaps be mistaken; but no work that has come from your pen is sung without my hearing it echoed on full choir by the entire court, which resounds to your virtue. Thus I should be pleased if you would accordingly send me some of those duets that were sung at table in Bavaria—the aria that begins ‘Crede ogn’un che sia pazzia’, the other beginning ‘Bel tempo addio’, and the arias from Marco Aurelio.120 Violanta Beatrice appears to have assumed that Steffani had scores of his Munich works with him in Hanover, but the fact that his last three Munich operas are now in Vienna, not London, suggests that this may not have been the case. Since ‘Crede ogn’un che sia pazzia’ is the second verse of the aria for soprano solo in Oh! che voi direste bene, her letter also proves that Steffani composed chamber duets at Munich. ‘Bel tempo, addio’ probably denotes the duet of that name by Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei.121 It is tempting to think that Steffani left Munich because he was not appointed Kapellmeister on the death of Ercole Bernabei in December . If he still wanted the post, he must have been disappointed, but it is doubtful whether he did. He had known for seven years that Bernabei would be succeeded by his son, so Giuseppe Antonio’s appointment on  January  should have come as no surprise. The position of director of chamber music had been created specially for Steffani and was in many ways more prestigious. It had brought him into frequent and intimate contact with the electoral family, and he had enjoyed both the confidence of Max Emanuel and the admiration of Violanta Beatrice. He had also composed nearly all the new





  Italian operas for the carnivals of – . In fact, he had become such a prominent figure in the musical establishment that he was described as vice-Kapellmeister in the treasury ledgers for – , when the post was still held by Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei.122 That he was appointed Kapellmeister at Hanover does not mean that he would have enjoyed the same position in Munich. As Hawkins explained, ‘in the courts of the protestant princes in Germany, the place of chapel-master is little more than a sine-cure’;123 but in Catholic courts the Kapellmeister was responsible for the music required in the ceaseless round of liturgical observance. From this point of view it seems that Steffani had enjoyed the best of Munich’s musical and social worlds. The reason for his departure was given by the composer in two later letters. In  he wrote to Count Fede: ‘I left that court [Munich] in bad grace because of an offence (‘aggravio’) committed upon my only brother by Count von Sanfré, who owed all his fortune to me alone’.124 Ten years later, on  March , he informed Count Girolamo Frigimelica Roberti that ‘the wrong (‘torto’) inflicted upon my late brother, of blessed memory, by one who owed to me alone all his fortune and greatness compelled me to leave it [the court], even, to tell you the truth, in rather bad odour’ (‘di assai mala grazia’).125 Count Anton Franz Maximilian von Sanfré was a gentleman of the chamber and, from , lieutenant of the ‘Guardia de Trabanti’ and lieutenant colonel of the infantry; he became senior court marshal in  and died at the battle of Höchstädt in . What he did or said to Steffani’s brother is unknown, but it was serious enough for the whole family to leave Munich in May . By then it was a foregone conclusion that Steffani would enter the service of Duke Ernst August of Hanover. He had become acquainted with the duke and with Duchess Sophie in , when he had visited their court in connexion with the possible marriage of Max Emanuel to their daughter, Sophie Charlotte. He had made a good impression on them, and they on him, and had formed friendships with Mauro, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and others. Such contacts were kept alive during the mids, including possibly at Hanover or Padua in . However, Ernst August did not attend the première of Servio Tullio, as has been suggested, because he had already reached Venice by  January ,126 and it is not known whether he visited Munich on his way back to Hanover in August. Around Easter  Leibniz visited Munich to gather material on the history of the house of Brunswick. When he had difficulty in gaining admission to the electoral library, he turned to Steffani for assistance: So I applied, of course, to the Bibliotecario; but when he gave me to understand that nobody would be admitted without the express authorization of his most gracious elector and lord, I did not hesitate, so that difficulties might perhaps be obviated, to appeal through Mr Agostino Stephani, a priest and electoral Capellmaster who had formerly been to Hanover and had at every opportunity expressed great vénération for our most gracious lordship, for His Electoral Highness’s most gracious permission, which, moreover, was immediately received.127 Apart from the fact that Leibniz regarded Steffani as Kapellmeister, the episode speaks volumes for the latter’s influence at court. The historian was grateful and im-

 ‒ pressed, for in April he wrote to the Hanoverian minister Franz Ernst von Platen and to Duchess Sophie, informing them that he had been assisted by Steffani, his brother (Terzago), and Baron Scarlatti.128 Count von Sanfré’s offence must have been committed soon after this and may have prompted Steffani to ask Leibniz about the possibility of an appointment at Hanover. An agreement was reached very quickly, for on / May Sophie was able to inform Sophie Charlotte that ‘Signor Steffani is not happy where he is; he’ll be coming to serve the duke. It is still a secret, for he has not taken leave of his master’.129 He evidently took his leave as these words were being written. He later described his departure—to Fede—as ‘unsought and sour’ (‘inaspettata e brusca’), and in a sense it was. All the same, he was treated with exceptional generosity. A decree of  May  reveals that in view of his twenty-one years’ faithful service he would be paid to the beginning of July (the end of the current quarter) and given a gratuity equal to three years’ salary (, florins).130 Out of this, at his own request, his debts of , florins were paid. The remaining , florins were sent to Venice by bill of exchange, along with  florins for bank charges.131 A handsome gratuity of this kind was normally awarded on retirement, not on appointment to another court; for this reason the decree was careful to state that Steffani had leave to go ‘to Italy and elsewhere’. He went to Venice in May to pick up his gratuity; he presumably travelled with Terzago, who, at his own request and on the recommendation of the elector, had been appointed ‘collaterale’ of Padua the previous September,132 and with his mother, who returned to Padua to live with her older son (Terzago), who was now forty years of age. Steffani’s father had probably died at the end of ; his sister, Ippolita, remained in her convent at Munich.133 Einstein suggested that Steffani again met Ernst August in Venice, but although Marc’Antonio Ziani dedicated L’inganno regnante () to the duke, the latter did not return there after his spectacular visit of .134 Steffani’s decision to move to Hanover was apparently confirmed by two Venetians, Girolamo Molino and Count Lucio Della Torre, who frequented Ernst August’s palazzo on the Grand Canal.135 This decision marked the end of the first, eventful phase of Steffani’s remarkable career. For Ferdinand Maria he had sung, played the organ and harpsichord, composed music for chapel and chamber, and also trained for the priesthood; under Max Emanuel he had in addition composed and directed opera, acquired his first benefice, and gained experience in secret diplomatic negotiation. He was now well equipped to face the challenges that would confront him in Hanover.




H  ‒

During his fifteen years at Hanover Steffani worked mainly in the secular fields that he had begun to cultivate in Munich. He was engaged as Kapellmeister to compose and direct the court opera but became increasingly involved in diplomatic affairs. Diplomacy eventually predominated, forcing him to abandon the opera, though he still composed and revised his chamber duets. His musical and diplomatic activities were interrelated. Duke Ernst August regarded opera as a symbol of power and an instrument of propaganda, using it to demonstrate the wealth and importance of his house. A knowledge of the political background is therefore essential to a full appreciation of Steffani’s work as a composer.1 Brunswick had been part of the duchy of Saxony under Henry the Lion, the twelfth-century duke of Saxony and Bavaria and founder of Munich, but had become an independent duchy in . During the Thirty Years’ War ( – ) it was split into two—Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (the senior branch) and Brunswick-Lüneburg (the junior); Ernst August’s father, Georg, was duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg ( – ). In an attempt to provide for his four sons Georg further divided his duchy: the dukes of Lüneburg-Grubenhagen (senior) resided at Celle, those of CalenbergGöttingen (junior) at Hanover. The town of Hanover emerged from the war in better condition than many other places in Germany, for trade and manufacturing had continued (Fig. .). A census of , when a poll tax was levied to fund a battalion in defence of the Empire against the Turks, reveals that the population was then ,, of whom , lived in the Altstadt (old town) and , in the Neustadt on the opposite side of the inlet of the River Leine; there were seven French Huguenot families and five Jewish. Hanover was only half the size of Munich, and its duke did not compare in importance with the Bavarian elector (nor his palace in scale or style with the Munich Residenz2). Ernst August’s principal political objective was to secure the elevation of Hanover to an electorate, the ninth in the Empire. The Lüneburg dukes had aspired to this prestigious status since the raising of Bavaria in . To attain an electorate, however, Ernst August had first to reunify the duchy and establish the principle of primogeniture. As the youngest son of the junior branch of the house (see Fig. .), his hope that he or his son might eventually govern the reunified duchy betokens considerable ambition and determination. His older brothers helped to make his dream come true. Christian Ludwig died childless in , and Johann Friedrich followed him, without male heir, in . When Ernst August became duke of Hanover that year, only Georg 

 ‒

       .  Hanover in the early nineteenth century (Blick durch die Köbelinger Straße auf Rathaus und Marktkirche): oil painting, , by Domenico Quaglio (Historisches Museum Hanover; by permission)

Wilhelm, duke of Celle, remained. In  the brothers visited Heidelberg, en route to Venice, and Georg Wilhelm agreed to marry the elector’s sister Sophie. In Italy, however, he changed his mind and persuaded Ernst August to take his place. In  they signed a convention in which Georg Wilhelm agreed never to marry; as a result the duchy would eventually be reunified, and Ernst August’s prospects immediately appeared more attractive. Sophie was one of the most intelligent, cultured, and well-connected noblewomen in Europe. As the youngest daughter of the Winter King and Queen (the Elector Palatine Friedrich V and Elisabeth, daughter of James I of England), she was in the line of succession to the English throne. Her wit and humanity are evident in her voluminous correspondence. She was a perceptive observer of human nature and had clear views; if occasionally impulsive, she was never less than genuine. She had already seen Ernst August in Holland. ‘Everybody liked him, but since he was the youngest of three [recte four] brothers he was not considered suitable for a marriage.’3 At Heidelberg in  ‘we played the “guitarre” [lute(?)] together,’ she wrote, ‘and he



  .

The Principal Members of the House of Brunswick-Lüneburg ca.  –

 ‒ displayed the most beautiful hands; he danced magnificently. He sent me pieces of music and thus initiated a correspondence with me which I, however, broke off, because I feared that my friendship with him would be misinterpreted.’ Her fear proved unnecessary, for they were married on  October , and their relationship proved a personal and a dynastic success (Figs. . and .). Three years later Ernst August became prince-bishop of Osnabrück. Since the Peace of Westphalia () this bishopric had alternated between Catholic and Protestant rulers, the latter being provided by the Lüneburg dukes. Ernst August held this office—and received the income — for the rest of his life, combining it from  with the duchy of Hanover. At first, he and his family resided in Iburg. There were already two children (Georg Ludwig, later king of England, and Friedrich August), but there were eventually seven, Sophie Charlotte (born ) being sandwiched between three older and three younger brothers. In the mid-s they moved into a new castle at Osnabrück. An impression of their household is given in Samuel Chappuzeau’s L’Allemagne, ou Relation nouvelle de toutes les Cours de l’Empire (): The court of Wolfenbüttel appeared to me the most serious, the court of Celle the most cheerful, the court of Hanover the most correct [‘reguliere’], and the court of Osnabrück the most elegant [‘galante’]; but all, in general, are beautiful and magnificent, because all these princes spare nothing in sustaining the glory of their house. . . . The bishop of Osnabrück and the dukes of Celle and Hanover have for several years maintained an excellent troupe of French actors [‘comédiens’] with luxurious costumes, who play their parts admirably. And when their three bands of violins are together, one can call them ‘la bande des vingtquatre’, for they are mostly French and among the best masters in the profession.4 As duke of Hanover, Ernst August pursued his ambition with determination and political acumen. A potential difficulty had arisen in , when Georg Wilhelm had fathered a daughter, Sophie Dorothea; his ‘marriage of conscience’ to the mother, Eléonore d’Olbreuse, was legalized in . By producing a daughter, he had created the possibility of a marriage with Ernst August’s eldest son, Georg Ludwig, which, on the duke of Celle’s death, would reunite the two branches of the family; by marrying Eléonore, Georg Wilhelm had broken his agreement with Ernst August and surrendered his right of succession to the duchy. The marriage of Sophie Dorothea to Georg Ludwig was not essential to Ernst August’s design, but desirable, and it happened in . Legal provisions concerning the duchy and right of succession were drafted in the same year. The emperor accepted them in  in exchange for military aid against the Turks; Georg Ludwig and his brother Friedrich August went as volunteers to the siege of Vienna, the former returning in time for the birth of his son, Georg August. Ernst August unveiled his constitutional arrangements to his family in , after Sophie Charlotte’s marriage to electoral Prince Friedrich of Brandenburg, and set off in the spring for carnival in Venice. He now began to step up his campaign for an electorate. In  and  Georg Ludwig and Friedrich August again supported the emperor against the Turks; in 





 

       .  Duke (later Elector) Ernst August of Hanover: oil painting, , by Jacques Vaillant (Fürstenhaus HerrenhausenMuseum; by permission of H.R.H. the Prince of Hanover)

their younger brother Maximilian Wilhelm led a contingent of Hanoverian troops in Venetian pay. When Louis XIV invaded the Empire in , triggering the Nine Years’ (or Palatinate) War, four of Ernst August’s sons rallied to the cause, commanding Hanoverian forces in the south and west, and in  and  auxiliaries were supplied to the German electors and the Maritime Powers. Such measures eventually brought the desired result. In December , in exchange for further military aid and support of Austria in imperial elections and the Spanish succession, Hanover was raised to the Ninth Electorate; at a ceremony in Hanover in March , Ernst August finally donned the electoral cap. Steffani played an important part in the negotiations that led to this moment.5 The intention to raise Hanover to the status of electorate had been announced to the existing electors by Emperor Leopold I in September . It had initially been met with approval but later encountered opposition. Difficulties were created by Trier, Cologne, the Palatinate, and especially Württemberg, all of whom objected to the prospect of protestant Hanover becoming an Imperial Standard-Bearer. Steffani was

 ‒

       .  Electress Sophie of Hanover: oil painting, ca. , by Andreas Scheitz(?) (Historisches Museum Hannover; by permission)

charged by Ernst August with trying to negotiate an agreement. As he explained to Count Fede in : Having attached myself, then, to the court of Hanover, the whole world saw how I was placed there, and they saw it from two circumstances: first, that wherever there was something important to be done, I was seen to be running there; second, that those princes confided to me their innermost secrets without ever exacting from me the merest shadow of an oath, as is usual in all the courts of Germany.6 Steffani secured the electorate by surrendering the status of standard-bearer in exchange for a promise that Hanover would become imperial treasurer in ; in addition, Ernst August had to guarantee freedom of worship to Catholics and allow the construction in Hanover of a Catholic church and school, conditions with which Steffani sympathized and which he may have proposed.7 Steffani thus repaid the trust placed in him by Ernst August, who rewarded him, according to Hawkins, with a





  salary of , thalers.8 If his role in these negotiations was his first significant achievement as a diplomat, for Hanover the electorate was an important step on the path to the English throne. Ernst August and Sophie did much to improve the court buildings at Hanover, namely the Leineschloß (Fig. .). Some old structures were demolished, the Rittersaal was hung with a series of family portraits and coats of arms, organized by Leibniz, and an opera house was built. The palace was described by John Toland in : The Apartments of the Palace are very fine, and richly furnish’d. It was in old Time a large Monastery, but so well metamorphos’d since, that no Footsteps remain of the Original. There is a pritty Theatre with handsom Lodges for all Qualitys; for no body pays Mony that goes to a Play there, the Prince, as in som other Courts of Germany, being at all the expence to entertain the Town as well as the Court. But the Opera-house in the Castle is visited as a Rarity by all Travellers, as being the best painted and the best contriv’d in all Europe. The Elector’s Chappel is also finely painted, and certainly nothing can be in greater Order and Method than whatever belongs to his Highness.9 In the s and s Ernst August and his predecessor also extended the residence at nearby Herrenhausen. Here the court spent almost half the year, from May to October, returning to Hanover on Sundays and feast days. Ernst August also stayed there during the winters of  –  and – , when he was terminally ill, and Sophie retired there after his death. Toland continued:

       .  Hanover, the Leineschloß in the seventeenth century (Historisches Museum Hannover; by permission)

 ‒ He [Elector Georg Ludwig] spends much of his Time at Hernhausen, which is a Country-house about an English Mile and a half from Hanover. The Garden is delicat indeed, the Water-works great and noble, the Basins and Fountains extremely large, the Wilderness curiously contriv’d, and deck’d with a perpetual Verdure; the Walks are made firm enough with a sort of Gravel they get out of the River; the Orangery is counted one of the largest in all Europe; there are beautiful Cascades, and there is a perfect Theatre excellently cut out into green Seats, the dressing-rooms for the actors being so many Bowers and Summer-houses on each side, the whole set off with many fine Statues, most of ‘em gilt, and an excellent Water-work just behind.10 The character of the Hanoverian court owed much to the presence there, from , of the philosopher, mathematician, historian, and court librarian, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Although, in his opinion, in most of Germany there was ‘among the nobility, bent on the pleasures of hunting and the table, no intellectual curiosity, no elegant and polite conversation, no intermediate class between the scholars and the masses’,11 the situation was much better at Hanover, especially after the arrival of Sophie in .12 As a young woman at Heidelberg, Sophie had been influenced by the scholar and diplomat Baron Ezechiel von Spanheim, and in Hanover, according to the library records of the s and s, she read Molière, Rabelais, Descartes, and Spinoza.13 She was, or became, interested in philosophy, history, literature, music, and art; theology she discussed with Gerard Wolter Molanus, abbot of nearby Loccum. Although she was a protestant, she was broad-minded and tolerant; Italian Catholics, French Huguenots, Jews, and even Turks, captured on campaign, rubbed shoulders at Hanover with Germans.14 Toland found the court in general ‘extremely polite . . . the best, both for Civility and Decorum’, and more sober than any other that he knew.15 The cultural orientation, as previously at Osnabrück, was predominantly French: as the Mercure galant reported in , ‘the court of Hanover, which follows all the fashions of that of France, imitates it also in its divertissements’.16

Musical and Operatic Background The ‘divertissements’ mentioned above were probably French comedies, a regular form of entertainment at court,17 but the word could also refer to ballet or instrumental music. As far as singers are concerned, the tradition was to employ Italians.18 Ernst August’s predecessor, Johann Friedrich, and the latter’s wife Benedikte Henriette, daughter of Edward, prince palatine, were both Catholics with French leanings, but Johann Friedrich was also a frequent visitor to Venice and a lover of Italian church music and opera. His Kapellmeister at Hanover between  and  was Antonio Sartorio; the Kapelle comprised seventeen musicians, including the gamba player Clamor Heinrich Abel and the violinist Nicolaus Adam Strungk (both of whom were organists and composers, too), and the organist Johann Anton Coberg. Sartorio was succeeded by Vincenzo De Grandis, who had joined the Kapelle in ; the establishment was still about the same size in , when there was also an organ builder





  and a lute maker on the books.19 The repertory included Orazio Tarditi’s Messa e salmi for four voices, op. (), Masses in four and five parts by Bonifazio Graziani, and motets for two to five voices by Henry Du Mont.20 Soon after the accession of the protestant Ernst August, most of the singers in the Kapelle were dismissed, and music for services was provided thereafter by boys. De Grandis left to become maestro di cappella at Modena, but Abel, Strungk, and Coberg were retained, Strungk as court and chamber composer from Easter . Coberg was made responsible for the musical education of the ducal family, teaching Sophie Charlotte to play the harpsichord; in  – , at the age of fifteen, she enchanted the French court with her playing, and in later life she called Coberg twice to Berlin. He also taught Ernst August’s granddaughter, Sophie Dorothea (born ), and Caroline of Ansbach, who, as a ward of the elector of Brandenburg, was brought up in Berlin by Sophie Charlotte. He may also have taught Ernst August, whose initials appeared, with the date , in a manuscript of French clavecin music, now lost.21 In  Ernst August also reorganized the court orchestra, appointing JeanBaptiste Farinel as concertmaster (‘maître des concerts’). Apart from a period in Osnabrück between  and , Farinel remained at Hanover until , when he became George I’s agent in Venice. Six other Frenchmen and three Germans were appointed alongside him, making an ensemble of ten players in all. Some of these had been with Ernst August in Osnabrück and moved with him to Hanover. Here there were also eight trumpeters and two drummers. The relative importance of these musicians is suggested by the salaries they earned: Farinel received  thalers per annum, the other Frenchmen  each, the trumpeters and drummers . On Steffani’s arrival in  the ensemble was modest in size and almost entirely French. The string players, in addition to Farinel, were presumably Valoix, Vezin, Bertrand, and Le Comte; Babel, Barrey, and Heroux were described as oboists, but Babel was probably the bassoonist who fathered the harpsichordist William Babell.22 Only Coberg and the organ builder, Vater, were German. Farinel went to Osnabrück in , but when he returned, in , at an increased salary of  thalers, the ensemble was strengthened by the appointment of Thielke (viola da gamba) and Giuseppe Pignietta (lute), each on a salary of  thalers. By the time Georg Ludwig succeeded to the electorate in , there were at least seventeen instrumentalists on the payroll—seven string players (including François Venturini, a Walloon23), Clemente Monari (bass viol or violone), three or four ‘oboists’, half a dozen Germans, Charles Ennuy (Anna Maria Ennuy had married Venturini in ), and Federico Lotti (born in , brother of the composer Antonio) —and when Handel became Kapellmeister in  the orchestra had grown to nineteen. Under the leadership of Farinel the orchestra at Hanover enjoyed a high reputation. Mattheson praised his careful attention to tuning.24 Farinel first tuned his own violin, bowing rather than plucking the strings, then gave the tunings, one string at a time, to the second player, who did exactly the same, passing the notes to the next player, and so on, until the whole ensemble was perfectly in tune. Mattheson marvelled at the resulting blend and considered this method superior to that of Hamburg, where all the players tuned at once, holding their instruments under their arm. He also reported that when Ernst August’s sister, Sophie Amalie, queen of Denmark-

 ‒ Norway, visited Herrenhausen in , ‘the French violinists performed, as usual, really excellently, and through the entire evening meal Farinel had them play the airs of the celebrated Lully, which amazed everyone by their euphonious sound’.25 Mattheson’s report also indicates the kind of repertory favoured at court. Lully was immensely popular: dances from his dramatic works could be bought in manuscript at the Hanover bookshop.26 During the queen’s visit the thirteen-year-old Sophie Charlotte appeared in June in the title role of La chasse di Diane, a comédie-ballet with music by members of the establishment.27 Long after her marriage and removal to Berlin, Hanover enjoyed comédie-ballets and suites of dances from them. The three parts of Abel’s published collection of dances ( –) were reprinted at Brunswick in , and much of Strungk’s music was composed in the s and s. Some of the court repertory survives in manuscript in Darmstadt.28 Twelve anonymous orchestral suites (D-DS, MS ) were copied at Hanover in  by Charles Babel, who later edited two volumes of Trios de différents autheurs (Amsterdam, [], []). Six French cantatas for soprano and instruments (DS, MS ,  and ), copied in about , predate by over a decade the earliest such works in Parisian prints. There is also a collection of twelve ‘concerts’ (DS, MS ), mostly singlemovement works alternating trio and tutti sections and resembling Venturini’s Concerti da camera (Amsterdam, ca. ), and another of Italian solo cantatas (DS, MS ). Pieces by Farinel, ‘Valloy’ [Valoix], and Venturini were transcribed for recorder in the first decade of the eighteenth century (D-HVl, MS IV. ). Since Farinel and the French style continued to influence music at Hanover during this period, the orchestra constituted an important bridge from Lully to Handel and Telemann. Carnival celebrations were introduced to Hanover in . They were modelled on those of Venice, to which Ernst August and his brothers were such frequent visitors that they rented a palace on the Grand Canal and boxes in several theatres; the duke, who made seven visits, the last in , became one of the most lavish patrons of music in the city, eventually employing his own Venetian cappella, including the singers Antonio Borosini and Nicola Paris, with Antonio Giannettini as maestro.29 The celebrations at Hanover took a variety of forms, among them ballet, comedy, banquet, masquerade, Wirtschaft, and finally opera. A Wirtschaft was a kind of masque in which the nobility ‘dressed down’ as peasants and farmers. It consisted essentially of a ball, punctuated by feasting and short theatrical scenes; partners for dancing were chosen by lot, and the entertainment was controlled by a host and hostess, normally the ducal couple. The Wirtschaft was very popular with both townsfolk and the court, attracting visitors from far and wide.30 Italian opera came to Hanover rather later than to the Catholic (and more southerly) courts of Vienna, Dresden, and Munich, and there were only six productions before Steffani arrived (Table .).31 It has been suggested that Orontea was preceded by earlier examples,32 but this is not supported by evidence. That this work was performed in  is clear from the printed libretto; that it was the first of its kind is proved by a manuscript inventory of properties for Alceste, drawn up in , which refers to ‘the stock of costumes belonging to the first opera, Orontea’.33 This and the next four productions were local adaptations of works written originally for Venice. The gap between  and  reflects the fact that, during the early years of his





   .

Italian opera at Hanover before Steffani’s arrival

Date

Title

Librettist

Composer

February 

Orontea

July  February  June 

Orontea (?) Alceste Alceste



Helena rapita da Paride Paride in Ida

Nicolo Montalbano, after Cicognini As above Ortensio Mauro, after Aureli As above, with prologue by Valenti Valenti, after Aureli

Antonio Cesti or Francesco Lucio As above Matthio Trento, after P. A. Ziani As above, with prologue by P. A. Fiocco Giovanni Domenico Freschi (?)

Nicola Nicolini

Luigi Mancia



reign, Ernst August was preoccupied with dynastic and political affairs, spent large sums of money on troops, and frequented the carnival in Venice. As the decade progressed, he realized that he could make as great an impression by mounting productions in Hanover. If Paride in Ida exposed the court’s limited theatre facilities, it must also have persuaded the duke to place opera on a new footing. He already had a fine orchestra and a poet capable of writing librettos; what he needed was a new opera house and a first-rate Kapellmeister. The poet was (Bartolomeo) Ortensio Mauro.34 Born in Verona in  or  and educated in Padua, Mauro had served the house of Brunswick since at least . His first appointments seem to have been as Italian secretary to Georg Wilhelm and then, from  or , Johann Friedrich. In  he became a secular priest (abate), and from , possibly earlier, he assisted Ferdinand von Fürstenberg, prince-bishop of Münster and Paderborn. According to Fischer, it was when Fürstenberg died, in , that Mauro entered the service of Ernst August, but a letter from Sophie to her brother Karl Ludwig reveals that her husband had taken him on by  April .35 Mauro enjoyed the affection and respect of the whole court, especially his collaborator Steffani, and of the Catholic community in Hanover; he occasionally was given diplomatic responsibility, and in old age could write to George I as a friend. He died on  September , in his nineties, and was buried in St Clement’s, a church that Steffani had built.36 Paolo Rolli expressed an interest in succeeding him, and Stefano Benedetto Pallavicini composed a sonnet in his memory.37 Mauro played an important part in the cultural life of the court. Having adapted Alceste (), he wrote the librettos of Steffani’s Hanover operas and doubtless of his Amor vien dal destino, which, although it was premièred in Düsseldorf, clearly originated in Hanover. He may have written the libretto of Paolo Magni’s Amfione (Milan, ),38 certainly penned that of Ariosti’s Atys, o L’inganno vinto dalla costanza (Berlin, ), and apparently sketched the plot and recitative of Ariosti’s one-act opera Le fantôme amoureux (Berlin, ).39 His earliest poem apparently dates from , when he wrote about a visit to the silver mines in the Harz mountains. He composed verse for the Wirtschaft at Celle in  and ‘a kind of serenade’, with roles for Bacchus, Cupid, and Venus, in .40 That he wrote the words of eight Italian chamber duets by Carlo Luigi Pietragrua,41 a musician at Düsseldorf from  to , lends weight to

 ‒ Hawkins’s statement that he supplied the texts of some of Steffani’s duets and of twelve composed by Handel at Hanover.42 He also wrote poetry in Latin and French: on  September  Just Christoph Böhmer, abbot of Loccum, informed the theologian Christoph August Heumann that he had collected Mauro’s songs (‘carmina’) and considered them worthy of publication — particularly the Latin, ‘which for acuity of sentiment and elegance of diction are scarcely inferior to the compositions of the ancient poets’.43 Twenty-eight of Mauro’s Latin poems were published posthumously in – ; most of these were reprinted, along with two ‘new’ ones, in .44 The theatre that had housed the six operas of –  had been designed by Girolamo Sartorio and built for Johann Friedrich in  –.45 An intimate court theatre (‘Komödiensaal’ or ‘Schloßtheater’) seating , it was ideal for French comedy but inadequate for Italian opera, lacking modern scenery and machines: when opera was produced there in , , and , the theatre was adapted on each occasion by the supervisor of buildings, Brand Westermann.46 A purpose-built opera house would obviate this problem, discourage the duke from spending carnival in Venice (the cost of which had risen sharply and attracted criticism), and enhance Hanover’s artistic and political status, especially if it opened before the new theatre in Brunswick. A site was bought, with building permission, in December ,47 and the new Wolfenbüttel theatre was considered as a possible model.48 The principal architect was Johann Peter Wachter, master builder at Heidelberg, but construction work appears to have been supervised by Westermann. This entailed the removal of the court library, which was accomplished by May, during Leibniz’s visit to Munich.49 The stage equipment and machinery were entrusted to Johann Oswald Harms, the greatest stage designer in north Germany, who was paid at Easter  and left in June of the following year. Though not completely finished, the opera house opened in January , a year before the new Rathaus theatre in Brunswick. It was finally completed in May ; the cost amounted to , thalers between June  and June , and , thalers in  – .50 Although the opera house was demolished in , details of its construction and machinery can be seen in the drawings of the Hanover architect Johann Friedrich Junge, published in  (Figs. . and .).51 The building as a whole was rectangular, but the auditorium inside was semicircular. There were four tiers of boxes, and the seating capacity was , (the eighteenth-century ‘Cuvilliés-Theater’ in Munich, which still stands, accommodates ). The luxurious interior was described in  by Countess Maria Aurora von Königsmarck to Queen Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden:52 The place where it [the opera] is performed could be called the ‘golden house’. The boxes in which the court sits are decked throughout with glittering gold sculptures, the rich wall-coverings being of golden material with velvet stripes as red as fire. When these boxes are lit by white candles and filled with so many bejewelled princesses and other well-bred ladies, the sight is enough to transport one out of one’s senses. . . . The theatre is built in a very noble style, the stage is broad, and the perspectives are wondrously beautiful.





 

       .  Hanover opera house: plan by Johann Friedrich Junge, from Johann Friedrich von Penther, Vierter Theil der ausführlichen Anleithung zur Bürgerlichen Bau-Kunst (Augsburg, ) (GB-Lbl, . h. ; by permission of The British Library)

Assessments of the house were based both on its beautiful auditorium and scenery and on its miraculous machines. The sets could be changed very quickly to create striking transformations of scene, a facility that Mauro and Steffani were quick to exploit. Palmieri told Sophie in  that the theatre was better than that in Brunswick; two years later Benedikte Henriette informed her that it surpassed the one in Vienna.53 No sooner had the opera house been opened than work began on the construction of the charming garden theatre at Herrenhausen. The cultivation of such a theatre, to designs by Westermann and Martin Charbonnier, inevitably took a few years, yet the project was completed in .54 Although the layout made use of perspective, unprecedented in a garden, there is no evidence that the theatre staged opera. Even if it did, it is unlikely to have accommodated either of Steffani’s one-act pastoral works: it would not have been ready for La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo in , and the performances of Baccanali in  took place in chilly February and November.

Kapellmeister Steffani is the composer whom Ernst August engaged to create opera worthy of an electorate. Having wrapped up his affairs in Munich, Steffani went to Venice in May  and was in Hanover by  June.55 The Hanoverian minister Albrecht Philipp von

 ‒

       .  Hanover opera house: cross-section by Johann Friedrich Junge, from Johann Friedrich von Penther, Vierter Theil der ausführlichen Anleithung zur Bürgerlichen Bau-Kunst (Augsburg, ) (GB-Lbl, . h. ; by permission of The British Library)

dem Bussche informed Leibniz that ‘our music is beginning to grow, and the Kapellmeister Steffani, from Munich, has already arrived’;56 he was just under thirty-four years of age. The nature of his appointment is clear from the first reference to him in the court accounts: between Whitsun  and Whitsun  ‘the Kapellmeister Stephani’ was granted  thalers and  groschen for paper for operas,57 presumably Henrico Leone and La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo. Details of his emoluments appear in a later document: ‘To Abbot Stephani, as Kapellmeister, [by order dated]  February ,  thalers per month, therefore , thalers per year, are most graciously assigned. These sums are paid, during the life of the very blessed Lord, from the Osnabrück moneys, but after these cease the  thalers per month will be paid to Abbot Stephani by the treasury as a salary in addition to his daily  thalers’.58 The high level of his remuneration is a sign of the esteem in which he was held. His salary was more than double that of Farinel, while his subsistence allowance, which amounted to , thalers per annum, raised his income by over five times as much again. At first, his salary was paid from Ernst August’s revenue as prince-bishop of Osnabrück, but after the duke’s death it was paid, like the allowance, by the court exchequer. Ernst August met virtually all the cost of the opera from his Osnabrück funds, so there is no sign of this expenditure in the court accounts. Moreover, since the Osnabrück ledgers are lost,





  there is no way of knowing how much he spent on these ‘magnificent and expensfull diversions’ (Evelyn);59 according to the English envoy, Sir William Dutton Colt, the opera had cost as much as two regiments.60 Steffani’s period as Kapellmeister was the heyday of Baroque opera at Hanover (Table .). Although he retained the title until he left in ,61 he did not perform all the duties of the post after ; from  he was increasingly involved in diplomatic activity, and from  he was constantly absent from court. Pietro Torri was appointed temporary Kapellmeister for carnival , and in the following year the opera was managed by Count Francesco Palmieri.62 Apart from , at least one new three-act opera was performed every year from  to ; in some years (– ) there was also a revival of the previous year’s work, in others ( and ) a new one-act piece. That Steffani composed the first six of the eight full-length works is clear from his autograph scores. The penultimate opera was probably by Torri, the last certainly by the Luigi Mancia who in  had written Paride in Ida. Neither of the one-act works survives in autograph score, but Steffani’s hand is suggested by other evidence. There was no opera in , following the death of Ernst August in January, and the theatre remained closed for many years. The heyday was brief, the seasons were short, and the repertory was small, but the performances ravished the ear and the eye. The Hanover opera was the talk of the Empire, and Steffani was right at the heart of it. The idea for an opera on Henry the Lion ( – ), duke of Saxony and Bavaria, goes back at least to the spring of , when Leibniz visited Munich to investigate the history of the Guelphs. On / May the Hanoverian minister Otto Grote ad .

Italian opera at Hanover during Steffani’s period as Kapellmeister

Date

Title

Acts

Libretto

Music

 January  Summer  February  February 

Henrico Leone La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo La superbia d’Alessandro Orlando generoso Il zelo di Leonato Le rivali concordi Orlando generoso La libertà contenta Le rivali concordi I trionfi del fato Baccanali I trionfi del fato Baccanali Briseide La costanza nelle selve

  b 

Mauro Mauro Mauro Mauro

Steffania Steffani Steffania Steffania



Mauro

Steffania



Mauro

Steffania

 

Mauro Mauro

Steffania Probably Steffani

 

Palmieri Mauro

Probably Torri Mancia

February  ,  February  ,  February  Carnival  November  February  Summer  a Steffani’s b Plus

autograph score survives. prologue. La superbia d’Alessandro was revised as Il zelo di Leonato ().

 ‒ vised him to return without delay, ‘because, among other things, his highness is inclining to have an opera produced on the history of Henry the Lion, at which your presence and opinions could be very necessary’.63 Three months later Ortensio Mauro told Leibniz that ‘her highness is going with the whole court to the Brunswick fair; she is leaving me here to get on with the opera Henry the Lion, which embarrasses me greatly, never having written one before’.64 Mauro had adapted the libretto of Alceste (), but Henrico Leone is the first opera of which the words are entirely his own. As Sophie informed Leibniz on / September , ‘the piece about Henry the Lion is being written by Signor Ortensio. I believe this subject was chosen [by Ernst August] so that posterity does not forget all the states that once belonged to this house’.65 Preparations for the performance gathered momentum during the autumn. For assistance the court turned naturally to Modena, where Giannettini had been maestro di cappella since : on  October he agreed to the temporary release of Antonio Borosini (tenor) and Giuseppe Galloni (violin).66 The composition of the opera was finished before the end of the year (the autograph is dated ), and on  January  Sophie told Leibniz that beautiful voices were reviving the memory of Henry the Lion.67 The dates of the general rehearsal and first performance are revealed in a letter from Giannettini to the Modenese secretary and poet Giovanni Battista Giardini:68 I have just received a letter of  January from Borosini, which informs me that they were having to hold the general rehearsal of their opera on the th in order then to perform it on the th, and that the elector and electress of Brandenburg, the landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, the princess of Friesland, and all the other members of the house of Brunswick were present in Hanover for the occasion. Electress Sophie Charlotte and her husband had arrived as early as  January, perhaps to attend rehearsals.69 The first performance was a gala occasion. It inaugurated Ernst August’s new opera house, marked the début of his new Kapellmeister, and, most important, celebrated the th anniversary of one of Henry the Lion’s most courageous exploits, the raising of the siege of Bardowick (). The history of Henry the Lion was not unknown in Steffani’s day. It had been codified in Heinrich Göding’s extended poem Eine schöne alte Histori von einem Fürsten und Herrn, Herrn Hertzogen zu Braunschweig und Lüneburgk . . . in gesangs weis gerichtet (), and information was to be found in Heinrich Meybaum’s Braunschweigische und Lüneburgische Chronica (Magdeburg, );70 the tombs of Henry and his wife were in Brunswick Cathedral, as they are to this day. Nevertheless, Henry had not previously been used as the subject of an opera and was not to appear in another for a hundred years.71 No expense or effort was spared in ensuring that the audience was as conscious as the duchess of the political significance of the event. The printed libretto included French and German translations of the ‘argomento’ and scene-by-scene synopses in both languages. There was also a separate, anonymous pamphlet, in German only,





  entitled Gantz kurtzer Bericht und Inhalt der Historie von Hertzog Henrich dem Löwen Und der OPERA Vorinn Er wird fürgestellet Zu Hanover Anno . While the ‘Bericht’ outlines the historical background, the ‘Inhalt’ duplicates both the wordbook’s lists of characters, sets, machines, and dances, and the synopses. The ‘Bericht’ begins, however, with a defence of opera and music in general, prompted, perhaps, by the debate on the morality of opera that had been triggered by the opening of Hamburg’s Gänsemarkt theatre in . Leibniz had expressed the opinion in the early s that opera was a powerful medium, capable of working for good or ill.72 The defence in the ‘Bericht’ states that ‘it is truly far better to raise one’s spirit in a seemly manner with pleasant music, comedy, and opera than to pay a damnable visit and sacrifice to Bacchus and Venus. Nothing in the world will be found that could give mankind greater earthly acceptable satisfaction, and be more permissible, than music’.73 If the Hanoverians did not always live up to such lofty sentiments, this statement suggests that they at least thought about their pleasures and encouraged intellectual activity. The production of Henrico Leone was presumably designed by du Cormier, who had succeeded Girolamo Sartorio as stage designer in  and was soon to be followed by Tommaso Giusti: no Steffani opera was designed for Hanover by Harms.74 Like Verdi’s Otello, the opera begins with a storm at sea. As the orchestra repeats the second section of the overture, a four-part chorus sings ‘Cieli, aita, pietà’.75 The curtain rises on Henrico and his servant in a storm-tossed boat. Despite the apparent hopelessness of their situation, Henrico is defiantly optimistic, expressing his confidence in the vigorous ‘Tra le braccia de la morte’.76 By launching this aria with a trio for two oboes and bassoon, Steffani exploits, in the first bar of the first aria in his first Hanover opera, the most distinctive strength of the court orchestra. Henrico’s confidence is not misplaced: as (to a sinfonia) his ship breaks up and his servant drowns, he is plucked from the waves by a griffon and lives to fight another day. Thus right from the start the marvellous theatre machinery was on display. That the work made the desired impression is suggested by a ‘Eulogy of the Most Serene House of Brunswick-Lüneburg and of the grand opera Henry the Lion’ in the wordbook of the ‘pastorale héroique’ Europe (Celle, February ), which begins with this poem:77 Des plus fameux Héros de la race Guelfique Dans un riche appareil et par des vers pompeux Un de ses illustres neveux, Prince puissant et magnifique, A fait représenter les exploits glorieux: Ce spectacle a ravi les esprits et les yeux. [Of the most famous heroes of the house of Guelph, / In rich and lofty verse, / One of its illustrious sons, / A powerful and magnificent prince, / Had the glorious exploits acted on stage: / This spectacle ravished the spirit and the eye.]

The cast of Henrico Leone is somewhat uncertain, despite the survival of evidence: ‘When, in , Italian operas were performed again at Hanover, the singers were as follows. Men: Nicol. Pani, Severo Francioni, Ant. Cottini, Nicolini, Augustino Granara, Nicolini Grationini, Mutio Maria Tallaoni. Women: Victoria’.78 Most of

 ‒ these singers can be identified. ‘Nicol. Pani’ was the celebrated soprano Nicola Paris from Naples, who had belonged to Ernst August’s cappella in Venice in  and been described as a ‘famous swan’ of the duke;79 he may have sung at Hanover from  to , for when he appeared in Italy in  –, he was ‘detto di Brunsvic’.80 Severo Frangioni was an alto in the choir of St Mark’s, Venice, from July  to December ;81 he could have sung at Hanover from  to . Antonio Cottini may be the bass ‘Cottini’ — and Tallaoni the tenor ‘Mutio’ — who had belonged to the Hanover Schloßkapelle in the late s82 and sung for Steffani at Munich;83 he may have worked at Hanover on several occasions during the s, before making further appearances in Italy in –.84 Augustino Granara is presumably the ‘Joann Augustin Granara’ who was at Munich from  to 85 and the ‘Granara’ who appeared as Bacco in Baccanali, a limited soprano role: since he was already in Hanover in , he may have sung in all of Steffani’s Hanover operas. Nicola Gratianini, bass, had also been a member of the Schloßkapelle and appeared in Orontea and Alceste ();86 he may have been the Nicolò Francesco Grazianini who sang in Milan in 87 and was described by Quadrio as a ‘virtuoso’ of the elector of Cologne who had begun to flourish in the s.88 ‘Victoria’ was presumably the notorious Vittoria Tarquini, known as ‘la Bombace’ or ‘Bambagia’, who made her début in Venice in . On  January , three weeks before the première of Henrico Leone, she married Farinel in Copenhagen.89 She sang in Naples in –  and then in Tuscany;90 in  Sophie repeated a rumour that Handel was her lover.91 The gap in her career suggests that she may have sung in Hanover from  to . ‘Nicolini’ is hard to identify, for the name was a common diminutive, but he was not the great alto Nicola Grimaldi, who would have been only fifteen years of age.92 Marles convincingly argues that the nickname refers to Nicola Remolini, a regular singer at Hanover until .93 It is difficult to allocate these eight singers to the nine roles in the opera. The one person who is known to have appeared, Antonio Borosini, is not in the list. Borosini had moved to Modena in  or , having sung in the choir of St Mark’s, Venice, since ; in  –  he appeared in five operas in Italy.94 He seems to have sung at Hanover in , , , , and . If both he and ‘Mutio’ were available, there were two singers for the one tenor role. It is possible that Borosini was a replacement for ‘Mutio’, in which case, however, the complement falls back to eight. The ninth singer was possibly the Signora Cettareli to whom, in early , Ernst August’s agent in Venice gave ‘ ducats to be set against her fee’.95 If the foregoing account is correct, the cast of Henrico Leone may have lined up as follows: Henrico Leone Metilda Almaro Idalba Lindo Errea Eurillo Ircano Demon

Soprano Soprano Tenor Soprano Soprano Alto Alto Bass Bass

Nicola Paris Vittoria Tarquini or Signora Cettareli Antonio Borosini Signora Cettareli or Vittoria Tarquini Nicola Remolini Severo Frangioni Augustino Granara Antonio Cottini/Nicola Gratianini Nicola Gratianini/Antonio Cottini





  There can be no question about Borosini as Almaro or about Paris, the best castrato available, as Henrico. If the two largest female roles were taken by women, Metilda and Idalba were sung by Tarquini and Cettareli (or vice versa). The bass parts may have been shared by Gratianini and Cottini or doubled by one of them. Although he was known as a soprano, Granara could have managed the alto role of Eurillo, leaving Frangioni as Errea and Remolini as Lindo. The majority of these singers were presumably chosen by Steffani. He must have worked with Cottini and Granara in Munich; may have heard Borosini at St Mark’s in ; and perhaps engaged Cettareli, Frangioni, Paris, and Tarquini when he visited Venice in May .96 He may not have met Gratianini or Remolini before moving to Hanover, but if the cast list above is correct, neither of these singers was risked in a prominent part. The composer presumably cast all his Hanover operas himself: most of his singers were engaged in Italy or borrowed from Munich, Dresden, or Vienna, and many were at their peak when they sang for him. Since the preceding list of singers refers to a year not a work, it is possible that some of them appeared in La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo, a ‘divertimento drammatico’ performed in the summer of .97 The subject of this one-act opera is the contest between Hercules and Acheloüs for the hand of Deianeira; the source is Ovid’s Metamorphoses, book IX. The hero is known in the libretto and scores by his alternative name, Alcide; ‘Hercole’ appears only in the title of the wordbook and of two later scores (GB-Lbl, RM . h.  and ), which could have been modelled on it. The opera may originally have been entitled ‘La lotta d’Alcide con Acheloo’, the name being changed to ‘Hercole’ when the libretto was printed. The cast comprises two sopranos (Alcide and Deianira) and two altos (Eneo [Oeneus] and Acheloo): it is tempting to see Paris and Tarquini in the (larger) soprano roles, with Frangioni and Granara as the altos. The wordbook names neither poet nor composer, but Mauro and Steffani’s involvement is implied by a letter of  January/ February  from Sophie to Leibniz: ‘P. S. Your library has been converted into a theatre where the most beautiful operas in the world have been presented. Signor Ortensio writes the verses for them, and Signor Steffani, who was previously with the elector of Bavaria, the music’.98 The ‘operas’ must have included the new one for  and at least one of those from the previous year, of which La lotta was the more recent. If anybody other than Mauro and Steffani had written them, Sophie would surely have said so. The composer’s role is confirmed by a contemporary manuscript catalogue of Hanover operas99 and by Mattheson’s list of operas performed in Hamburg. Item  in this list, ‘Heinrich der Löwe’, names Steffani as composer and ‘Fideler’ as translator.100 The next entry reads: ‘Alcides. Wie hervorgehende’ (‘Alcides: as above’): Mattheson considered Steffani responsible for an opera about Alcides, and the only such opera by him is La lotta. This is not, however, the ‘Alcides’ that was given in Hamburg.101 The new opera in  was La superbia d’Alessandro, which Sophie’s letter implies was performed in late January or early February. This is an ambitious work, intended to reinforce the impression created by Henrico Leone. It is also unusual among Steffani’s operas in having a prologue and a very high number of ensembles: five duets, three

 ‒ trios, a quartet, and two sextets. The action is based on the story of Alexander the Great at Oxydraca and begins with his daring assault on the city. The plot is explained in a ‘Dichiaratione del Soggetto dell’Opera per le Dame’ in the wordbook, which also gives scene-by-scene synopses in French and German and lists of sets, machines, extras, and dances, all in three languages. A letter of Ernst August reveals that the soprano Rosane Santinelli (‘Rosana’) was engaged from Dresden for the season and performed with ‘approbation’;102 according to Fischer, she was a sister of Farinel and the wife of one Santi Santielli.103 It is assumed that such singers as Paris, Granara, and Remolini took part, but because the voice type of one of the roles is uncertain, it would be impossible to reconstruct the complete cast.104 The carnival of  was more ambitious again. On this occasion the new opera, Orlando generoso, was accompanied by a revival of the previous year’s work. The innovation was noted by Leibniz105 and furnished a pattern for the next two carnivals: an account of the performances in  suggests that the new opera was presented first and the revival second. Leibniz also confirms that the librettist of Orlando generoso was Mauro.106 It is his and Steffani’s first opera based on a ‘modern’ literary source — Ariosto’s romantic epic Orlando furioso— and the first Italian opera in which Orlando’s love, madness, and recovery are the principal concern. The work includes more duets than La superbia d’Alessandro and more arias than any other of Steffani’s Hanover operas, and the overture is the first by him to incorporate Lully-style trios for oboes and bassoon. The revival of Alessandro occasioned extensive revision, including omission of the prologue, and the expansion of the role of Leonato resulted in a new title, Il zelo di Leonato. Singers for the  season may have been recruited by Steffani in April , when, according to Fischer, he was in Venice.107 On  November/ December, Princess Eberhardine Sophie wrote to Margravine Sophie Louise that ‘this carnival Ferdinando also will sing in Hanover; at the same time two other female singers have arrived who should be extremely good, so that the opera will be much better than it was last year’.108 Ferdinando Chiaravalle was an experienced alto who had sung in Mantua, Modena, and Venice in –  and maybe at Hanover in Mancia’s Paride in Ida (); he sang in the Hanover carnivals of ,  (possibly), , , and , and in Berlin for Sophie Charlotte. One observer described him as incomparable: ‘he has everything necessary for performance in a theatre; he is tall and well built, his face is pleasant, and he has a marvellous understanding of the stage’.109 Leibniz wrote that in Ariosti’s Atys, o L’inganno vinto dalla costanza () ‘Mr Ferdinando a paru le plus avantagieusement du monde’.110 The doubling of the number of carnival operas at Hanover coincided with the intensification of Ernst August’s campaign for an electorate. The addition of a second opera enhanced the attraction of the festivities and impressed the court’s visitors and guests. At the same time, however, it put extra pressure on those involved in producing the works. It is not known why Farinel left Hanover in , but one wonders whether his departure for Osnabrück was related to the heavier schedule. In his Memoirs of Steffani, Hawkins included an anecdote suggesting that the Hanover opera was not always sweetness and light:





  This latter trust [the management of the opera], however agreeable it might be to his inclination, was the occasion of great uneasiness to him [Steffani]; for whether it was owing to the ignorance, or petulance, of the persons employed to sing, it was, frequently, with great difficulty they could be prevailed on to study their parts, so as to do justice to the composer; and, even when their condescension was greatest in this respect, so many feuds and jealousies were continually arising among them, that an illustrious audience were frequently disappointed of their entertainment. This particular is, in some degree, verified, by what is related of the elector’s son, the late K[ing] George the first, who, upon some such occasion as this, prevailed on our author to resign his charge, for a short time, to him; imagining, perhaps, that his rank and quality might give him a better title to command this set of people, than even the great merit of their manager; but he was soon convinced of the difficulty of the undertaking, for in a few days he quitted it, and left them to themselves, declaring, that he could, with much more ease, command an army of fifty thousand men, than manage a company of opera singers.111 Whoever ‘related’ this episode, it presumably contains a grain of truth. No date was given by Hawkins, but the introduction of a new schedule and the departure of Farinel suggest that it may have occurred during rehearsals for carnival . Hawkins also implies that the difficulties were confined to the singers, but if Vittoria Tarquini was involved, she may have departed and taken her husband with her. Be that as it may, preparations went ahead for the following year. Farinel was replaced by Galloni,112 who had played in Henrico Leone, and by / November Leibniz could write: ‘Here an Italian opera is being prepared; when everything is ready, we shall see the courts of Celle and Wolfenbüttel’.113 The new opera, Le rivali concordi (Fig. .), was based on the Greek legend of the Calydonian hunt; that Mauro wrote the libretto is confirmed by the manuscript catalogue of Hanover operas. The wordbook () includes a French ‘argument’ and German ‘Einhalt’, but synopses in those languages were published separately, as they had been for Orlando generoso.114 Borosini returned to sing the role of Giasone, and that of Ruggiero in the revival of Orlando, which was transposed for him, but the casts are otherwise uncertain. The revival also entailed the transposition of the title role, substitution of eight arias, and addition of two new ones. The last performance of the season took place on  February/ March. On the following day Sophie wrote to Count Luigi Ballati: ‘Peace has been made between him [Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria] and the duke [Ernst August of Hanover], whom he saw the day before yesterday and then at Celle. . . . Yesterday we saw the opera for the last time, which succeeded very well, to the glory of the librettist, the singers, and Abbot Steffani. For my part, I sometimes fall asleep, but that’s a secret. I do not wish to appear in bad taste’.115 Her letter suggests that Le rivali concordi was intended to celebrate an agreement between the elector and the duke. Mauro, Steffani, and the musicians were surely the principal architects of Hanover’s operatic success, although the carnival expenditure of , thalers presumably helped.116 The audience, incidentally, must have been unusually quiet and attentive: it is hard to imagine anyone nodding off in the public theatres of the time.117

 ‒

       .  Beginning of aria ‘A che serve la bellezza’ from Le rivali concordi (), Act II, scene , in Steffani’s hand (GB-Lbl, RM . k. , f. ; by permission of The British Library)

The carnival of  was even more extravagant. The first since the raising of Hanover to the ninth electorate, it marked this historic development in uniquely magnificent style. Over a period of six weeks, the court and its guests enjoyed a daily succession of balls, banquets, masquerades, operas, Wirtschaften, and plays, including Corneille’s Nicomède, Molière’s Festin de Pierre, and Lully’s Psyché. The courts of Celle and Brandenburg were again in attendance, but not that of Wolfenbüttel: after  the senior branch of the house stayed away,118 piqued, perhaps, by the Lüneburgers’ political success. An account of the season was given in March by Countess Aurora von Königsmarck to Queen Ulrika Eleonora of Sweden. The celebrations began in January with a Wirtschaft, of which a wordbook, unusually, survives,119 and ended in late February with another. The operas, also, were staged in this month, which began in the following way:  February French comedy; dinner; ball  February Lunch; dance; two French comedies; dinner  February ‘On Friday  February the elector gave dinner with Tafelmusik. After dining, their lordships stayed together, seeking to entertain themselves with conversation or games. At six o’clock we went to the Italian opera ‘La liberté contentée’. After the opera there was supper at court, after which we retired.’120





  La libertà contenta was performed on  and  February, the revival of Le rivali concordi four days later: ‘on th of the month the duchess of Ostfriesland arrived. The opera ‘Les deux rivales concordés’ began at six o’clock and lasted till eleven. After supper their lordships retired’.121 The revival was repeated on  February, at least; the wordbook is undated, but as before, the process entailed revision (substitutions, an added scene, and a modified ending). The libretto of La libertà contenta, by Mauro,122 is based on the life of the dissolute Athenian commander Alcibiades. The wordbook is decorated by crowns, a new typographical feature displaying Hanover’s pride in its recent elevation; one copy includes an extra printed sheet with a prologue in which Mars, in a stage machine, praises the elector of Brandenburg.123 Mauro does not name his sources because, as he states at the end, ‘les grecs, dont on parle, sont assez connus dans l’Histoire’. The ultimate authority is Plutarch, whose works were in Steffani’s library,124 but there is a chapter on Alcibiades in Madame de Villedieu’s Les amours des grands hommes (Paris, ), the source of the composer’s Solone (). Alcibiades was also the subject of a tragedy by the French playwright and librettist Jean Galbert de Campistron ( – )125 and of Aureli’s Alcibiade, of which Marc’Antonio Ziani’s setting (Venice, ) was revived at Verona in , when it was dedicated to Anton Ulrich of BrunswickWolfenbüttel.126 But La libertà contenta does not dwell on history or politics. Instead it explores other matters with which Hanover was becoming more and more preoccupied: fidelity and promiscuity, or love and lust. This opera surpasses all others by Steffani in dramatic concentration and musical richness. Although the action is complex, the requirements are modest: a cast of seven (no deities), few sets, no machines, and no supernatural interventions. There are several comic episodes, including a wonderful nocturnal garden scene (from which Handel borrowed), but these hardly disguise the opera’s more serious purpose. As in Così fan tutte a century later, the music transcends the apparent triviality of the subject to probe the heart of human affairs, and it does so in ways which, for its period, are as sublime and as successful as Mozart’s. Some of the singers in the  season are mentioned in Countess von Königsmarck’s letter: ‘Nothing can be compared with the splendid and well-appointed costumes or with the beauty of the voices. It is sufficient to say that Clementino, Ferdinando, Nicolini, Borosini, Salvadore, and “la Landini” performed an opera together to prove that one could not hear anything more delightful, more harmonious, or even more angelic’.127 Clementino was the soprano castrato Clementin Hader, now ennobled as von Hadersberg, who had sung for Steffani in Munich. He may have appeared at Hanover in , for now he was keen to return; since this depended on a request from Ernst August to the elector of Saxony, he may have been at Dresden later that year.128 In , also, he was called to Brussels by Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria,129 and in November he was proposed by Count Philipp Christoph von Königsmarck, the brother of Aurora and an officer in the Hanoverian army, as a possible teacher for the daughters of Sophie Dorothea of Celle.130 Hader also sang at Hanover in  and . ‘Ferdinando’, ‘Nicolini’, and Borosini are familiar figures; since Borosini was employed at Vienna from , Steffani presumably renewed his acquaintance with him when he went there for negotiations about the electorate.131

 ‒ ‘Salvadore’ is unknown, but Maria Landini was a soprano, born in Hamburg, who served Queen Christina of Sweden in Rome and returned to Germany after Christina’s death in . Landini must have been in Hanover by mid-, when she, Clementino, and Nicolini were loaned to Celle; she also sang at Hanover in , when she married an actor named Chateauneuf,132 and in .133 For  Hanover also tried to recruit Margherita Salicola from Dresden;134 Rosane Santinelli was offered instead, but it is not known whether she went. Steffani was now thirty-eight years old and at the pinnacle of his musical and diplomatic career at Hanover. He had played a crucial role in the negotiations leading to the electorate—though he would have more to do on this score — and composed and directed the operas to celebrate the event. That isolated movements from Le rivali concordi and La libertà contenta survive in many manuscript collections is a sign that these operas made a powerful impression and became known far and wide — and quickly, for the latter was never revived. These successes were not followed up in . A letter from Sophie to a court official implies that carnival was celebrated at Hanover as usual that year,135 but there is no evidence that any opera was performed: the electress does not mention one, and no Hanoverian libretto or score bears the date. The absence of opera in  may have been due to the Königsmarck affair.136 By  Prince Georg Ludwig, the future George I, had taken as mistress Countess (Ehrengard) Melusine von der Schulenburg, later duchess of Kendal. In the early s, too, his wife Sophie Dorothea had embarked on a passionate affair with Count Königsmarck, her lover from March . Although they tried to keep their relationship secret by writing in code, using nicknames, and expressing their feelings in quotations from Mauro’s librettos, they were inevitably found out. On the night of / July  Königsmarck was murdered in the palace. Shortly afterward the enormous sum of , thalers was settled on Nicolo Montalbano, a Venetian who had served Ernst August since  and adapted the libretto of Orontea. Königsmarck’s body was dumped in the River Leine, Sophie Dorothea’s marriage was dissolved, and she was banished to the castle of Ahlden for the remaining thirty-two years of her life. The count’s disappearance was completely hushed up, because it could have jeopardized Hanover’s rise to the electorate (still a sensitive issue).137 Although no opera was performed there in , Steffani may have composed one. Amor vien dal destino resembles his Hanover operas more closely than those for Düsseldorf, where it was premièred in . Riemann recognized Mauro’s hand in the libretto,138 which comprises three acts and an ‘introduzione’ rather than the five acts typical of Pallavicini. Unlike Steffani’s other Düsseldorf operas, this one survives in an autograph score (GB-Lbl, RM . h. – ) that includes added folios in the hand of his later copyist, Gregorio Piva, suggesting that the opera was written for Hanover and adapted for Düsseldorf. It could, however, have been intended for  or , rather than . Like I trionfi del fato (), Amor vien dal destino is based on the story of Aeneas in Italy. Its central figure is Turnus (hence the original title, Il Turno, in the autograph), but the theme of the opera is the inevitability of fate. Since the role of fate is made clearer in I trionfi del fato, especially in the revised version, this appears to be the later work. The reverse, however, is implied by the fact that Amor vien dal destino is more satisfactory as a drama than even the revised version of I trionfi del fato. The





  evidence of the music is no more conclusive. The tenor role of Aeneas looks as though it was composed for Borosini (resembling his parts in Henrico Leone, Le rivali concordi, La libertà contenta, and I trionfi del fato), but Borosini did not go to Hanover in . If he withdrew at a late stage and no replacement was available, he may have put paid to the production. Alternatively, if Amor vien dal destino was ready for  but not performed, it could have been staged in , obviating the need for a new opera then. The elaborate lute part in the opening scene suggests that the work was composed after the appointment of Pignietta in . Since it could not have been written for , the year of Briseide, it may have been intended for , when, for some unknown reason, there was no carnival opera at Hanover, or for , when the death of Ernst August in January kept the curtain down. In  Steffani published a short dissertation entitled Quanta certezza habbia da suoi principii la musica et in qual pregio fosse perciò presso gli antichi. It was written in response to a letter from a ‘Marchese A. G.’ in defence of a proposition that he, Steffani, had advanced at an ‘assemblea’ in Hanover in September .139 Steffani’s correspondent could conceivably have been the Marquis Angelo Gabrielli from Rome who was in Hanover in –.140 ‘A. G.’ had asked whether music was a science and held in greater esteem by the ancients than it was at the time of writing. Steffani’s reply, which runs to seventy-two pages, attempts to prove that music is a science of which the purpose is to move the passions by means of sound: Music is ordained, therefore, to move, correct, change, and calm the passions of the mind. But by what power? Oh, this is the point! By the power of harmony. Now, since there is no harmony without interval, and no interval without notes, let us first consider what a note is and how a musician regards it. . . . ‘A note is a sound’s fall, suitable for song, on to a single pitch’.141 Steffani claims, in line with Pythagoras, that the passions are caused by proportional relations between the four humours, and he illustrates the power of music by reference to ancient Greek history and the Bible. Having summarized various definitions of sound from Antiquity to Zarlino, he invokes such authorities as Aristotle, Aristoxenus, and Boethius to explain how the science of music is grounded in arithmetic. He regarded this science as a speculative art, not merely a practical activity: I am sure that anybody who has a desire to be a musician, not contenting himself with being a composer, singer, or instrumentalist, could attempt it with the greatest of ease. I say this in order to encourage young people not to let this wonderful science perish in misery and not to be satisfied with acquiring a grasp of its surface. 142 According to Joscelyn Godwin, ‘in his praise of the Senary, supported by many symbolic examples, and his conviction that the whole world is harmonious, Steffani belongs firmly in the Renaissance tradition. His book could have been written just as well  years previously’.143 Quanta certezza represents a more thorough exposition of ideas that Steffani had published in the dedication of his Sacer Ianus quadrifrons (). There he had described music as the pre-eminent mathematical science, the purpose of which was ‘to excite,

 ‒ calm, suppress, moderate, in a word to rule and govern the various movements of the soul’,144 and there, too, he had illustrated music’s power by citing examples from ancient history and the Bible. His dissertation may be seen also as part of a contemporary debate on the nature of music and music theory — a struggle between conservative ‘scholastics’ and progressive pragmatics. A German translation, by Andreas Werckmeister, was published in  and reprinted in ,145 and from this a definition of musical theory was quoted verbatim by Johann Heinrich Buttstett in his Ut, mi, sol, re, fa, la, tota musica et harmonia aeterna (Erfurt, ).146 Buttstett’s treatise was an attack on the modern approach advocated by Mattheson in Das neu-eröffnete Orchestre (), but most of his arguments were soon demolished in Mattheson’s Das beschützte Orchestre (). In his secular compositions, at least, Steffani was a modern, but in his writings he was unequivocally conservative. He was doubtless inclined in this direction by his education, which, to judge by Quanta certezza, included classics, music, and theology. His treatise shows that there was interest in this debate at Hanover and is a sign of the intellectual activity that flourished at the court under the influence of Sophie and Leibniz.147 Irrespective of the views that it presents, it evokes the context in which Steffani was fortunate to work. The subtitle of Quanta certezza reveals, incidentally, that by  the author was an Apostolic Prothonotary. This had been an extremely high office: in later Antiquity the seven regional notaries were the supreme palace notaries of the papal chancery; in the Middle Ages they were often promoted direct to the cardinalate. A distinction was made in the sixteenth century between honorary prothonotaries, with some of the former privileges, and titular prothonotaries, who held a corresponding position in the administration of the episcopal ordinariate or in the collegiate chapter. Sixtus V ( – ) increased their number to twelve, whereupon they declined in importance, almost disappearing by the time of the French Revolution.148 Steffani was presumably a titular prothonotary with responsibility for certain aspects of church administration in north Germany. The date of his appointment has not been found. The carnival of  was the only one at Hanover during the Baroque period when both of the operas were new. There could be no revival from , because there had been no opera that year; La libertà contenta () had not been revived, but its subject would have been unsuitable after the murder of Königsmarck. The new operas were I trionfi del fato and Baccanali. The festivities were curtailed, however, by the death on  December  of Queen Mary of England. On  January Count Ernst August von Platen wrote that ‘we shall go into grieving for her on the day after tomorrow and have the carnival entertainments stopped, except for the opera, which will be performed a couple more times for the love of the electress of Brandenburg, who will stay here some weeks’.149 It is understandable that opera should be the last thing to be sacrificed, for doubtless much time, money, and effort had been spent on preparations, yet to proceed with performances, especially of such a playful piece as Baccanali, was to fly in the face of convention and show little sympathy or respect. That the Hanoverians did so shows how keen they were to please Sophie Charlotte and, perhaps, her husband, the elector of Brandenburg. An indication of the schedule of the carnival was written into a copy of the





  printed Baccanali libretto: ‘Saturday — grand opera; Sunday — comedy; Monday — masques and revels; Tuesday—pastoral; Wednesday—comedy; Thursday—opera’.150 The ‘grand opera’ was I trionfi del fato, the comedy probably a spoken French play, and the pastoral Baccanali. If this pattern was repeated, it may represent the schedule as originally planned; if not, it may be the timetable of the curtailed festivities arranged in the wake of Queen Mary’s demise, an exceptional circumstance that might explain why the schedule was written down at all. The libretto of I trionfi del fato is attributed to Mauro in the manuscript catalogue and his authorship is confirmed by a copy of the wordbook bearing the inscription ‘donum auctoris Domini Abbatis Hortensii Mauri’.151 It is an elaborate tale in which gods intervene in human affairs, manipulating emotions and affecting behaviour. The opera suggests that humans are less in control of their feelings, and less responsible for their actions, than they like to believe, and thus helps to explain and excuse human behaviour, perhaps even to exonerate its agents. If this interpretation is correct, the subject and its treatment appear to have been carefully chosen for the first Hanover opera since Königsmarck’s murder. The work may even have helped the court come to terms with this brutal event, which had severely shaken the ruling house so soon after its rise to the electorate. The wordbook survives in two forms, one entitled I trionfi del fato, the other I trionfi del fato o Le glorie d’Enea. The latter is a radical revision of the former which appears, nevertheless, to have been completed and performed during carnival . On  May the Journal de Hambourg reported: There has recently been printed a book entitled I Triomphi del fato, o le Glorie d’Enea. Drama da recitarsi nel Theatro Elettorale d’Hanover, in quarto,  (The Triumphs of Fate, or The Glories of Aeneas, &c). It is a dramatic work that was staged at Hanover and formed one of the principal entertainments of the last carnival there. It was called the grand opera to distinguish it from a pastoral that was played in its turn and which also was performed entirely to music.152 Taken together, the words of von Platen and this report suggest that the death of Queen Mary caused performances of the first version to be suspended, creating time in which it was revised. The alterations are more radical than those to any other Steffani opera. The action is made more convincing by the renumbering of scenes, and less reliant on machinery (the sets were painted by Giusti, who also used the story of Aeneas as the theme of his cycle of frescoes in the gallery building at Herrenhausen153). The music is more compact, varied, and atmospheric. Over a dozen arias are omitted, two are substituted, and six are added, one of them in lieu of a duet. Another duet is replaced. The coro is slashed from eighteen bars to seven, of which five are instrumental. The gods retain the same number of arias as they had in the first version, but all the principals lose at least one. The effect of the changes is to strengthen the position of the three central characters, Aeneas, Dido, and Lavinia. While I trionfi del fato was staged in the opera house, Baccanali was performed, according to the libretto and score, ‘nel picciolo theatro elettorale d’Hanover’, perhaps the small theatre used for opera in Johann Friedrich’s day. As its title suggests, this one-

 ‒ act pastoral is a festive entertainment in light-hearted mood. The libretto, attributed to Mauro in the manuscript catalogue, blends the ancient and relatively modern. After the opening scene, the action unfolds on Mount Parnassus, but most of the characters are nymphs and shepherds from the Arcadia of the Italian Renaissance. The influence of Tasso’s Aminta () is clear, and the games of ‘Oracle’ and ‘Blind Man’s Buff ’ (scenes  –) can be traced back to Guarini’s Pastor fido ().154 One sign of the playful atmosphere is the prominence of dancing, which is called for on five occasions (two dances each time); the joyful mood is enhanced by major keys in the overture, the dance music, and two-thirds of the vocal numbers. There is no documentary evidence on who composed Baccanali, but the music is entirely characteristic of Steffani’s style. I trionfi del fato and Baccanali were revived in November  to celebrate the marriage of Charlotte Felicitas, eldest daughter of Johann Friedrich, to Rinaldo III of Modena.155 Their union was of great historical significance. Leibniz had discovered that the houses of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Este were both descended from the same eleventh-century couple: Margrave Adelbert Azzo II and his wife Kunigunde.156 The marriage of Rinaldo and Charlotte Felicitas reunited the two branches of the family after an interval of  years. Coming soon after the rise to the electorate, it added to Hanover’s sense of dynastic pride. The marriage, by proxy, took place in midNovember.157 Preliminary negotiations had been conducted by Giovanni Morselli da Carpi, a Modenese tenor who had sung in Johann Friedrich’s Schloßkapelle in  – 158 and was secretary to his wife Benedikte Henriette from  to . Rinaldo was represented in Hanover by his plenipotentiary, Marquis Sigismondo D’Este. The journey to the church was accompanied by trumpets and drums; inside there was ‘musique auff der Tribüne’, followed by a motet, and after the ceremony a salute of guns.159 The court kept open house for the rest of the day, and there was dancing all night. Operas, balls, comedies, and ‘other diversions’ helped pass the time before the departure for Modena. There are two sources of information on singers in opera at Hanover in . The following appears in the memoirs of the court chamberlain Friedrich Ernst von Fabrice: Elector Ernst August had once engaged Nicolini, Ferdinando, Valeriani, and Diamantia, in short all the most notable singers, male and female, that there were in Italy on exorbitant fees, and had the most beautiful stage designs painted. I remember that in my youth I was in one of these operas and that I never saw anything more magnificent than a set of the Elysian Fields, or another in which Turnus and more than  Moors fought against just as many Romans. 160 ‘Valeriani’ presumably means Valeriano Pellegrini, a soprano castrato in the papal chapel from  to  who sang in Cardinal Ottoboni’s concerts in  –  and in Steffani’s Tassilone (Düsseldorf, ).161 ‘Diamante’ was the celebrated Bolognese soprano Diamante Maria Scarabelli, well known in Italy from  to ;162 she could not have appeared at Hanover in , however, for she sang that year in Venice, Turin, Lodi, and Bologna.163 Other problems, also, are raised by this memoir. Aside





  from the impossibility of  people fighting on stage, the only Hanover opera of this period to feature the Elysian Fields or Turnus is I trionfi del fato, which does not call for Moors. Furthermore, Fabrice does not state that the singers mentioned took part in the opera to which the set belonged. All in all, the memoir is not very helpful. The cast of Baccanali was written into the same wordbook as the carnival schedule: Atlante [B] Bacco [S] Driade [S] Celia [S] Clori [S] Aminta [S] Tirsi [A] Fileno [S] Ergasto [S]

}ninfe

}

pastori

Ruggiero [Fedeli] [Augustino] Granara Hamburghese Dianina [Maria] Landini Nicoletto Ferdinand [Chiaravalle] Nicolino [Remolini] Clementino [Hader]164

The cast presumably relates to carnival , rather than November, although some of the singers may have appeared in both seasons. The Venetian bass, composer, and viola player Ruggiero Fedeli worked in various German courts between  and , when he died, and in – he conducted a correspondence with Steffani that sheds light on music at Kassel.165 ‘Hamburghese’ may have been either ‘Engel.’ Benedikte Direnberg or Sophie Gutjahr, two German singers in Hanoverian records for ; the latter, a ‘virtuosa di S. A. E. Madama l’Elletrice’ [Sophie Charlotte], sang in Berlin in .166 Fischer suggested that ‘Dianina’ was borrowed from Celle, but she too was a protégée of the electress.167 Having studied in Turin and sung in northern Italy in – , Diana Aurelia went to Berlin after marrying the librettist Pietro D’Averara, sang in both operas at Hanover in carnival , and returned to Italy in the summer. The identity of ‘Nicoletto’ is uncertain. The wedding of Charlotte Felicitas and Rinaldo D’Este was marked also by an Accademia per musica, performed, according to Fischer,168 on  November. The libretto was by Francesco Palmieri, a poet and musician, born at Pisa in , who served Queen Christina of Sweden in Rome, joined the Arcadian Academy in  (as Telgone Craneo), was in Hanover in the mid-s, and died in Berlin in .169 The piece was a large-scale dramatic cantata, or serenata, such as frequently was used in this period to celebrate a noble wedding, birthday, or similar occasion. The five characters—Fato, Giunone, Clio, Gloria, and Amore — share fifteen arias, two duets, and a closing ensemble. The music is lost and the composer unknown, but Steffani must be regarded as a candidate. There are further links between the composer and Modena. The only seventeenth-century manuscript of his six solo cantatas with instruments is in the Biblioteca Estense; he probably gave it to Francesco II between  and .170 Steffani also presented a scribal copy of music from Le rivali concordi (I-MOe, Mus. G. ), in which he wrote: ‘Pour / Son Altesse / Serenissime / Monseigneur le Duc de Modene’. The word ‘Monseigneur’ indicates that he gave it to Rinaldo when the latter was a cardinal. The gift therefore dates from between September , when Rinaldo became duke, and March , when he gave up holy office: perhaps it should be linked

 ‒ to his forthcoming marriage, or perhaps Rinaldo had seen Le rivali concordi in  or . One copy of the undated [] version of the libretto (I-Mb) bears the date ‘’ in manuscript on the title page, but there is no other evidence that the opera was revived for the wedding celebrations in Hanover or Modena.171 Steffani enjoyed the trust of both courts: in  he was asked to accompany Charlotte Felicitas’s sister, Wilhelmine Amalie, to Modena, where she was to marry Joseph of Austria.172 Over twenty years later Steffani wrote with affection of Modena, ‘where I have the good fortune to be known’.173 Only one opera was given at Hanover in carnival , and it is unlikely that Steffani composed it. One manuscript of Briseide attributes the words to Palmieri and the music to Pietro Torri.174 When the libretto was criticized by Mauro, Palmieri turned to Leibniz for support; in his judicious (and helpful) reply, the latter referred to ‘your opera’.175 The attribution of the music is less easily confirmed, but the evidence is compelling. Unlike Steffani’s three-act Hanover operas, Briseide does not survive in his autograph and was not revived in Hamburg. He is unlikely to have been satisfied with a plot that is hard to follow because liaisons des scènes ‘virtually do not exist’,176 or to have composed a score so different from those of his previous Hanover operas: over three-quarters of Briseide’s arias are in da capo form, and seven are based on ostinatos, figures that are exceptional for him. The hand that wrote out the working score of Briseide appears in no other copy of a Hanover opera. This score is not in London, with Steffani’s autographs, but in Munich. When the Bavarian Elector Max Emanuel set up court in Brussels in , he took musicians with him and appointed Torri ‘maître de chapelle’. Steffani was in Brussels in the mid-s and probably recommended Torri as temporary Kapellmeister at Hanover for carnival . Torri was paid  thalers, two-thirds of Steffani’s salary as Kapellmeister, and his wife was given four medals.177 For these considerations Torri is more likely to have composed his own opera than to have directed a work by somebody else. Fedeli, Chiaravalle, Borosini, ‘Clementino’, ‘Rosane’, and ‘Diana’ returned to sing Briseide, along with the newcomers ‘Frenelly’, Caterina Taelli, and the female ‘Torafly’.178 Torri himself may have taken the score to Munich when he returned there with the elector in . The last Italian opera at Hanover during Steffani’s period as Kapellmeister was La costanza nelle selve, a ‘favola pastorale’ with music by Luigi Mancia that was performed in the summer of .179 The libretto was versified by Mauro, but ‘it was a lady at court, endowed with singular talent, who selected the subject and laid it out and, to obey the sovereign commands of one who has absolute authority over me, prepared me to have it performed on the stage in nothing other (I can say) than my rhymes’.180 The ‘lady at court’ was Sophie Charlotte, whose mother wrote from Herrenhausen on / August: ‘There is little joy here, for his highness [Ernst August] is not getting better. He has been to Hanover once, to please my daughter, to see her ‘pastorale’, but came back home again weaker, which drove all pleasure away’.181 It seems that the performance took place in July during the visit of Tsar Peter the Great and that the cast included Chiaravalle: on  July Sophie Charlotte wrote that she had ‘regaled him [the tsar] with music, to see what face he would make, and he said that he liked it, and especially Ferdinando, whom he is rewarding, like the ‘messieurs’ of the court, with a glass’.182 The cast may also have included Re-





  molini and Direnberg, both of whom were paid in Hanover in May .183 Palmieri had been manager of the opera since the previous year and was trying to tie up loose ends: Ernst August had died on  January, and the opera house had immediately been closed. That it did not re-open after the statutory year of mourning was due to several factors. Georg Ludwig (Fig. .) did not have the Osnabrück income with which his father had financed the opera. Compared with him, he was more thrifty and less interested in such entertainment. Toland noted that he was ‘not addicted much to any Diversions besides Hunting’,184 and in  Elisabeth Charlotte of Orléans described him as ‘so froid that he turns everything to ice’.185 In addition, Georg Ludwig was beset almost immediately by the problem of the Spanish succession and soon after by the Great Northern War. Nevertheless, he continued to celebrate carnival, and the festivities attracted many visitors. Opera was replaced, in a sense, by an increased emphasis on French comedy and on German plays and actors.186 Instrumental music reached a peak of development. Farinel had returned from Osnabrück in  and remained until . He and Steffani appear in  to have instructed the teenaged Johann Ernst Galliard, from Celle, in composition; Hawkins saw a sonata for oboe and two bassoons with this note in Galliard’s hand: ‘I composed this air at Hanover and played it at Mr Farinelli’s serenade on  June ’.187 That year the orchestra was augmented by five new oboists from Berlin, whom Mattheson considered ‘the most excellent band of oboists’.188 It was by visiting Hanover and Brunswick that Telemann became familiar with the styles of Italian opera and French instrumental music and with works by Steffani, Rosenmüller, Corelli, and Caldara that served him as models.189

Envoyé Extraordinaire By the time Georg Ludwig succeeded to the electorate, Steffani had ceased to act as Kapellmeister and had been absent from Hanover for some years on diplomatic service. In  he had been appointed Hanoverian ‘envoy extraordinary’ to the Bavarian court in Brussels, and from  his responsibilities had been increased by the problem of the Spanish succession, which was becoming complex and urgent. His failure to persuade Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria to align himself with the emperor rather than with Louis XIV precipitated a major personal crisis in . Fortunately, during this period he had maintained his interest in music and corresponded with two of his patrons. Thus it was that from the depths of despair he was rescued by immersion in his chamber duets and encouragement from Sophie Charlotte. The raising of Hanover to the Ninth Electorate had not been unopposed.190 Emperor Leopold I had reached his decision without adequate consultation, and his announcement had provoked a hostile reaction from existing electors, who felt that their position would be weakened. Opposition was provoked also by the conditions: Ernst August was to supply , troops to the emperor, vote for the Hapsburg candidate in imperial elections, and help create a tenth electorate for the Austrian house. German electors and princes were encouraged by Louis XIV to resist these demands.

 ‒

       .  Georg Ludwig, elector of Hanover and King (George I) of Great Britain: oil painting, after , after Godfrey Kneller (Historisches Museum Hannover; by permission)

They disrupted the Diet, which did not function between  and , and continued to resist until , forcing Hanover to cling to the emperor. The most outspoken opponents were Anton Ulrich of Brünswick-Wolfenbüttel, Christian V of Denmark (as duke of Holstein), and Max Emanuel of Bavaria. Objections had to be resolved before the electoral dignity could be conferred. It was to seek an agreement with Max Emanuel that Steffani was sent to Brussels. The elector had moved there as governor of the Spanish Netherlands in  and set up court in great splendour. Steffani was ideally equipped for his new role. He had known Max Emanuel as a boy, had served him as director of chamber music, and was acquainted with members of his court. He was given a warm welcome on arrival:





  But notwithstanding the fact that I might have left the elector [of Bavaria] most displeased by my unexpected and sudden departure [from Munich], when I was sent to him a few years later in the capacity of envoy extraordinary from the court of Hanover, I was received with such praise and with such honours, in view of all Brabant and then of all Bavaria, that I remained attached to his person for seven years, to  June in the year in which he rushed into occupying Ulm on  September. 191 Steffani was attached to the court in Brussels until March , then in Munich until summer .192 The phrase ‘seven years’ may relate to his increased responsibilities from mid-, after which date he also spent much time in The Hague; from late  to early  he evidently paid a diplomatic visit to the court of Lorraine, in Nancy. His name appears regularly in the Hanover treasury accounts for the s— not as Kapellmeister but as envoy to Brussels, not for music but for commissions and dispatches.193 He had a private secretary — Johann Friedrich Holste to  October , Franz Justus Barckhausen from  August 194 — and he received postal and travel expenses, but he could not afford to rent a flat in Brussels, living instead in what he described as ‘miserable lodgings’.195 Little progress can have been made in negotiations on the electorate before Steffani, Max Emanuel, and most of Europe became embroiled in the matter of the Spanish succession.196 Carlos II was in poor health, had no direct heir, and was not expected to produce one. His death would mark the end of the Spanish Hapsburgs. Spain was the richest and most populous kingdom in Europe, and the succession to the throne was of crucial importance to the balance of power. For most European states, the Spanish succession was the principal concern of foreign policy from about  on. Max Emanuel had two reasons for taking a close interest. His wife, Maria Antonia, was the daughter of Margarita Teresa of Spain and niece to Carlos II. Carlos’s father, Philip IV, had willed that, if he died without heir, the inheritance should pass to Margarita Teresa, his younger daughter, and then to her grandson. Her grandson was Joseph Ferdinand, electoral prince of Bavaria and son of Maria Antonia, who had died giving birth to him in . Max Emanuel soon considered remarriage: in  Steffani was involved in an unsuccessful attempt to unite him with a daughter of the Palatine Countess Benedikte;197 two years later Max Emanuel took as bride Teresa Kunegunda Sobieska, daughter of King Jan (John) III of Poland. There were two other claimants to the Spanish throne. One was Louis the dauphin of France, the son of Carlos’s older sister Maria Teresa, wife of Louis XIV. The other was Emperor Leopold I, who claimed it as grandson of Philip III. Although each of these candidates was stronger than the infant Joseph Ferdinand, both Louis and the emperor solicited the support of Max Emanuel, who tried to take advantage of their rivalry. He aimed to strengthen his position in the Netherlands and dreamt of a day when the Wittelsbachs might supplant the Hapsburgs as the dominant dynasty in Germany. With this in mind, he inevitably sided with the French, who saw Munich and Vienna as rivals for control of the south of the Empire. In this he was joined by his brother Joseph Clemens, prince-archbishop of Cologne. Bavaria and

 ‒ Cologne were France’s main allies in the struggle that followed; the emperor’s were the British and the Dutch. The late s was a period of intense diplomatic activity aimed at averting a European war. The first fruit, a partition treaty (), was not acceptable to all parties. Carlos then made a will bequeathing the inheritance to Joseph Ferdinand. When the latter died in , the succession became a straight contest between France and Austria. A second partition treaty () also encountered problems, so Carlos made another will ( October). This time he left the inheritance to the dauphin’s second son, Philip, duke of Anjou, with the proviso that if he or his younger brother declined it, the bequest would pass to Austria. When Carlos died on  November, Philip of Anjou became Philip V of Spain. Louis XIV had accepted the will but reserved the right to claim the inheritance if Philip should die without heir. To this end he started to build up his army and flex his military muscles. In early  he took control of the Spanish Netherlands: Max Emanuel signed a treaty of alliance with him on  March and returned to Munich soon after. The Dutch had recognized Philip in February , and the British did so in April, but they looked to the emperor for a lead in opposing the French. In the summer of  Leopold I attacked and defeated French forces in Italy. France hoped for further support from German princes, but their funds were now running low. At the same time the opposition came together in a coalition, formalized in the Treaty of Grand Alliance ( September ). During the winter of –  Austria, Britain, and the United Provinces were joined by several German powers, including Brandenburg (in return for the status of a kingdom: Prussia), Hanover, the Palatinate, Münster, Hesse-Kassel, Mainz, and Trier. By May  Bavaria and Cologne were the only major German states allied with the French: Saxony was preoccupied with the Great Northern War, and others remained neutral. Steffani’s role in these developments was to try to persuade Max Emanuel to ally himself with the emperor rather than with Louis XIV. In his efforts to bring pressure to bear on the elector he visited a large number of German courts, especially in the Rhineland and the Palatinate. From  he corresponded with the Palatine elector, Johann Wilhelm, and between  and  frequently visited him in Düsseldorf; during the same period he also undertook missions to Cologne and Trier.198 In the autumn of , after Max Emanuel’s return, Steffani was sent to Munich, and in the following nine months he made strenuous efforts — including a visit to Vienna — to persuade the elector to change his allegiance. Although he doubtless was doing his duty as a servant of Hanover, he must also have felt some personal involvement in his increasingly desperate mission. His previous and his present master were about to lock horns, and his personal loyalties must have been severely strained. On  May  Austria, Britain, and the United Provinces simultaneously declared war on France and her allies. The following month Steffani left Munich for Hanover. During the next ten weeks he travelled tirelessly to Koblenz, Bonn, Düsseldorf, Munich, and Vienna in a last-ditch attempt to force Max Emanuel to change his mind. His efforts were fruitless. On  September the elector laid siege to the imperial city of Ulm, tricking it into surrender, and in the same month the emperor declared war on ‘Philip of Anjou’. Max Emanuel may have won his first battle, but he did not





  win the war. The turning point was his defeat at the battle of Blenheim (), after which he was sent back to Brussels, the allies recovered Ulm, and the Austrians governed Bavaria until hostilities ceased. The French, and Max Emanuel, suffered further defeats at Ramillies (), Lille (), and Malplaquet (), before signing the Peace of Utrecht () with the British and Dutch. The emperor made peace at Rastatt in , and in the following year Max Emanuel returned to Munich for good. Steffani was devastated by the failure of his mission, which precipitated the most serious personal crisis of his career. He was pained by the terrible fate which, even in , he could see would overtake Max Emanuel, whom he had known for thirty-five years, and he was tormented by a sense that his years of diplomatic activity — his countless journeys, meetings, letters, and discussions — had all been in vain: he had nothing to show for this prodigious expenditure of time and effort. From the depths of disappointment and despair two positive outcomes emerged. He sought consolation in music and he resolved never again to become so deeply embroiled in secular politics: if he wished to pursue a public career — and he had much to offer in such a role—he would do so as a man of the church. During his years as a diplomat Steffani had entered into the social life of Brussels and maintained his interest in music. His closest friend there was Countess Marie-Thérèse of Egmont, by whom he was frequently entertained and with whom he kept in contact after his departure; he and the Hanoverian minister Hans Kaspar von Bothmer spent the evening of / May with her in .199 Two days later they were with the ‘first lady’ of the Low Countries, the countess of Soissons, née Olimpia Mancini, a niece of Mazarin who had been a mistress of Louis XIV.200 In Brussels Steffani could also enjoy and perhaps contribute to the musical life of the Bavarian court. Max Emanuel was accompanied by members of his Munich Kapelle, including Torri; summoned the soprano Clementin Hader; borrowed musicians from Louis XIV in ; and patronized the singer Madame Maupin (who became his mistress), the viol players Hilaire Verloge, Marin Marais, and Antoine Forqueray, the violinist Jean-Jacques-Baptiste Anet, the oboist Jacques Loeillet, and the harpsichordists Louis-Nicolas Clérambault, Jeanne Dandrieu, Elisabeth-Claude Jacquet de la Guerre, and Louis Marchand. He cultivated chamber music and opera. Between  and  he had nine of Lully’s tragédies lyriques directed by Pietro Andrea Fiocco; some were given a new prologue in honour of the elector, and some of the productions may have been witnessed by Steffani. The latter may have provided, or authorized the provision of, materials for the Hamburg productions ( – ) of his Hanover operas, but he was not involved in the performances. During the s Steffani also corresponded with Max Emanuel’s sister Violanta Beatrice (Fig. .), wife since  of Ferdinando De’ Medici. Her letters reveal unbounded admiration for the composer and his music, and they include personal reactions to his style. Her enthusiasm for Servio Tullio and Alarico il Baltha, and her request for some duets and the arias from Marco Aurelio, have already been noted.201 In  she thanked him for some ‘ariette francesi’ that he had sent her, which she found to be ‘in the usual good taste with regard both to words and to music’. The ‘ariette’ were presumably by Steffani and in the French style, but the words could have been in Italian: they may have been selected, as we shall see, from his latest opera, Orlando generoso.

 ‒ In the following year Violanta Beatrice thanked him for sending her further musical works. On  June  she penned the following intriguing compliment: Signor Abbate, In all the departments of your great genius you express the character of your profound goodness and refined taste, but in these latest pieces of music, sent to me from Rome by Count Bernardi, you have made the light of your talent shine forth much more brightly and judiciously. Thus, having occasion to find them entirely consonant with my spirit, I derive from them a great deal of pleasure, to my complete satisfaction. I am supported in this by the considered opinion and unequivocal applause of those who hear them, and particularly of Casini, who plays them with his great respect and commitment. You should measure the size of the space in your study that you have chosen for the portrait of me, which I will send you in accordance with the same and with your design.

       .   Violanta Beatrice of Bavaria: oil painting,  – , by Georg Desmarees (Residenzmuseum München, Foto Weiss/Mayr [BSV]; by permission of the Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen)





  Giovanni Maria Casini had been first organist at Florence Cathedral since ; he was to become Violanta Beatrice’s chaplain in  and her maestro di cappella in . The ‘pieces of music’ could have been vocal, but since Casini was one of the best Italian organists of the period, it is possible that they were for keyboard: indeed, this letter provides the strongest known evidence that Steffani composed keyboard music, now lost. Count Bernardi is also linked to the composer, but not to Violanta Beatrice, in the following year. On  May  Flavio Lanciani, in Rome, prepared a bill for copying, among other things, some ‘ariettas from Brunswick, given [to me] by Count Bernardi’: ‘Se riveggio’; ‘Due scogli’; ‘La natura’; ‘Solo haurai [Sol havrà da me disprezzi]’; ‘Bambino che [c’hai] l’ali’; ‘Timea, bella Timea’; ‘Piante fiori’; ‘Noue [Notte] amica’; ‘I tuoi danni [vanni]’; ‘Ciò che il Cielo’.202 The anonymous ‘ariette’ occur in the same order in Steffani’s La libertà contenta, which had been premièred at Hanover in February. The majority of the items are arias, but ‘Timea, bella Timea’ is a recitative preceding a duet (‘Il mio cor si strugge e sface’); perhaps the latter was included as well. Since Lanciani was in the service of Cardinal Pietro Ottoboni Jr in , these pieces may have been performed at one of his celebrated concerts. The bill also suggests, retrospectively, that the ‘ariette francesi’ of  had been taken from Steffani’s most recent opera. In January  Violanta Beatrice had praised him and his music, returned to the question of the portrait — an eloquent token of affection — and thanked him for some ‘other’ duets that cannot be identified: Signor Abbate, I found your musical compositions to be in keeping with your gracious genius that produced them. Nothing but beauty and spirit can spring from your brilliant vein; nothing but richness of ideas and nobility of working-out can be generated by your precious style. When I have returned to Florence from the country of Pisa and Livorno, I will think again about sending you the said portrait. Meanwhile, I commend the thoughtfulness you showed me in [sending] the other duets, of which I shall give you a more precise and particular account in due course. The portrait was mentioned again in her letter of  August : having received the measurements of Steffani’s study, she proposed that he hang it in his kitchen, where it might frighten away stray dogs, a humorous suggestion indicative of her easy relationship with the composer. A marvellous letter of  January  returns to the subject of his musicianship: Signor Abbate, In my thoughts I have been [with you] in the company of the most serene electresses of Brandenburg and Brunswick. . . . Truly, I should gladly have been there in person to share in that harmony which the spheres themselves might envy. You will have allowed your genius to dance at the harpsichord, or in singing or in musical compositions. Most beautiful concert! Incomparable director! I am pleased that in the midst of your more serious and weighty preoccupations you allow to blaze for a moment a lightning flash of your ideas in relation to music, which owes you so much.

 ‒ For myself, I derive an extraordinary pleasure from this and bless the opportunity of having accustomed my ears to such an agreeable thing. Meanwhile, I thank you for the kind trouble that you have taken for me. Only two further letters from this correspondence are known. On  October  Violanta Beatrice informed Steffani that she was composing a ‘commedia’203 — whether spoken or sung is not clear — and on  July  she mentioned some books of music which she was having copied in Florence before returning them to him. This sporadic correspondence coincides with the period when she needed him most — between her departure from Munich and the establishment of her cappella in Florence—and when he was in renewed contact with her brother. It suggests that when Steffani was at the height of his powers as Kapellmeister at Hanover, his arias were sung in Florence and Rome. Her letters evince enormous respect and affection for the composer and his works, and show the kind of intimacy that could exist between a patron and a musician in this period. An even more intimate relationship is revealed in his correspondence with Sophie Charlotte (–; see Fig. .). In the s the electress returned to Hanover to see his operas and began cultivating Italian music in Berlin.204 The mainstays of her establishment were Chiaravalle and Ariosti, the latter from  to . Others who worked there for short periods include Pistocchi and Torelli (both – ), Fedeli (), and Giovanni Bononcini ( – ); Corelli dedicated his solo sonatas, op.  (), to the electress. Chamber music, vocal and instrumental, was her staple fare, but in  she built a small theatre and put on a three-act ‘pastorale eroica’, Il Filindo.205 Seven further stage works were performed in  –.206 Seventeen of Sophie Charlotte’s letters to Steffani survive, and five of his to her.207 They are a wonderfully rich source of information. The mutual warmth and affection of the writers leap from every page: her direct, personal prose and large, distinctive hand—no time for punctuation or capitals — reveal an expansive, responsive, even impulsive nature. The letters fall into three broad groups according to date and subject. Her first letter ( February ) was written soon after the death of her father, Ernst August, when she turned to Steffani as a friend. The others in this group furnish approximate dates of composition for five of his duets. On  July  she thanked him for one that he had sent her and desired to know ‘the beautiful things you are making’.208 Einstein identified this duet as Crudo Amor, morir mi sento, which in a manuscript formerly in the Singakademie, Berlin, was inscribed ‘Per la Elettrice de Brandebourg . . . Poesia di Sua Altezza Serenissima’:209 the words of Crudo Amor were evidently written by Sophie Charlotte herself. A year later, on  August , she thanked the composer for three further duets that he had expressly ‘made for me’. It is clear from his letter of  November , quoted below, that one of these was Placidissime catene; the other two were undoubtedly Che volete, o crude pene and Inquieto mio cor, copies of which occur consecutively in many manuscripts, some being inscribed ‘Per la Ser.ma Eletrice de Brandenburg’.210 The following year Sophie Charlotte visited Max Emanuel in Brussels in connexion with Brandenburg’s imminent emancipation to a kingdom. In the early s, it should be recalled, Steffani had been involved in negotiations about a possible mar-





 

       .   Sophie Charlotte, electress of Brandenburg (Historisches Museum Hannover; by permission)

riage between the elector and the princess. On her way back from Brussels, on  October , she wrote to Steffani from The Hague: she would never forget the elector’s kindness, would go anywhere to see him and perform chamber music with him again, and hoped that the composer would assist by sending her more of his works, ‘in which good taste prevails, as in everything you do’. She had evidently enjoyed some music making with Max Emanuel during her visit, and it appears that Steffani had composed his duet Io mi parto specially for the occasion. A dialogue for two parting lovers, soprano and tenor, the copy in the Singakademie manuscript was headed ‘Cantata per il Ser.mo Elettore di Baviera. Poesia del Sig.e Abbate Paglia, Musica del Sig.e Abbate Steffani’. The second group of letters sheds further light on Sophie Charlotte’s attachment to music, the life of her court, and the importance to her of Steffani’s duets. ‘You are right,’ she informed him on  November ; ‘after I have held court I have no occupation other than the study of music.’ Thanking him next month for a packet he had sent, she added that it would have given her more pleasure if it had been accompanied by some of his duets, ‘which are incomparable according to my taste; for none of the pieces that reach me from all quarters touch me as they do’. On  September  she reported that her musical establishment was in good shape and that his duets had been well sung thanks to ‘Madame Kilmansec’, who had lent her all she had of his composition. Sophie Charlotte von Kielmansegg, wife of Georg Ludwig’s master of the horse, was evidently a collector of Steffani’s works, and some of them may have been written for her. Her name reappears in a letter of  July . Torri had asked Steffani to try to secure him a position at Berlin. Sophie Charlotte of Prussia admired Torri’s ‘science’, and he sang ‘according to my taste, which is very difficult’, but she would not deprive Max Emanuel of such a valuable musician. Turning to Steffani, she wrote:

 ‒ But you are in the midst of other affairs and I almost believe that you are no longer concerned about music. That aside, it would give me great pleasure to accompany you in some duet, for I have a good quantity. I have them sung by Bononcini and Attilio [Ariosti], because the others do not perform them in the correct style, and they are always full of admiration for him who composed them. I have not found any madrigals among the papers of Madame Kielmansegg; if I had, I would also have stolen them for you, for I have never heard any such of your making, which must be admirable, I’m sure. The duets that Steffani wrote for Sophie Charlotte are scored for soprano and alto; since Bononcini was a bass, it seems that one of the parts, at least, was transposed an octave in performance. Nevertheless, the queen believed that there was a correct style (‘le vrai goût’) for the performance of such duets, an idea to be echoed by Tosi. The missing madrigals, mentioned also in later letters, could have been duets based on madrigalian texts. The third group of letters, which dates from the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession, is the most intimate and valuable. The four from Steffani depict him beginning to compile a new manuscript collection of his duets and revising them as he went along. On  September  he replied to her letter of  July: I still love it [music] so much, Madame, that I admit frankly that it is not without considerable grief that I see all the bagatelles that have been my more serious occupation for thirty years — that I see them, as I say, in such disorder that nothing belongs any more to anything else; and to know that they are dispersed by such a cruel dissipation that, if in my last days I have some remaining life to give to a peaceful pastime, I cannot hope to amuse myself with my music without begging for the pieces from door to door, without even the hope of putting them together as I had done with such effort and pleasure. This leads me to believe that, even in the least important things, no faithful friend is to be found in the world and that it is not only in great affairs that one can find something on which to base one’s morality. If Madame Kielmansegg had had my music in her hands since my departure, perhaps (I say perhaps) it would have been more complete. But she asked me for it too late. That is the reason why Your Majesty has not found any madrigals. There were some, however, but there are none any longer, nor some other pieces that I valued highly — I who can say, without wishing to be modest, that I do not value anything that issues from my tiny brain. How’s that, Madame, for a most bilious article? The letter conveys a vivid impression of Steffani’s state of mind. The ‘bagatelles’ were his musical compositions, and the statement that he had been occupied with them for thirty years confirms that he started composing seriously in Rome in . The music that was so cruelly dispersed was not his operas, of which scores were in Munich and Hanover, nor works in partbook form, of which he had produced very few, but his chamber music, especially his duets, which he had written for (and given to) various





  patrons over the years. The phrase ‘putting them together’ refers not to the process of composition but to that of gathering them into coherent groups. That these groups of duets were now broken up made him feel that he had little to show for his efforts. This feeling was intensified to a painful degree when he heard of the outbreak of war. On  November, two months after Max Emanuel’s siege of Ulm, he wrote to Sophie Charlotte: Madame, The bitter grief caused me by the affairs of the world; the pain I suffer at seeing so many people, for whom I have a particular respect, wishing to destroy themselves; the time I have spent in misery trying to overturn such tragic resolutions; the sorrow I feel on reflecting that such fatal storms could easily have been dissipated if one had been willing to look at the clouds from the same direction as I — all this, I say, Madame, and a million other similar things have plunged me into a gravity that resembles perfectly well an unbounded hypochondria. Like certain husbands who carefully seek that which they would not like to find, I burn with desire to hear the news and am desperate on learning it. In this extremity, which makes me lead a life that is truly a burden, I have thrown myself headlong into music. I move very little from my room, and even there remain close to the harpsichord. There I read, write, and dream; if I receive letters to which I must respond, I do all that so close to my harpsichord that I can return in just one pace. Finally, it is possible that I may have to make of my harpsichord a dining table, as others do a dressing table. But what do you do there? The same as I do, Madame! I am amusing myself by turning upside down all the duets of mine that I no longer like, and I am recreating them in a manner that pleases me greatly. And this pleasure is of two kinds: I spend some hours of the day without having my fantasy full of fateful ideas; and I play a piece to those who have my old duets and believe they have something but in reality have nothing at all. Your Majesty would not like to be in that number, or so I flatter myself. As you have absolute power over all, you may well think that there is nothing in reserve for yourself. But I would not know how to give my new work the form that I intend for it if Your Majesty were not kind enough to help me by getting Attilio to send back to me the music that Madame Kielmansegg left for him, and particularly book  of the duets, which is still in his hands, and the three [duets] that I had the honour to send Your Majesty from Brussels and which I do not have — and as promptly as possible, for this is a time for surrender which is extremely liable to pass quickly. I ask this favour, Madame, only as a loan, on which I shall pay very handsome interest. This letter is remarkable in tone and content. That Steffani could pour out his feelings to the queen of Prussia in such a way speaks volumes for the quality of their relationship. He was acutely aware of his emotions, what had provoked them, and how he was responding to them, yet he was able to distance himself from them and view his position more rationally. Replace the harpsichord with a grand piano, and his lifestyle could be that of a nineteenth-century Romantic. So as far as composition is

 ‒ concerned, he was gathering together the remnants of an old collection of his duets, revising the pieces with which he was dissatisfied, and planning a new collection. Sophie Charlotte must have been stunned by the frankness and power of his letter, yet on  November she came through with the perfect response: All the strange things that are happening at present to estimable people, all the vicissitudes of this century, the aberrations of those who possess so much merit—these no longer cause me so much pain (indeed, I feel consoled by them) because they are making you take music back into your hand. Throw yourself in headlong, I beg of you. Music is a friend that will not forsake you nor deceive you, is not a traitress, and has never been cruel to you, for you have drawn from her all the charms and raptures of heaven, whereas friends are lukewarm or crafty and mistresses ungrateful. You will say, Monsieur, that this is not disinterested advice, but what can I do? I will not apologise for it but will send you the list of all the duets that I have; you will choose which you want and I will send them or bring them myself. I assure you that, of the originals of Madame Kielmansegg, I have only the ‘racolta e affetti’ and the opera Orlando, and I assure you that nothing has been lost here because I have had everything copied and nobody has had the things in their hands except myself and Attilio. The great Bononcini is still here, afflicted by the death of his mistress. For this reason I have not had any music for eight days. Pity me: ‘La Regina’ [Regina Schoonjans, a singer] has a swollen cheek and the little boy [Antonio Tosi, another singer] has a cold. Nevertheless, I am not wasting my time and shall tell you that I am attempting the impossible, for I am learning ‘contre-punto’. If I get to the end of it you will see how I shall compose. I intend to do it in such a way as to make you jealous. That says it all; and I shall compose some duets that will have all the tenderness and naturalness of your own. What a marvellous letter! Her advice was not disinterested, of course, but her encouragement was unequivocal and unbridled, and exactly what Steffani needed. The ‘racolta e affetti’ appear to be lost, and it is uncertain whether any of the surviving scores of Orlando generoso was in her possession. The statement that only she and Ariosti had handled his music cannot be correct, since Bononcini sang his duets. By the time Steffani replied, five days later, he had recovered his equilibrium. Her letter had inspired him to compose or revise a duet, he had made progress on the collection and was able to tease and flatter her on the subject of counterpoint: The graces that Your Majesty deigned to show me on the st of this month had such power over my spirit that they awoke my muse, which had been dormant for some days. I had hardly read the letter with which Your Majesty honoured me, than a duet fell from my pen in less than no time. . . . After much searching and much labour I have gathered together all the originals of my duets, so well that I lack only two of the three that I had the honour to send to Your Majesty from Brussels. I should be most embar-





  rassed if I had to say which they are, for I do not remember a single word of them; but I do know well that of those three I have only Placidissime catene. If Your Majesty would be so kind as to have the other two sent to me as quickly as possible, she would do me a very great favour, for unless I see them I cannot determine which category to put them in — whether among those that stay as they are or among those that I am going to disown in a completely particular manner. For the rest, Madame, I hope that all Your Majesty’s music recovers as soon as possible from its inflammations and afflictions. . . . But also I hope very much that Your Majesty does not come to the end of her counterpoint and never learns to compose. There’s an impertinent wish—I agree, I know — but I should not know how to prevent it. I am jealous in advance of this new enterprise, and I have a very good reason for being so. Shall I tell you? It is that Your Majesty cannot do anything that is not at the height of perfection; if she undertakes to compose some duets, it will be ‘Good-bye’ to mine. Your Majesty will be right to seek them no longer, and with that the poor Abbé will be completely forgotten. The last surviving letter in the correspondence, dated  December , begins on a different note. Steffani had agreed to do a couple of personal favours for his friend, the countess of Egmont. The first was to have a little coffer made at Augsburg, filled with silver-gilt ‘bagatelles’; this had been done. The other was to procure two dozen pieces of amber — flat, round, and pierced through the middle — suitable for a necklace; she had been told that this would avert inflammation, to which she was prone. Two months previously Mauro had written to Berlin for this ‘great machine’, but had received no response. In some exasperation, therefore, Steffani asked Sophie Charlotte to intercede. His letter suggests that he was an attentive and obliging courtier, with a sense of humour, and shows how far he could go in discharging such minor commissions. He then turned his attention to his duets: After that, Madame, I will tell Your Majesty that my lord Duke Ernst August [i.e., Prince Ernst August, Sophie Charlotte’s youngest brother] gave me the list of the duets that you had addressed to him and that I have given it back to him because I have recovered all those; that I am waiting for the two of the last three of which I took the liberty to speak in my last letter on the th of last month; and that when I have the pleasure of serving Your Majesty here you will find here a good crop of duets, since there are already a couple of dozen at your most humble service. Lord! when will that be? It is not known whether Steffani recovered ‘the two of the last three’ duets (Che volete, o crude pene and Inquieto mio cor) that he had sent to Sophie Charlotte from Brussels, but since these were recent compositions he may not have wished to revise them. The ‘couple of dozen’ duets that were ready for the queen are now in the British Library (RM . k. – ).211 The correspondence came to an end apparently because Steffani offended her. The offence arose in connection with Ariosti, a Catholic monk at her protestant court. In the spring of  Ariosti was asked to return to Italy; the request appears

 ‒ to have come from Cardinal Francesco Maria De’ Medici, the protector of his monastery. Steffani was invited to approach Sophie Charlotte about his release. On  March  Leibniz, who was in Berlin, informed her mother, Sophie of Hanover, that Steffani’s letter had ‘greatly displeased the queen’; Ariosti was the backbone of her music: ‘he can create an opera by himself, for he writes music and verse . . . furthermore, he plays several musical instruments, to say nothing of singing’.212 On the same day Leibniz sent Mauro some frank advice for Steffani: As you and I are both zealous servants of the queen, I cannot restrain myself from telling you that I have noticed that Her Majesty is extremely surprised by a letter from Abbot Steffani on the subject of Attilio. . . . If my lord Duke of Celle had only one hunter, imagine how one would be received if one wanted to take it away from him. One knows that music is one of the queen’s principal pleasures, and Attilio is the only person that she has who possesses this ‘science’ and who is useful in many capacities. To recall him is strange also because it is being done without any reason being given. Thus, if I were as well acquainted with Abbot Steffani as you are, Sir, I should advise him to reply to those who give him such commissions, that he is too devoted to the queen and her house to wish to displease her by asking her suddenly to deprive herself of a man so necessary to her, without having previously made clear, through the care that would be needed in finding her a replacement, how far one sympathizes with that which has to do with the service and satisfaction of Her Majesty. 213 In view of Ariosti’s central position in the queen’s musical establishment, it is not surprising that she was displeased. Steffani’s attempt to secure his release was scant reward for her assistance during the previous six months. Her own response to Torri’s request for a position in Berlin should have taught him how to react in such a situation. That he did not heed the lesson suggests that he was keen to fulfil any commission that came his way (as in the case of the countess of Egmont) or inclined to place the service of his religion above that of a secular monarch. Be that as it may, he offended the queen, their correspondence ceased, and he stopped working on his duets, although this might have happened anyway on his departure for Düsseldorf. Before leaving Hanover, Steffani seems likely, to put it no higher, to have made the acquaintance of Handel. Various dates have been proposed for their first meeting, but the spring of  is the earliest time when it could have occurred. Hawkins quotes Handel as saying: “When I first arrived at Hanover I was a young man, under twenty; I was acquainted with the merits of Steffani, and he had heard of me. I understood somewhat of music, and”, putting forth both his broad hands, and extending his fingers, “could play pretty well on the organ; he received me with great kindness, and took an early opportunity to introduce me to the princess Sophie and the elector’s son, giving them to understand that I was what he was pleased to call a virtuoso in music; he obliged me with instructions for my conduct and behaviour during my residence at Hanover;





  and being called from the city to attend to matters of a public concern, he left me in possession of that favour and patronage which himself had enjoyed for a series of years.” 214 The visit to Hanover that Handel described was his first. Since he was under twenty years of age, it must have taken place before  February . He still regarded himself as an organist. In March  he completed a year as organist of Halle Cathedral: he was still in Halle in April but was in Hamburg in July and could have visited Hanover en route. The statement that Steffani was ‘called from the city to attend to matters of a public concern’ could refer to his appointment at Düsseldorf in the spring of that year. Although this took effect on  March, he was in Hanover until nearly the end of the month and could have returned there in April or May; in June he went to The Hague. The signs are that Handel stopped at Hanover for an unknown period between March and July and met Steffani during his visit. Confirmation is provided by the presence of Sophie [Dorothea], who married Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia in , and the apparent absence of Caroline of Ansbach, who moved to Hanover in  as bride of Georg August. The only difficulty with this interpretation lies in Handel’s last two clauses, which seem to refer to his period as Kapellmeister at Hanover in –. If these clauses are read in this way, however, the rest of the passage makes little sense.215 They could, on the other hand, be taken to mean that Handel remained at Hanover for a time before proceeding to Hamburg. The fifteen years that Steffani spent in Hanoverian service were the central period of his career and, so far as music is concerned, the most important. They encompass two decisive watersheds. From  to  he was the central figure in the heyday of Italian opera at the court. He reached the pinnacle of his career as an opera composer, worked with some of the greatest singers of the age, and wrote some of his finest chamber duets; never again would he be appointed as a composer or performer, or be so actively involved in music. From  to  he was engaged above all in diplomacy, energetically playing a small but important part in the greatest political problem of the age. The failure of his mission was the second watershed: never again would he be so deeply immersed in affairs of state. Although he was appointed at Düsseldorf to political posts, he became increasingly involved in the work of the Catholic Church. This was to be his main concern during the remaining twenty-five years of his life.


D  ‒

In the course of his negotiations on the Spanish succession Steffani had corresponded with Elector Palatine Johann Wilhelm and visited his court at Düsseldorf. In March  he entered his service as a politician and man of the church. During the next six years he occupied a number of prominent positions in the Palatine administration; in – he was made a bishop and in  became apostolic vicar of North Germany, a post that he held, with one interruption, for the rest of his life. Although he composed a little music after , and continued to take an interest in the subject, he was active above all in affairs of church and state. It is inevitable that these should form the central concern of this chapter and the next. The following account is a mere summary of a career that brought Steffani into contact with many of the dominant figures and issues in the Europe of his day; it may seem only marginally relevant to his compositions, yet the last third of his life is clearly integral to any portrait of the man and his music. The Palatinate originally consisted of two areas, the Upper Palatinate (roughly speaking, Bavaria) and the Lower, or Rhine-Palatinate (‘Rheinpfalz’). The latter had been given by Emperor Frederick I (‘Barbarossa’) in  to his half-brother Conrad, who had created a state with its capital at Heidelberg. By the Golden Bull of  the ruler of the Rhine-Palatinate was one of the (then) seven imperial electors. In the sixteenth century Elector Ludwig V became a protestant and Friedrich III became the leader of the Calvinists. Elector Friedrich V lost his dominions in the s after his defeat in the battle of White Hill, near Prague, and they were given, together with the status of elector, to Maximilian I of Bavaria. They were restored to Friedrich’s son, Karl Ludwig, brother of Sophie of Hanover, by the Peace of Westphalia in , from which date both Bavaria and the Rhine-Palatinate were electorates and the electoral college comprised eight members—until the admission of Hanover. Following the death of Karl Ludwig’s son Karl, the end of the line, the Palatine electorate passed in  to the Neuburg branch of the Wittelsbachs. From  the Neuburgers had provided the Catholic dukes of Jülich and Berg, and from  this duke was Johann Wilhelm (Fig. .). Nine years later his lands were invaded by Louis XIV in pursuit of the claim to them of his sister-in-law Elisabeth Charlotte, duchess of Orléans. Having succeeded to the electorate in , Johann Wilhelm’s new domains were devastated by the French during the War of the Grand Alliance. Under the terms of the Peace of Ryswick () he was required to impose Catholicism on all his subjects, a condition to which Steffani’s appointment relates.1 



 

       .  Johann Wilhelm, elector palatine, as Grand Master of the Order of St Hubertus and Knight of the Golden Fleece: oil painting, after , by Jan Franz Douven (Stadtmuseum Düsseldorf; by permission)

Johann Wilhelm was well connected by marriage as well as by birth. His first wife, whom he married in , was Maria Anna of Austria, half-sister of Emperor Leopold I, whom Johann Wilhelm’s eldest sister, Eleonore Magdalena, had married two years before. Of his other sisters, Maria Sophia became queen of Portugal, Maria Anna became queen of Spain (as wife of Carlos II), and Dorothea Sophia became duchess of Parma (by marriage first to Odoardo Farnese, then to his half-brother, Francesco I). Johann Wilhelm’s second wife, whom he married in , was Anna Maria Luisa De’ Medici (Fig. .), daughter of Cosimo III, grand-duke of Tuscany, with whom the elector became the best of friends;2 the connection between Düssel-

 ‒

       .  Anna Maria Luisa of Tuscany, palatine electress, receiving homage from Minerva, Mercury, and Pluto: oil painting, ca. , by Peter Strudel(?) (Stadtmuseum Düsseldorf; by permission)

dorf and Florence was strengthened by the marriage in  of Anna Maria Francesca of Sachsen-Lauenburg, widow of Johann Wilhelm’s brother Philipp Wilhelm of Neuburg, to Cosimo’s younger son, Gian Gastone, the last male Medici. Johann Wilhelm’s brother Franz Ludwig was elector of Trier from  and of Mainz from ; two other brothers became bishops of Worms and Augsburg. Düsseldorf was the capital of the duchy of Berg and the traditional residence of the duke. Johann Wilhelm had travelled a great deal as a young man and continued to do so after his marriage to Anna Maria Luisa, who often accompanied him. Their court, like others on the west side of Germany, was modelled on that of Versailles. The electoral couple promoted the arts at the expense of the well-being of their do-





  mains, patronising Italian painters in Germany and Italy and amassing a vast collection of Italian art.3 Johann Wilhelm spent money so freely that in  he brought the electorate to the verge of financial collapse and had to take out a loan to avoid mortgaging Jülich and Berg. The last duke to have resided at Düsseldorf, he died in . His successor as Palatine elector, Karl Philipp, resided first at Heidelberg but moved in  to Mannheim, where he laid the foundations for one of the finest musical establishments in mid-eighteenth-century Europe.

Statesman and Bishop On the question of his departure from Hanover Steffani wrote as follows to Johann Wilhelm’s resident in Rome, Count Antonio Maria Fede, on  July : I left that [court] with the greatest scruple of conscience, because the Catholic religion had need of me there: and as if to indicate that this is the truth, no sooner had I left than the missionaries were prohibited from performing the two parochial rites of baptism and marriage; with my last journey there, however, I hope to have remedied this evil. I left, therefore, out of pure necessity, for since those princes could not use me, on account of my religion, either in court appointments or in the government of their lands, I was obliged for ever to live the life of a courier or rather a gypsy, which is fine up to a certain age but then no more. So I left and came here, accompanied by a letter from the patron I was leaving which I blushed to present to my new Most Serene Lord, because the former had written to him about me as he could have done about his own brother.4 Steffani had been held in the highest regard at Hanover, and the main reason for his departure had been his religion. Because he was a Catholic he could not be considered for high political or government office, particularly in the period preceding the succession to the English throne. It is significant that, given this situation, he preferred to move to a Catholic court than to pursue a non-political (i.e., musical) career at Hanover. The closure of the opera there perhaps had a bearing on his decision, but Steffani appears to have felt that his future lay in the service of church and state. His reference to the life of a gypsy reminds us that he was nearly fifty years old when he left Hanover, but his desire for a more settled existence was not to be satisfied at once, if at all. His first appointment at Düsseldorf was as a privy councillor and as president of the Spiritual Council for the Palatinate and the Duchies of Jülich and Berg (‘Kurpfälzischer, auch jülich- und bergischer geistlicher Raths-Präsident’).5 The council consisted mainly of laymen and met twice a week. Steffani was its executive chairman, with power to call additional meetings, open the elector’s mail, and take appropriate action. His appointment took effect on  March , and his salary was set at , thalers per annum.6 It is not known exactly when he arrived in Düsseldorf, but he must have done so before the end of April, when he received an increase of  thalers plus expenses for four servants and eight horses. He was soon on the road again. In

 ‒ June he went to The Hague to try to enlist military support for the elector against the French,7 and on  July he was granted , thalers expenses and the title ‘excellency’. In the autumn he travelled to Herten to see Friedrich Christian von Plettenberg, bishop of Münster and Paderborn, about the choice of a new coadjutor; he was not happy with the nominee proposed by the prince-bishop of Osnabrück (Karl Josef von Lothringen), the candidate favoured by Hanover. By the end of November Steffani had been promoted to general president of the Palatine government and council (‘Regierungs-, Raths- und General-Präsident’). His word carried the weight of the elector himself, and he had authority to root out and punish the corruption then rife in the administration. He was in charge of the government when Johann Wilhelm left for Vienna on  January , and he himself set off on government business at the end of June. On  August he informed the elector that he had been away from Düsseldorf for five weeks, of which three had been spent in Leipzig and one in Dresden, and asked him for a meeting: if he could talk to him for three hours, he would be able to work for six months without disturbing him. On  August the elector left Vienna for Dresden, whence he and Steffani travelled to Heidelberg together. The elector proceeded immediately to Düsseldorf, but Steffani stayed on in Heidelberg, returning to Düsseldorf in September and to Heidelberg again after a couple of months. On  December  Johann Wilhelm also appointed Steffani as rector of Heidelberg University.8 That this position was normally intended for a prince, count, or lord is a further indication of the esteem in which Steffani was held. His main responsibility was to represent the interests of the university at the Düsseldorf court; day-to-day business was handled by a pro-rector, Professor Johann Georg Fleck. After a year, the normal period of tenure, Steffani was appointed as one of the university curators, in the hope that the work of the institution might be raised to its former ‘consistency, maturity, and lustre’.9 He cannot have held this post beyond —and there was no remuneration attached — but he managed in that time to implement an order from Pope Clement XI ( April ) restoring to the university such property as the church had seized during the War of the Spanish Succession, and thus provided a financial basis for the renascence of the university in the decades to come. Steffani’s first two or three years at Düsseldorf must have been extremely taxing. In addition to coming to grips with the government of a large area and the affairs of the Spiritual Council, he had to cope with the demands of frequent travel (in April  he visited Dresden, returning to Düsseldorf in May for a meeting with envoys from Prussia). The overhaul of the administration appears to have been his main concern during these years. In using the powers given him by Johann Wilhelm, however, he seems to have made many enemies. A highly charged litany of these is included in his letter to Count Fede; there is no doubt that the passage relates to his first years at Düsseldorf or that his work in this period had brought him great sorrow: There is no need for me to tell Your Most Illustrious Lordship how I am placed here, for you can see that all too well, to my greatest sorrow, from what His Electoral Highness himself writes to you. Let us come to the point. Why do you think I am telling you all these circumstances in confi-





  dence? To say that in such a life one makes many friends but many more enemies. Enemies are all those who do not take kindly to a foreigner occupying certain positions of honour and confidence. Enemies all those who nurture wrongful desire. Enemies all those who pretend to a vacant position that can be filled only by one person. Enemies all those who lose law-suits in which advocates make them believe that they are in the right. Enemies all those who, though lacking ability, used to obtain ecclesiastical benefices and now see their way closed. Enemies all the protectors of such most unjust pretenders. Enemies all those Brothers who find an insuperable obstacle in the way of their insatiable avidity to profit from everything and meddle in everything. Enemies, according to Tacitus, those who themselves are beneficiaries, because ‘services are welcome so long as it seems possible to repay them; when they greatly exceed this point there is ill-will instead of gratitude’ [Annals, iv. ]. And enemies, finally, are all those who, according to Pliny the Younger, ‘however often they are placed under obligation, if you deny them one thing, they will remember only the thing that is denied them’ [Letters, iii. , ]. Your Most Illustrious Lordship may kindly conclude, from all the truths that I tell you, that the information that such a man as I requests must be asked for and received with the greatest circumspection. 10 The ‘foreigner occupying certain positions of honour and confidence’ was Steffani, and a clamp-down on the distribution of benefices was an example of his attack on corruption. It would be hard to identify all the ‘enemies’ in his list, but it seems clear that he had been asked to conduct a purge of the Palatine administration and that, even if he embarked on this with enthusiasm and vigour (and tact), he soon came to view it as a thankless task. He might have felt differently if Johann Wilhelm’s attempts to secure him a bishopric had come to fruition more quickly. Ever since Steffani’s arrival in Düsseldorf the elector had been putting pressure on Rome to grant him another benefice (he still had Löpsingen). Johann Wilhelm was particularly keen to have a bishop at court ‘for the greater dignity of our chapel’—a motive not lacking in vanity. He regarded himself, rightly, as the most prominent Catholic prince in northern Europe and as a pillar of the Empire, and planned to collaborate with Steffani on a grand design (‘gran negozio’) to convert the protestant north of Germany to Catholicism.11 The scheme appealed to both men for a mixture of personal, political, and religious reasons and was to be a secret between them. As the quest for a bishopric encountered delay, it was proposed that the apostolic vicariate of the north be divided into two and that Steffani be made responsible for the more southerly portion. But this idea, too, ran into difficulties, including opposition from the incumbent, Otto Wilhelm, count of Bronckhorst-Gronsfeld. In his efforts on Steffani’s behalf Johann Wilhelm relied on the support of his resident in Rome, Count Fede, and of Giulio Piazza, papal nuncio in Cologne from  to . Steffani may have been prompted by the elector to introduce himself to Fede, for his autobiographical letter of  July  dates from the period when Johann Wilhelm was increasing the pressure on Rome. Two weeks later the elector addressed to the pope a powerful recommendation

 ‒ that Steffani be made a bishop, mentioning his ‘outstanding merits’, ‘tireless labour’, ‘utmost integrity’, and ‘successful handling of most difficult negotiations’.12 Steffani’s nomination came two months later; the citation, signed by Piazza on  September, characterised him as ‘serious, prudent, an outstanding man of affairs, well versed in ecclesiastical functions, and imbued with the best habits’.13 Having accepted the nomination, Steffani was informed on  November by the pope’s secretary of state, Cardinal Fabrizio Paolucci, that he would be bishop of Spiga and eventually apostolic vicar;14 around the same time he was nominated also as provost of Seltz. His consecration as bishop took place in Bamberg Cathedral on  January ; the ceremony was conducted by Lothar Franz von Schönborn, prince-bishop of Bamberg and elector-archbishop of Mainz, who was to become one of his closest friends. Hawkins, in his Memoirs of the composer, described Spiga as ‘a province in the Spanish West Indies’,15 a mistake copied by many later writers, while Padre Martini had Steffani as bishop of Speyer (‘Spira’).16 Hawkins got nearer the mark in his History, where he identified Spiga with the ancient town of Cyzicus in Mysia, a district of northwest Asia Minor.17 In fact, it is identical with the modern Pegae, situated in the Hellespont under the metropolitan of Cyzicus.18 The diocese was thus ‘in partibus infidelium’, and Steffani’s appointment, as Hawkins supposed, ‘was only titular, for it does not appear that he ever went to reside in his diocese, or ever received any revenues from thence’.19 His elevation was greeted with further honours, congratulations, and offers of help. In October  Johann Wilhelm made him his grand almoner ‘in recognition of his continuing exceptional and most intimate great confidence’. In the same month King Friedrich I of Prussia addressed him as a ‘specially dear friend’, wished him well in his ecclesiastical career, and extended a polite offer of assistance. And enthusiastic support came in a letter of  February  from Sophie of Hanover: ‘If my wishes are fulfilled, you will soon become cardinal and pope, and then we will unite the [protestant and Catholic] religions . . . Use me, therefore, in your service in some other affair, and regard me only as one of your best friends’. Steffani must have seen Sophie at around this time, for between April  and July  he was palatine envoy extraordinary to Hanover,20 making frequent visits there and to Brunswick; he also corresponded with her, on and off, from  until her death in .21 Whether her comment about uniting the religions was a personal pipe dream or a joint or universal aspiration, it indicates the level of diplomacy required of a public figure in Germany at the time. Steffani had to mediate both between the religions and between the various parties in his own camp. In  he brokered an agreement between the Curia, represented by Giovanni Battista Bussi, papal nuncio of Cologne from  to , and Johann Wilhelm on the levy of contributions from the clergy toward the reorganization of the elector’s war chest; in the following year he negotiated an understanding on the status of the Spiritual Council, which exercised jurisdiction over the clergy in the province but was nevertheless, according to church law, subject to the bishop of Cologne or Liège.22 But he was not concerned solely with religious affairs. Steffani also discussed the situation of Elector Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria, who had been outlawed from his territories since the battle of Blenheim, and he sought to prevent the quartering





  of troops in the duchy of Jülich without Johann Wilhelm’s consent. He was involved in the selection of a new commander of imperial troops and had a hand in the marriage of Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel to Archduke Charles of Austria, who became Emperor Charles VI in : Steffani arranged for this sixteenyear-old granddaughter of Duke Anton Ulrich to visit Vienna for inspection by the imperial court, while correspondence with Spain on the marriage was conducted by Baron Nomis (Benedetto Andrea Gasparo, Marchese della Banditella-Pelusi), whom Steffani had introduced to Hanover in .23 Elisabeth Christine proved an acceptable bride and was converted to Catholicism in , prior to her marriage in the following year. With Anton Ulrich, Steffani had also to discuss the problem of Hanover’s admission to the electoral college. The most persistent opposition to the duchy’s emancipation had come not from electors but from princes. As the duke of the senior branch of the Brunswick house, Anton Ulrich was jealous of Hanover’s elevation, grew to hate Ernst August, and put up the greatest resistance. He finally relented only in , allowing Hanover to take its seat in the electoral college for the first time on  September .24 Later that month Steffani set off on a diplomatic mission to Rome. His aim was to effect a reconciliation between the pope and the emperor, who were being driven apart by the War of the Spanish Succession.25 This was by far the most important mission of his Düsseldorf years and perhaps the most important of his career. Tension between Rome and Vienna was not a recent phenomenon, but it increased significantly in the years around . Pope Innocent XII (–) had reached a compromise with King Louis XIV that had broken a fifty-year-long politicoreligious deadlock between France and the Holy See. This agreement was viewed with suspicion in Vienna. The pope initially supported Emperor Leopold I in his war against the Turks, but relations with the emperor were damaged by the arrogant behaviour of imperial ambassadors in Rome. The papacy became involved in the problem of the Spanish succession when the young prince of Bavaria died in . Asked which remaining candidate he would support, Innocent came down in favour of Philip of Anjou and thus placed the papacy in the opposite camp to the emperor. He did not have to deal with the consequences of his decision, however, for he died on  September , just over a month before Carlos II: it was Clement XI who acted for Rome in the struggle that followed. Although at first he followed Innocent’s pro-Philip line, Clement soon tried to adopt a more neutral position. Leopold, however, suspected him of harbouring sympathy for the French and retaliated by withdrawing papal rights in imperial benefices and fiefs. Furthermore, when Joseph became emperor in , he did not send to Rome the traditional statement of submission to the pope. A distinction was thus drawn between the latter’s political and spiritual authority. This issue surfaced again in , by which time the Hapsburgs had become the dominant force in the peninsula. The pope still refused, nevertheless, to recognize Archduke Charles’s claim to the Spanish throne; apart from anything else, a great deal of clerical taxation was at stake. In early  the Hapsburgs published edicts forbidding the transfer of ecclesiastical revenues to Rome. The College of Cardinals considered excommunicating the emperor but instead agreed in April on a letter of censure, to which Joseph I responded

 ‒ by invading the papal states. On  May his troops occupied Comacchio, a small town on a mouth of the River Po; the ancient imperial rights of possession were there proclaimed, and Clement XI was provoked into joining a war that he could not win. Johann Wilhelm had been attempting since  to bring the two sides together. On  June  Joseph asked him by letter to send somebody who could act as a mediator and expressly mentioned Steffani, who had made his mark in Vienna in the early s. The bishop agreed to serve and wrote on  September to Count Fede as follows: I shall be leaving, therefore, in a few days and using post-horses; but since it is impossible for me to make this journey without stopping at Koblenz, Mainz, Frankfurt, Würzburg, Augsburg, Innsbruck, Verona, and Florence, Your Most Illustrious Lordship can well judge that I will not have the consolation of embracing you before the end of October. I shall only be bringing one chaplain, one secretary, one valet, one cook, and two grooms; I shall have to put Your Most Illustrious Lordship to the inconvenience of providing me with the other personnel that I shall need, particularly a good dean. Would you send your response to this [letter] to Marquis Michele Sagramosa in Verona. 26 Steffani’s mission was to be conducted in utmost secrecy. The ostensible pretext for his journey would be a need to visit Italy for health reasons, but on  September Johann Wilhelm issued his ‘Instruzione segreto per Monsignor Vescovo di Spiga’. The latter left Düsseldorf around the end of the month and on his way south held secret discussions with the most prominent ecclesiastics and politicians in his various ports of call. He was in Augsburg on  October and Innsbruck on the th, and he appears to have made an unforeseen detour to Vienna.27 Having taken a letter from Johann Wilhelm to Florence, he arrived in Rome on  November. Waiting for him there was a letter of  October from Sophie of Hanover: ‘They say that he [Johann Wilhelm] has used you to make peace between the emperor and pope. I hope this enables you to gain a cardinal’s hat, for I wish for everything that could give you pleasure’.28 Someone had leaked: in Germany, at least, his mission was no longer a secret. In Rome, however, only the pope and Cardinal Piazza had officially been informed of the reason for his visit. He had no time to lose. In an attempt to resist imperial troops the pope had formed an alliance with other Italian states. This had crumbled at the first show of strength. By January  the Hapsburgs had conquered Naples and advanced through the papal states and were threatening Rome itself. The pope had no alternative but to yield to military pressure, but by careful diplomacy a means was found by which he could modify his position without losing face. On  January he withdrew his support of Philip of Anjou and acknowledged the right of Archduke Charles to be regarded as the Catholic king; at this stage, however, he did not recognize Charles as king of Spain. This ingenious compromise was a brainchild of the bishop of Spiga. What followed was in some ways worse for the pope than the pressure that had made him change sides. The winter of  –  was one of the hardest ever—the Venetian lagoon froze over—and the imperial forces could not withdraw immediately.





  Feelings against the ‘Germans’ ran high in the College of Cardinals. The troops eventually began to retreat on  February, but as they went they plundered and looted, leaving devastation in their wake. In early March the college convened to discuss whether to recognize Charles as king of Spain; Fede and Steffani were implored by Marquis de Prié ‘to do something practical with these cardinals to facilitate the happy outcome of the matter’, but recognition was not granted until  October. No sooner had the besieging troops withdrawn than the papal states were crossed by more imperial soldiers marching from Naples to Milan. These created further devastation, against which the pope was minded to retaliate; but Steffani urged him to show restraint and not to leave Rome. The pope’s change of side led to rupture with Spain, but Joseph I rescinded the  proclamation of imperial rights. Although much else was left unresolved and Hapsburg domination in the Italian peninsula continued, the pope was never again so deeply involved in the war. Indeed, his role in this conflict exemplifies the decline of the papacy as an international power. It was now little more than a pawn in the hands of its larger neighbours to the north: in the Peace of Utrecht the papal fiefs of Parma, Piacenza, Sardinia, and Sicily were disposed of with scarcely a thought for the rights or wishes of the pope. This broader view notwithstanding, there is no doubting the success of Steffani’s mission. He had travelled to Rome to seek reconciliation between emperor and pope and had found it in a short space of time. The pope expressed his gratitude on  February  by making him a domestic prelate and assistant at the pontifical throne;29 according to Einstein, he also allowed him to celebrate Mass in St Peter’s.30 Nowadays, domestic prelates are normally named for their merit or their position in the church, are addressed as ‘right reverend monsignor’, and hold the title for life; there are two kinds of assistant at the pontifical throne—clerical and lay—and the former take precedence over all prelates except cardinals.31 In other words, these titles represent a signal mark of distinction and show that Clement XI thought highly of Steffani and his contribution. The emperor, also, was pleased with the outcome of the negotiations: on  February the empress wrote to Johann Wilhelm, commending him on his efforts. Steffani had a lengthy discussion with the pope in early April, and his appointment as apostolic vicar took effect on the th. On the th he wrote to Georg Ludwig of Hanover, accepting his offer of accommodation in his palace in Venice on his way back to Germany (Fig. .).32 Steffani must have left Rome about the end of the month, for in early May he was in Florence. Here he was entrusted with a painting, said to be by Annibale Carracci, which was to be given to Johann Wilhelm and hung above his head to remind him of the pope.33 By  May he was in Venice, his first visit there for eighteen years, and around the same time he spent two days in Padua. On  February  he wrote to Count Girolamo Frigimelica Roberti: ‘I was in Padua seven years ago, but stayed there only two days, instead of the two months that I had destined for my sojourn there, because I had not taken the trouble to see that the new friends left to me as an unfortunate inheritance by the deceased [his brother, Ventura Terzago] would deny me the satisfaction of seeing my old friends, which I desired so much’.34 Steffani arrived back in Düsseldorf in early June, conveyed by a sloop belonging to Johann Wilhelm which had been sent down the Rhine as far as Mainz to pick him up.

 ‒

       .  Autograph letter of  April  from Steffani to Georg Ludwig of Hanover, thanking him for the offer of the use of his palace in Venice (Hanover, Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Cal. Br. c, Nr. ; by permission)

Musician One of the most important sources of information on music and musicians at Düsseldorf during the period of Johann Wilhelm is a manuscript eulogy of him and his court by his secretary and poet, Giorgio Maria Rapparini, entitled ‘Le portrait du vrai mérite dans la personne serenissime de Monseigneur L’Electeur Palatin’ ().35 This sycophantic tribute was written when the elector was at the height of his power, and it celebrated his diplomatic and political success. After Max Emanuel’s declaration of allegiance to the French at the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession, Johann Wilhelm had persuaded the electoral college in April  to outlaw him from Bavaria and in May  to transfer his domains and electoral dignity to him, a fellow Wittelsbacher. The emperor had acceded to these demands, under duress, in June , and for the next seven years the star of the elector was in the ascendant. In addition to Johann Wilhelm, Rapparini discussed the other prominent figures at the palatine court. The entry on Steffani occurs immediately after the elector’s, at the head of a section devoted to government ministers. Although it makes clear that music took second place in Steffani’s life to public affairs, it suggests that he had enough talent to make this his ‘principal vocation’ and that occasionally his compositions still delighted ‘the refined ears of princes’:





  It is to honour his merit that I shall strike the following medal, alluding at one and the same time to the art of music, which he possesses in science, and to science, in him a precious ornament from which he sometimes detaches himself, with all the modesty proper to his character, to prepare a sweet entertainment for the refined ears of princes. In him these are incidental ornaments, marvellous attributes of his spirit, which others would be delighted to possess to the same extent as the principal vocation of their life. The following epigram is content to explain this thought: En celebrem Stephanum, decus orbis, lumen et aulae, insignem mira dexteritate virum. Si has aleret dotes alter quas negligit, ipse dicet, tota parit non mihi terra parem. [Behold the famous Steffani, ornament of the world and light of the court, / a man distinguished by extraordinary skill. / If any other man had these gifts, which he himself disregards, / he would say: the whole world does not produce my equal.] 36

Since a few works by Steffani were composed or performed at Düsseldorf, it will be helpful to look at the history of music there in the period before his arrival.37 Although music had been cultivated by his predecessors, Johann Wilhelm is the person who put it on a firm foundation. Before he became duke of Jülich and Berg, the Kapelle had been shared by Düsseldorf and Neuburg, but in  it was split, with the better musicians going to Düsseldorf. They still had to travel, however, both to Neuburg (until the death of Philipp Wilhelm in ) and to Heidelberg (until the death of Elector Karl in ). Despite this, the electorate of Johann Wilhelm ( – ) was the heyday of Baroque music at Düsseldorf. Sophie Charlotte may have compared him to ‘a badly oiled cart’ and thought that he could not possibly like music,38 but according to his chaplain, Joseph Paris Feckler, music was his master’s ‘only pleasure’.39 He particularly admired Corelli, who sent him a ‘concertino da camera’ in  and whose posthumous Concerti grossi, op. , were dedicated to him in .40 Johann Christoph Pez, Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei, and Antonio Giannettini are among the other composers who sent the elector examples of their work.41 Furthermore, his second wife, Anna Maria Luisa De’ Medici, was a talented amateur musician who subsidised opera to the tune of , florins per annum. The period of Johann Wilhelm was also the heyday of Italian opera at Düsseldorf. There had been occasional performances in the s and before, but these became frequent and regular only after the refurbishment of the opera house in  – . Twenty works were produced in the fifteen years between  and —some for special occasions, others for carnival. That the elector read a draft of Moniglia’s libretto for Wilderer’s Giocasta () and sent him amendments shows that he took a personal interest in the venture.42 Despite the efforts of Steffani, the electress took little interest in carnival in , when her husband was away in Vienna.43 The librettos of seven of the operas between  and ca.  were written by Rapparini, who may also have provided that of Wilderer’s La forza del giusto (). Writing from

 ‒ Düsseldorf on  March , Steffani informed Sophie Charlotte that he and Baron ‘Boslar’ [Bothmer(?)] had often been to the opera—presumably La forza del giusto—and that he had sung along with it, as a member of the audience, from beginning to end:44 how irritating for those near him! The other principal librettist was Stefano Benedetto Pallavicini (–).45 A son of the composer Carlo Pallavicino, with whom Steffani had sung in Padua and Venice in the s, Stefano Benedetto went with his father to Dresden in  and became court poet two years later, at the tender age of sixteen. He moved to Düsseldorf in the mid-s and between  and  wrote eight opera librettos for the court, including two for Steffani. He was a member of the Arcadian Academy from , wrote texts for oratorios and cantatas as well as operas, and translated Horace. Some of his works were edited by Francesco Algarotti and published in Venice in . Before Wilderer, the main composer of opera at Düsseldorf was Sebastiano Moratelli, a native of Vicenza who had been a chamber musician at Vienna from  and moved to Düsseldorf with Johann Wilhelm’s first wife, Maria Anna Josepha of Austria. He had composed dramatic music for carnival by at least , was Kapellmeister by at least , and wrote at least five operas for the court, of which not a note survives. From , when his health began to deteriorate, he was assisted by Wilderer, who was appointed vice-Kapellmeister that year. Moratelli lived on to , but Wilderer shouldered more and more of his responsibilities and was made Kapellmeister in . A Bavarian by birth, he had been a pupil of Legrenzi (according to Rapparini) and organist of a Düsseldorf church before composing nine or ten operas for the court. Wilderer’s vice-Kapellmeister was the Florentine alto Carlo Luigi Pietragrua, who had moved to Düsseldorf from Dresden in . Although Pietragrua composed only one opera for the palatine court (Telegono, ), he wrote a considerable number of chamber duets alla Steffani, some of them to verses by Mauro.46 Düsseldorf could also boast of some exceptionally fine instrumentalists. The orchestra was led by Georg Andreas Kraft, whom Johann Wilhelm had sent to Rome to study with Corelli; Kraft was also a composer, writing the overtures and ballet music for many of the operas (French dancing masters were employed throughout this period). From  the orchestra included the outstanding Dutch viola da gamba player Johannes Schenck, and from  the talented lutenist and composer Johann Sigismund Weiss, younger brother of the better-known Silvius Leopold Weiss. Both Schenck and Weiss remained at Düsseldorf until the death of Johann Wilhelm, as did Feckler, his chaplain and self-styled ‘Kabinettsmusikdirektor’.47 Feckler was evidently a versatile man, for he taught singing, played harpsichord continuo, and assisted Steffani as both a musician and a churchman. In  –  he corrected copies of the latter’s chamber duets48 and around the same time, or possibly slightly later, organized the copying of some of them for the counts of Schönborn.49 Steffani’s name does not appear in the records of the court Kapelle, and at some stage during his Düsseldorf years he stopped using it in connexion with music. As Hawkins explained, ‘he was now considered in the light of a statesman, and was besides a dignitary of the church; and having a character to sustain, with which he imagined the public profession of his art not properly consistent, he forbore the setting his name to his future compositions, and adopted that of his secretary, or copyist,





  Gregorio Piva’.50 Not much is known about Piva, but from  to  he was employed as a singer and copyist at Dresden.51 Einstein suggested that Steffani could have met him during that period, invited him to Hanover, and taken him to Düsseldorf, but according to another authority he was already at the Palatine court by . Be that as it may, he was certainly there as an instrumentalist by  and remained at Düsseldorf until Johann Wilhelm’s death. Thereafter he was at Bonn, from December  as an instrumentalist and copyist and from January  also as music librarian. He died in . It is not certain when Steffani adopted Piva’s name as a pseudonym, but it must have been by  and probably coincided with his appointment as bishop of Spiga. In a letter to him of  Ruggiero Fedeli referred to his Düsseldorf operas; Steffani replied: ‘You speak to me of Düsseldorf operas: I do not know that I composed any, but there are operas by Signor Gregorio Piva. However that may be, it gave me the greatest pleasure to hear that those bagatelles should amuse His Most Serene Lordship the Landgrave [of Hesse-Kassel]’.52 The earliest of Steffani’s three Düsseldorf operas, Arminio, was performed during carnival . Since no printed wordbook could be traced for this study,53 it is fortunate that Rapparini attributed the music to him and the libretto to Pallavicini. It is also helpful that one of the scores, in Piva’s hand (GB-Lbl, RM . f. : Fig. .), describes the work as a ‘Tragedia per Musica Rappresentata alla Corte Elettorale Palatina il Carnovale dell’anno ’. The only other score is accompanied, unusually, by a set of instrumental and vocal parts; these manuscripts (D-WD, MS Nr. ) are in the private library of the Schönborn family, of which various members were on intimate terms with Steffani and Feckler. Based on the exploits of the first-century

       .  Beginning of Act V, scene , of Arminio (), in the hand of Gregorio Piva (GB-Lbl, RM . f. , f. ; by permission of The British Library)

 ‒ German warrior Hermann, Arminio is a political opera in praise of Johann Wilhelm. As Gerhard Croll has shown, it is also a pasticcio that draws heavily on Steffani’s Munich and Hanover works.54 To allow for rehearsal, the score must have been ready by the end of . Since Steffani had been preoccupied with political activity that summer and nominated bishop in the autumn, he appears to have had little time to work on the opera. Croll argued that he composed the new third of it but that the bulk may have been compiled and adapted by Piva, Wilderer, or somebody else; Wilderer probably directed the rehearsals and performances, which coincided with the period of Steffani’s consecration. His other Düsseldorf operas, Amor vien dal destino and Tassilone, were both premièred in early . Amor vien dal destino is based, like I trionfi del fato, on the story of Aeneas after his arrival in Italy and his relations with Lavinia, Turnus, and Latinus. It is an adaptation of a work that had been written in Hanover by Mauro and Steffani and intended for performance in , , or .55 The autograph score (GB-Lbl, RM . h. – ) preserves what seems to have been the original title, Il Turno, and includes revisions in Piva’s hand. A copy relating to the Düsseldorf performance (RM . h. ) carries the revised title ‘Enea o Amor vien dal destino. Dramma del Sig.r Gregorio Piva, ’; this manuscript is not in Piva’s hand, however, but in that of scribe A, who made copies of most of Steffani’s Hanover works.56 The printed wordbook names neither librettist nor composer, giving the title simply as Amor vien dal destino . . . Dramma da recitarsi . . . in Düsseldorf, l’anno MDCCIX. That the opera is not mentioned in Rapparini’s ‘portrait’ tends to confirm its non-Düsseldorf origin: Rapparini had no reason to cite a work that had originated elsewhere. Tassilone, however, was specially designed to celebrate the political successes outlined above and possibly the elector’s fiftieth birthday ( April ).57 The historical subject, from the period of Charlemagne, was chosen for its parallels with the situation in the early eighteenth century. Like Arminio, Tassilone is a ‘tragedia’ in five acts to a libretto by Pallavicini. The principal musical sources, a score and set of parts, were copied by Gregorio Piva; the score (E-Mn, M. /) is undated and unascribed, but the set of parts (RM . i. – ), which lacks those for violin I and the singers, attributes the music to Piva and is dated . Steffani could not have composed the work after September , when he went to Rome, but since the events that it celebrates had taken a number of years to unfold and were all but concluded by May , the opera could have been completed over eighteen months before its first performance. The revisions in Piva’s score tend to confirm that this is what happened.58 Steffani cannot have taken part in the performances of either of these operas, for they occurred while he was in Rome. Information on the date of one of the premières is found in a letter from Feckler to Johann Philipp Franz von Schönborn; the year () is not given but is clear from the letter’s position in their correspondence. The following quotation suggests that two operas had been performed by  January and that the second of them had been premièred on the previous day: ‘The second opera, however, which was performed yesterday for the first time, is so incomparable and magnificent that it was unanimously agreed that the like of it had never been seen here before’.59 It is impossible to say which opera was the first and which the second, but Croll concluded that Feckler was describing Tassilone.





  Feckler’s commendation of the opera may have had as much to do with the singing as with the music itself or any other feature of the performance. The cast of Tassilone, preserved in Piva’s copy of the harpsichord part, includes some notable names:3 Carlo Magno [B] Rotrude [S] his daughters Teodata [S] Gheroldo, prince of Swabia [S] Tassilone [S] Gismonda, his wife [A] Adalgiso, her brother (incognito), ambassador of the Greek emperor [T] Sigardo, of the house of Aquitaine [A] Guido, captain of Carlo’s guard [B]

}

G. F. Benedetti A. Pasi B. Baldassari V. Pellegrini A. Mori A. Tosi L. Santorini V. Giardi P. Bompiaccini

The star was undoubtedly Valeriano Pellegrini, who is reported to have sung at Hanover in .60 Having appeared in northern Italy in  –,61 he seems to have been based at Düsseldorf from about  to  and became a favourite of Johann Wilhelm: the elector in  –  asked Steffani to petition the pope for a benefice for Pellegrini and later made him a knight. Pellegrini appeared as Nero in the sensational inaugural run of Handel’s Agrippina (Venice,  –) and sang for the composer in London in  –.62 Giovanni Francesco Benedetti ‘di Lucca’ had appeared in Macerata in  and  and was to sing in Bologna and Mantua in .63 Antonio Pasi ‘di Bologna’, a pupil of Pistocchi, was first heard in Venice () and Florence ( –), where he was known as a ‘virtuoso’ of the duke of Parma. He was in Düsseldorf from  to  and returned to Italy after the death of Johann Wilhelm in .64 Berenstadt wrote in  that ‘the great Pasi sings, by God, in a manner and with an understanding that reduces Forzoni and all who have taste to tears’; two years later Quantz regarded Pasi’s performance of adagio movements as ‘masterly’.65 Benedetto Baldassari, who was at Düsseldorf, on and off, from  to , was at the start of a distinguished career that took him also to London (), Rome ( –), Venice (), London again ( – ), and Dublin ().66 Alessandro Mori, from Viadana, was still at Düsseldorf in  and was a householder at Mannheim in .67 Antonio Tosi was already in the service of Johann Wilhelm when he sang in Venice in .68 Lorenzo Santorini was at Düsseldorf from ; went with the Kapelle to Heidelberg and Mannheim after the death of Johann Wilhelm; became a court secretary, poet, and composer—and was still alive in .69 Meanwhile, he had also sung in Venice () and Rome (,  –).70 Most of these singers presumably took part also in Amor vien dal destino, which requires a similar cast. That most of them, in addition, served Johann Wilhelm over long periods of time reflects well on the elector and electress and on working conditions in Düsseldorf. Between them, and with the assistance of the musicians they employed, Johann Wilhelm and Anna Maria Luisa ensured that, during the years when Steffani was in Düsseldorf, the court opera was among the best in the Empire.

 ‒ Apart from these three operas, however, only one other work from this period may be linked—unreliably—with his name. This is a setting of psalm  (), Confitebor tibi Domine, for two sopranos and a bass voice, two violins, and continuo, which is ascribed to ‘Abate Steffani ’ in GB-Lbl, Add. MS . As we shall see, however, the manuscript dates from the later eighteenth century, and the work is not entirely typical of his style. If he did compose it in , it may have been prompted by liturgical necessity or by one of the momentous events of his life that year—the success of his negotiations in Rome, his appointment as apostolic vicar, his triumphal return to Düsseldorf, or his removal in November to Hanover. It is impossible, finally, to believe that Steffani had nothing to do with music in Rome between November  and April . He surely attended concerts and met musicians in the city, and maybe even wrote a few pieces himself. He also appears to have performed as a singer. An episode related by Hawkins probably took place during this period: When he was last in Italy, he was often at the palace of cardinal Ottoboni, with whom it was a frequent practice to have performances of opera’s, oratorio’s, or such other grand compositions as could from time to time be procured. On these occasions, in the absence of a principal singer, it has many times fallen to the lot of our author [Steffani] to be a performer; and it is said by some whose good fortune it has been to be present at such an accident, that when he sung, he was scarce loud enough to be heard, but that this defect in his voice was amply recompensed by his manner, in the chasteness and elegance of which he had few equals. 71 A singer by early training, Steffani has already been linked to Ottoboni by Flavio Lanciani’s bill for copying his arias in ;72 he was also in touch with Ottoboni during his peace negotiations in Rome.73 He presumably went to the cardinal’s celebrated concerts and got to know Corelli, Scarlatti, and other beneficiaries of his patronage. The dating of the reported episode poses a problem that is quickly resolved. From its position in the Memoirs the extract appears to refer to Steffani’s last visit to Italy, which Hawkins put in . By then the composer was dead. His last visit to the peninsula occurred in – , and he spent these years mainly in Padua and Venice. The only period during which he could have sung at Ottoboni’s concerts is the winter and spring of – . If the extract from Hawkins began ‘When he was last in Rome’, it would make perfect sense. The person ‘whose good fortune’ it was to be ‘present at such an accident’ must have been Handel. Most of the material for Hawkins’s Memoirs of Steffani was provided by Handel and Pepusch, and the latter did not visit Italy. Handel is assumed to have been in Rome during the period in question, and a ‘famous Saxon’ had attended Ottoboni’s concerts in the autumn of .74 He presumably continued to frequent them the following year and became the anonymous, but perceptive, critic of Steffani’s performance. One cannot help feeling, however, that Hawkins embroidered the information he received. Ottoboni’s concerts would have been disappointing if principal singers were ‘many times’ absent, especially if the stand-in was ‘scarce loud enough to be heard’. The impression conveyed is that Steffani sang like a chorister or





  with the classical purity associated with Corelli, qualities that would have endeared him to Hawkins’s English readership. If Handel was in Rome during the winter or spring of – , he presumably had an opportunity to get to know Steffani better. They had probably met at Hanover in  and may have done so again, either there or at Düsseldorf, in –. Handel may also have been in Florence when Steffani stopped there on  May , on his way back to Germany, but he was not with Steffani a week or two later in Venice: there is no evidence of a meeting there then between the composers and Baron von Kielmansegg.75 That this chapter, like the previous one, ends with discussion of Handel is fortuitous rather than significant. By May  Steffani had all but ceased to be an active musician. He was now bishop of Spiga and apostolic vicar of north Germany, and the last twenty years of his life were to be dedicated largely to the church.


A V  N G  ‒

When Steffani left Rome in April , he had been bishop of Spiga for over two years and had just been appointed apostolic vicar of north Germany. He was eager to devote the rest of his life to the Catholic Church and expected his costs to be covered by income from benefices. The remainder of this biography is therefore concerned above all with his work for the church in northern Germany, his financial problems, and his attempts to solve them. But it also explores his dealings with friends and relations in Italy and his involvement, during the last twenty years of his life, with music, musicians, and music lovers—for he continued to be interested in music right to the end. Steffani’s work as apostolic vicar was part of a larger picture. The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge had been founded in , and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in . By this time the church had sent missionaries to many parts of the world; in Europe, Catholic domination of France and Poland was assured. Clement XI was in favour of missions to Protestant parts of Germany and took a personal interest in the vicariate of the north, but the efforts of the church were constrained by the complex politics of the area. The vicariate had traditionally comprised the whole of north Germany, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden.1 This was too large an area for any single vicar who wanted to take his responsibilities seriously. In the spring of , after years of debate, the vicariate was split into two. Scandinavia, the Hanseatic cities (Bremen, Hamburg, and Lübeck), Altona, Schwerin, and other northern towns remained with the incumbent, Otto Wilhelm von Bronckhorst-Gronsfeld, suffragan of Osnabrück; Brandenburg (Prussia), Brunswick, and the Palatinate were entrusted to the bishop of Spiga. Steffani was also responsible for the more northerly vicariate in – and –, when Osnabrück had no suffragan, and for Saxony from . Furthermore, during this period he was in addition the suffragan of Münster and Paderborn, assisting the bishop, Franz Arnold von Wolff-Metternich zur Gracht: Tibus suggests that he acted from  until the death of Franz Arnold in December , but according to Gatz he did so from  to .2 In  the boundaries of the vicariate were redrawn again in the wake of the Great Northern War. Formally described as ‘ad partes Septentrionales et per Saxoniam Vicarius Apostolicus’,3 Steffani was different from other apostolic vicars. He was neither a pastor 



  nor an ascetic, but a musician and politician. He evinced an artist’s idealism and ambition and expected to promote Catholicism via contacts made in his previous careers. His appointment enabled him to embark with Johann Wilhelm on their ‘grand design’ of converting the Protestant princes of north Germany and creating religious and political unity in the region. Although he continued as the elector’s almoner and minister of state,4 he also kept his distance: if he were regarded as a Palatine minister rather than a servant of the church, he might antagonize the princes whom he hoped to convert. With this in mind, he fixed his residence in Hanover, where he was liked and respected by Elector Georg Ludwig and the court; he felt his presence was needed there, and Hanover was a convenient centre from which to operate. Arriving on  November , he lived first in a house near the Leineschloß, then in one belonging to the Catholic community. The lower part of the building was occupied by a school; the upper part was his. Steffani was apostolic vicar of north Germany from  to  and from  to . In this capacity he was responsible to the Congregation of Propaganda for the conduct and progress of the church in the region under his control. His objectives were to gain acceptance and tolerance for Catholicism and its forms of worship, secure recognition in Prussia for the authority of the apostolic vicar, found new missions, win converts, and build churches. He was also responsible for existing missions and the supervision of monasteries and nunneries and their finances. He worked closely with the nuncio of Cologne, of whom there were seven between his appointment and his death, and the superiors of the orders represented in his area. The greatest difficulties were posed by the size of the vicariate, which was still very large, the relatively small number of Catholics, and a chronic shortage of money. Since by  the ‘grand design’ was no longer a secret in Rome,5 it may have been common knowledge in north Germany. Perhaps as a result, Steffani achieved less than he hoped. He failed to establish his authority in Prussia, made little headway in Saxony, and lost a campaign for the approval of mixed marriages, which he saw as a way of increasing the Catholic population. Nevertheless, he was able to found two new missions, build two new churches, and win a handful of eminent converts. He also performed many ordinations: on  days between  and  he ordained well over a thousand candidates—in his private chapel at Hanover, the residence of Franz Arnold at Neuhaus, the episcopal palace at Paderborn, St George’s church or the Jesuit college in Münster, and Sassenberg parish church. He also performed confirmations, though the number may have been limited by the obstacles raised in Prussia and Saxony. As elector of Hanover during the run-up to the English succession, Georg Ludwig could not be seen as sympathetic to the Catholic cause. Ernst August had sanctioned the founding of a Jesuit mission, but his son closed it down in  and two years later demanded an oath of allegiance from Catholic teachers and priests.6 Steffani considered this an infringement of the tolerance granted by Ernst August in  as a condition of the electorate, but although his attempts to have the measure revoked were assisted by the pope, the emperor, and several Catholic princes, they failed. Ernst August also had approved the building of a Catholic church in Hanover, but little had been done. When Steffani left Rome, he carried a letter of recommen-

     ‒ dation from the pope to each of the Catholic princes in Germany, urging them to support the scheme. In late April  Joseph Paris Feckler, Johann Wilhelm’s chaplain and director of chamber music, set off on a tour of German courts to collect their contributions. Between  and  Feckler made four such ‘Kollektenreisen’ to south Germany and Austria, particularly to Salzburg, where he had been educated.7 His missions appear to have succeeded, for the church was eventually built, at a cost of over , thalers, and consecrated by Steffani in ; in homage to the pope, it was dedicated to St Clement. The first Catholic church in Hanover since the Reformation, it was modelled on the Redentore and Santa Maria della Salute in Venice,8 which Steffani must have known. Its interior was adorned with two paintings by Antonio Pellegrini, a Venetian artist who was closely associated with Padua and worked at Düsseldorf in –;9 the altarpiece depicted the Ascension of Christ, while the north transept housed a portrait of St Cecilia (after all, the vicar was a musician). In Brunswick Steffani had more immediate success, owing to the support of the cultivated Duke Anton Ulrich, with whom he had enjoyed good relations for many years. The duke had been promising since  to embrace the Catholic faith. His granddaughter, Elisabeth Christine, had done so in  before marrying Archduke Charles, and he eventually did so in early , when he was in his late seventies. His conversion was celebrated on  April by a ceremony in Bamberg Cathedral conducted by Steffani’s consecrator, Lothar Franz von Schönborn, and was followed in  and  by that of two of his daughters—Henrietta Christina, until then abbess of Gandersheim, and Countess Augusta Dorothea of Schwarzburg-Arnstadt. Steffani also built a church in Brunswick. Given a site on  February , he immediately wrote to such prominent figures as Johann Wilhelm, Emperor Joseph I, Tsar Peter the Great, the bishops of Vienna and Prague, and Sophie of Hanover, asking for financial assistance. By late August he had raised , thalers, enough to enable work to begin; the pope later contributed , thalers, and Steffani gave , out of his own pocket. Where the rest of the money came from is unclear; paintings were expected from Düsseldorf.10 The church had a roof by October  and was consecrated by Steffani on  December. The high-profile conversions in Brunswick were surpassed only by that of Friedrich August, heir to the throne of Saxony, who was converted secretly in November ; the pope was delighted but did not inform the cardinalate until October . There was joy in Rome also in  at the conversion of two other Saxons—Duke Moritz Wilhelm of Sachsen-Zeitz (who later reverted to Protestantism) and his nephew Moritz Adolf. A total of  conversions are recorded for Saxony between  and , and ninety more between then and ; Steffani conducted a confirmation service in Minden Cathedral in  or .11 He and Johann Wilhelm also made discreet approaches to the duke of Mecklenburg, the king of Denmark, the landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, the duke of Württemberg, and the duke of Meiningen, and in – they used the singer Benedetto Baldassari, who had appeared in Tassilone, in an attempt to convert Sophie Charlotte and her husband, Friedrich I of Prussia.12 The new missions that were founded during Steffani’s period as apostolic vicar were situated in Halle and Dessau.13 The one in Halle was established in  but did





  not last long. On  October , at the behest of Friedrich Wilhelm I of Prussia, the Halle mission was devastated, the sacrament was removed, and the tabernacle was overthrown. ‘Not since the Peace of Passau in ’, wrote Steffani to Cardinal Fabrizio Paolucci, secretary of the Propaganda, ‘has anything so terrible been seen in Germany’. Steffani may not have visited Halle or Dessau, but he travelled far and wide in the course of his duties. In – he kept an itinerary (Table .), revealing that in those two years he covered  leagues, or , miles. He travelled extensively in the duchy of Brunswick; visited Düsseldorf and Cologne, presumably to see Johann Wilhelm and the papal nuncio; went to Neuhaus and Herten, residence of the counts of Nesselrode-Reichenstein; made the long journey to Bamberg to speak to the elector of Mainz; and in autumn  paid an important visit to Berlin. During the first few years of his vicariate, before the demands of the post began to wear him down—but not before he had broken a bone in his shoulder14—he took his responsibilities very seriously.15 Steffani’s visit to Berlin was important because Prussia was a large and powerful kingdom, distant from Hanover, and difficult to monitor, and the régime was the least sympathetic with which he had to deal. He had been received there as Johann Wilhelm’s representative in , and both Friedrich and Sophie Charlotte had liked him. In  the king again welcomed him hospitably, allowed him to perform publicly the functions of his office, and offered him assistance, but gave nothing away. Steffani sought freedom for a Catholic bishop where none had existed for nearly two hundred years; Friedrich would not allow a Catholic from outside his realm to wield authority within it. Steffani wanted Prussian Catholics to come under the protection of the apostolic vicar; the king wanted to appoint his own ‘Landesbischof ’. The pope did not yet recognize Prussia as a kingdom, and Friedrich distrusted the pope. Relations between Rome and Berlin were in a delicate state, and it was fervently hoped in Rome, at least, that Steffani would not rock the boat with his exceptional zeal. He travelled back to Hanover by a different route in order to visit monasteries and nunneries near Magdeburg and Halberstadt, on which he gathered more information after his return. There were six monasteries, ten nunneries, and a total of  people in holy orders; the churches in the area were used by over , lay Catholics. Steffani wanted to abolish monastic privileges because of the corrupt (but routine) payment of revenues to Protestants, but the pope would not approve of the measure for fear of upsetting the king. Relations between Rome and Berlin deteriorated after the death of Friedrich in : the destruction of the mission in Halle is a symptom of the tougher line that was taken by his son. Although Steffani embarked on his vicariate with energy and optimism, he grew increasingly tired, disillusioned, and embittered. The reason for this was financial. He knew what kind of figure an apostolic vicar of north Germany should cut—the style in which he should live and discharge his responsibilities—but his vision entailed expenditure way beyond his means. His financial support as vicar was meant to come from benefices. He had been abbot of Löpsingen from  and provost of Seltz from , held two tiny benefices in Hildesheim and Liège16 (a prince-bishopric

     ‒  .

Steffani’s travels as apostolic vicar, –

Year

Month

Journey



January

[From Hanover] to Brunswick From Brunswick to Wolfenbüttel From Wolfenbüttel to Celle From Celle to Hanover From Hanover to Brunswick From Brunswick to Wolfenbüttel From Wolfenbüttel to Hanover [From Hanover] to Düsseldorf From Düsseldorf to Cologne and back [From Düsseldorf] to Herten, so as to return to Hanover From Herten to Neuhaus, to speak to the bishop of Münster From Neuhaus to Herten From Herten to Münster From Münster to Hanover From Hanover to Bamberg to speak to the elector of Mainz From Bamberg to Hanover From Hanover to Neuhaus and back From Hanover to Celle and back From Hanover to Neuhaus Left Neuhaus for Münster From Münster to Neuhaus Left Neuhaus for Hanover From Hanover to Brunswick From Brunswick to Hanover From Hanover to Brunswick From Brunswick to Celle From Celle to Hanover Left Hanover for Neuhaus From Neuhaus to Hanover From Hanover to Celle From Celle to Berlin From Berlin to Lindenburg and back From Berlin to Hanover (another way) From Hanover to Brunswick and back From Hanover to Neuhaus

February

Quadragesima May

July August September



December  March  April  April  May  May  June  June  July  July  September  September  September [Late October] [Late November] [?]

Total no. of leagues

Distance (leagues) 7 1 7 5 7 1 8 32 9 6 12.5 12.5 6 20 42 42 26 10 13 10 10 13 7 7 7 6 5 13 13 5 31 6 41 14 13 468





  controlled by the Wittelsbachs), and on appointment as apostolic vicar was made abbot of San Stefano in Carrara, near Padua. The revenues of Löpsingen, Hildesheim, and Liège were extremely small, however, and Steffani never received the full income from Seltz or Carrara. His attempts to lay hands on these funds and perform his duties without them made him increasingly frustrated. Between  and  many of his friends and supporters died, and in  he discovered that a family fortune had slipped through his fingers. As apostolic vicar he felt obliged to live in some luxury. Since he sought to influence princes, he could not appear down-at-heel or apologetic. Insight into his lifestyle during his early years as vicar is afforded by a memorandum of ,17 in which he identified two kinds of cost. The first comprised the ‘expenses of a prelate, resident at Hanover, in looking after a vicariate with a circumference of over , miles’. Since he had to write between fifty and seventy letters a week, in four languages, and dispatch patents, dispensations, decrees, and the like, he needed at least two secretaries, one for Latin and Italian, the other for French and German. He also needed a minimum of two priests, one valet, four grooms (to serve the priests and secretaries, as well as himself ), three kitchen hands, and two footmen (‘postantini’)18. All these people had to be paid and fed. The second kind comprised ‘extraordinary expenses which an apostolic vicar, residing in Hanover, cannot avoid without offending his conscience’. These included the cost of travel, with retinue, throughout the vicariate to visit Catholic communities; travel by missionaries to and from mission stations; extra priests on special feast days; hospitality for potential and recent converts and the sick; passports for missionaries from the regency of Hanover; and trinkets with which missionaries and teachers might appeal to the young. Steffani regarded the above as the minimum for an apostolic vicar of north Germany who wanted to fulfil his obligations with appropriate dignity. He challenged anyone to show that the expenses were not essential. They involved a lot of money, for in Hanover one ‘invincibly’ spent more in three months than in Padua in a year.19 The hire of post-horses cost  thalers (approximately  Roman scudi) per league, and Steffani’s postage amounted to roughly  thalers per month: given his itinerary for –, he must have spent an average of , thalers in each of those years on travel and postage alone. It was also necessary to eat and drink well ‘in a place where, as is well known, negotiations are conducted at table’. He claimed, in short, that to live and work in Hanover at an appropriate level a vicar needed not less than , thalers per annum.20 Steffani’s income never approached this level. When he started at Düsseldorf in  his salary was , thalers, rising to , by the end of April. Upon appointment as apostolic vicar he asked Johann Wilhelm for eight years’ salary in advance, so that he could set himself up. He was granted , thalers but did not receive the full sum: over a third was creamed off in taxes or interest, leaving , thalers—an average of , thalers per annum. This is well below what he considered essential. For the difference he relied on his benefices and a stipend from the Propaganda. Löpsingen yielded an average of , –, thalers (or  –, scudi) per annum in  – ; Carrara should have brought in at least  scudi, and Hildesheim and Liège together about 21—a total, at best, of , scudi (or , thalers) per

     ‒ annum. His stipend from the Propaganda was small, and in his first five years as vicar he received less than  florins from Seltz.22 If he had received all his due from this provostship (about , thalers per annum), he would still not have had enough money to carry on spending at the rate at which he had set off. By  November  he had spent , thalers; by August  he had consumed ,.23 The Propaganda was not surprised: some cardinals had predicted in  that he would oblige the Holy See either to spend heavily for little return or to withdraw ignominiously.24 Their anxieties were well founded: Steffani spent too much too quickly and evidently was guilty of the extravagance of which he was later accused. He had established himself as a significant presence in north Germany, but lacked the means to maintain himself in the manner to which he had become accustomed.

The Provostship of Seltz Steffani’s years as vicar were dominated by a struggle to secure his income from Seltz.25 Situated on the west bank of the Rhine, south of Karlsruhe and opposite Rastatt, the town lay in the bailiwick of Germersheim and belonged to the Palatinate. The benefice originally pertained to a Benedictine foundation which in  was transformed into a collegiate foundation with a provost at its head. During the Reformation the provostship and its revenues passed into Protestant hands, but in  they were taken over by the French, and Catholicism was restored. In  the cardinal-bishop of Strasbourg, in whose diocese, also, the benefice lay, incorporated it into the local Jesuit college; this action was approved by the incumbents, the people of Seltz, the chapter of Strasbourg Cathedral, and Louis XIV—but not by Johann Wilhelm, who had not been consulted. By the Peace of Ryswick () Germersheim was restored to the Palatinate but the provostship was split, two-thirds of the revenue going to the Jesuits, the remainder to the elector. The foundations were thus laid for a bitter and long-running battle. During the War of the Spanish Succession it was easy for the Jesuits, assisted by French troops, to hold on to all of the revenue. When Steffani went to Rome he had been provost of Seltz for two years but had not received a penny from the benefice. One of his secret instructions from Johann Wilhelm was to inform the pope of the elector’s rights in Germersheim, especially at Seltz, and to secure their recognition. The pope confirmed him as provost, but since the area was in French hands and the Jesuits refused to give way, the bull could not be implemented. Despite the stalemate, Steffani, Johann Wilhelm, and their allies kept up the pressure, intensifying their efforts in , after the death of the last incumbents. Their difficulties were exacerbated by the removal (by French troops) of the account books from the archives at Heidelberg. Steffani received at least  thalers in , but the total revenue from the provostship that year was , thalers. The nuncio of Cologne went to Rome to argue that Steffani was entitled to it all (Johann Wilhelm could not use his resident in Rome, Count Fede, because he was a Jesuit sympathizer). Around the same time the Jesuits submitted a ‘Memoire’ to the pope in support of their position. The historical and legal points that they made were countered by Steffani and Johann Wilhelm





  in separate responses, but the Jesuits stuck to their guns and pressed their case in negotiations leading to the Peace of Rastatt (). Steffani now threatened to resign from the vicariate and retire to his benefice at Carrara. Claiming that since  he had received only  florins from Seltz, he asked Johann Wilhelm to find out what had happened to the rest of the income and seek papal assent to his resignation. The elector would not countenance Steffani’s departure, however, for this would cripple the cause of the church in the north. The new nuncio of Cologne, Girolamo Archinto, took a similar view; because it would be impossible to find a replacement with the experience and authority to command such widespread respect, he encouraged Steffani to stay and offered to petition Rome for more money. The latter learnt in September  that the pope was considering ratifying the incorporation of the provostship into the Jesuit college, provided the Jesuits recognized Steffani as provost for life, after which the benefice would be theirs. He seized on this news to urge Johann Wilhelm to press his claim to all of the revenues. As the pope seemed to favour the French position, the elector thought of taking legal action. The pope’s response was to call a special congregation, for which the French and imperial ambassadors to Rome were thoroughly briefed. The elector demanded full implementation of the peaces of Ryswick and Rastatt; the Jesuits argued that the problem was one for the French and the emperor; the pope was afraid of French reprisals if he favoured the elector and Steffani. As his financial position deteriorated, Steffani grew increasingly desperate. It was so important for him to lay hands on his income from Seltz that he even considered physical intervention as a means to the end. Johann Wilhelm was reluctant to deploy his army on his behalf, however, because the French would be waiting at the border. In the event, before any action could be taken, the elector died—in July . The following February his successor, Karl Philipp, confirmed Steffani’s entitlement, and in November Cardinal Paolucci encouraged the elector to seize those parts of the revenue that lay within his domain. In early  Steffani proposed that the missions within his vicariate should inform the pope that they would go under if more money was not made available, but the nuncio of Cologne advised against this because Rome was already aware of the situation. The nuncio would agree to the incorporation of the provostship into the college if Steffani’s income was guaranteed, but the latter would not accept a compromise that sacrificed any right of the elector. The demise of Johann Wilhelm was for Steffani a grievous personal loss. On Christmas Day, , he suffered another—the death of Franz Arnold von WolffMetternich, bishop of Münster and Paderborn, whom he had assisted as suffragan since  and with whom he had spent many winters as his guest at Neuhaus. Within the previous five years Steffani had been deprived of many of his closest friends and supporters. In  Anton Ulrich of Wolfenbüttel and Sophie of Hanover had died, and Georg Ludwig had moved to England. Johann Wilhelm’s death had been followed in October and December  by those of Leibniz and Otto Wilhelm von Bronckhorst-Gronsfeld, the apostolic vicar of Scandinavia and the very north of Germany. The following October, Johann Wilhelm’s widow, Anna Maria Luisa, had returned to Florence. By the end of  Steffani was short of both psychological and financial support.

     ‒ In July  he also reached the age of sixty-five. He had had enough and sought permission to retire: ‘It behoves me, with unspeakable regret, to seek to liberate myself from such constricting miseries and try to find the necessary means to return home, there to lament at leisure the misfortunes that God sends me for my sins’.26 During the summer and autumn of  he stayed with Count Nesselrode-Reichenstein at Herten, then with the nuncio of Cologne. The latter advised him to retire to Carrara, but this was no longer an available option. In  he returned to Hanover, anxious to resign from the vicariate, but only with the consent of Rome. A potential successor—Baron Wilhelm Hermann Ignaz von Wolff-Metternich, a canon of Münster and Paderborn—was found by July , but Steffani refused to endorse his nomination because he disapproved of the procedure employed: his successor should be named secretly, so that he could work alongside him for a while and be introduced by Steffani to Hanover. The proposal thus fell by the wayside. The nuncio, Vincenzo Santini, visited Steffani in February ; no successor had been found, but both men agreed that now was the time for the vicar to withdraw from the fray.

Problems in Padua Steffani’s personal and financial circumstances were not improved by the death of his half-sister in Padua or the management of his benefice at Carrara. The death of Helena Perina gave rise to an acrimonious correspondence, because he felt that he had been cheated of a large sum of money. It emerges, however, that he had received income to which he was not entitled, though he may have believed that he was. The correspondence reveals a great deal about his financial and domestic arrangements, his relations with compatriots in Padua, and the devious ways of the world in which he and they moved—not to mention his character. The story begins with his brother Ventura Terzago, as Steffani explained in  to Count Fede: After this very candid confession of mine, Your Most Illustrious Lordship will perhaps ask a question that has been asked a hundred or a thousand times before. How is it possible that a man who has now served most generous courts for more than forty years, in very prominent capacities, with rewards proportionate to the roles that he has taken, and who has received approximately , scudi in gifts alone for the many frequent and important commissions that have been placed upon him, should find himself at an advanced age in the position of having to importune the court of Rome in order to be provided for? This is another matter that I feel obliged to explain to Your Most Illustrious Lordship, so that you will not think me raving mad. I had a brother—the only one, of many blessed ones, whom God had left in the world to me. This brother was called Ventura Terzago, a name he bore as a result of his adoption by a brother of my mother who lived in luxury for sixty years, never wishing to take a wife, even though he was the last of his line. How much money he had I do not know, but I know that his





  friends tried in vain to persuade him to buy Venetian nobility at the time of the War of Candia; to acquire this, as is well known, you need , ducats of Venetian money, so he must have had more than that. Nor do I know how much capital he left to his adoptive son and only heir. What imprudence! Forgive me. When I saw that my brother, like my uncle, was most determined not to marry, I supposed that if I should die before him then our accounts would be straight, and that if he died before me he would leave no heir but me alone. I do not know, therefore, how much he possessed. But I do know what I and the whole of Padua saw—that this same brother of mine lived, and lived as well as anybody could have done. He had his own horses in stables, his own servants indoors, his own furniture and silver, his own jewels and books—in short, everything that makes for a decent life and moderate luxury. It so happens that when his mother died, whom my brother loved dearly, as he should, he was afflicted by melancholy. He closed his house and went to live with a close friend and neighbour of his called Cavalier Marc’Antonio Franchini. He was not there more than eight or nine months before he died of an intermittent fever which on the seventh day gave him a syncope and carried him off. I was notified of his death and advised that I should go and collect the inheritance or send the power of attorney to friends who would go and collect it for me. I took the second course because I could not go there myself—the public must take precedence over the private. Of that inheritance how much would Your Most Illustrious Lordship suppose that I collected? Four thousand ducats, from [the sale of ] the furniture, which was all too visible. Of the rest? Nothing! And what is even more gallant, I did not even receive a piece of paper the size of your hand from which I might see ‘This is mine’, with which to recover it through the normal legal channels. This is a story known to the whole of Padua; if anyone does not believe me, they can confirm it for themselves. You may called it Disgrace or Assassination, it matters very little; suffice to say that this is the reason why so many princes are now presenting petitions on my behalf to Our Lord [Pope Clement XI], whom I would certainly not importune if I had not suffered such a great loss and if I had been able twenty years ago to foresee that I would have to suffer it. And, as I say, I would not importune anybody (nor serve anybody, if I am to speak plainly), for those who know me know that I am not driven by ambition, nor motivated by personal interest, nor goaded by vanity.27 Some of this letter should be taken with a pinch of salt, but most of it rings true. Steffani may not have been goaded by vanity, but he certainly was ambitious: even as a young man in Munich he had shown a strong interest in money. Since, however, he was soliciting Fede’s support for Johann Wilhelm’s recommendation that he, Steffani, be made a bishop, he portrayed himself as a victim of injustice (he had learned to dissimulate during his years at court). His statement that he had been in

     ‒ service for forty years is a slight exaggeration, but his account of his brother’s life is substantially correct. After leaving Munich in , Terzago and his mother had lived together in Padua; she had died in , he the following year. He had inherited his uncle’s fortune and become ‘collaterale’ of the city. What became of the fortune Steffani learnt in . On  February that year he wrote to the wife of the Cavalier Franchini mentioned above;28 he evidently believed that Helena Perina was still alive and boarding with the family. There were, however, differences between him and them, and he had asked Abbot Francesco Mori, his agent in Padua, and Count Alberto Santini to discuss them with Signora Franchini. She presumably informed him in her reply that his half-sister had died, leaving a will. On  February he wrote back, thanking her for looking after Helena for so long and expressing astonishment at the news of her will.29 On the same day he wrote to Father Raffaello Savonarola, the priest who had attended her on her deathbed and written to him thereafter; to Savonarola, also, Steffani expressed amazement that his halfsister had made a will. So far as he knew, she had had nothing to bequeath: She died in a house where Your Reverence could easily have been informed that, during all the time that she was alive, she had nothing but what I gave her, particularly after the death of my brother, of blessed memory. Your Reverence could have known that I placed her nearly forty years ago in that convent for spinsters (‘Monastero delle Zitelle’)4 with  ducats by way of endowment and twelve ducats maintenance, drawn exclusively from my purse; that after many years of such expense, and persuaded by Signora Paola Emilia Franchini, I agreed to forgo the endowment and maintenance and allow her to leave the nunnery and be fed in the house where she died and where she always consumed the interest on a capital sum of more than , ducats, which is the only inheritance I had from my aforesaid brother. . . . Either the deceased had goods with which to make a will, or she did not. If she did not, how could she in all conscience dispose of what she did not have—and to the detriment of one who had fed her for so many long years? If she had wealth, how could she in all conscience withhold it from the person who, as is well known, had paid for her food, in favour of one who had not provided for her without being paid? 30 There is no reason to doubt that Steffani had supported his half-sister in the nunnery and in the Franchinis’ house, or that Signora Franchini had persuaded him to let her move in with them. He had apparently inherited ‘more than , ducats’ from his brother, not ,, and felt entitled to any money that his half-sister had. To find out what had happened to the bulk of Terzago’s fortune, Steffani enlisted the help, during the first half of , of his two old Paduan schoolfriends, Abbot Angelo Maria Lazzara and Count Girolamo Frigimelica Roberti. The latter told Steffani on  June that his own close friend, Dr Giovanni Antonio Checati, would act on his behalf in the Franchini and Mori affairs.31 ‘Franchini has many debts on the patience of various honourable men in this region,’ he wrote, ‘and on mine in particular. . . . On the other hand, the wife of this gentleman is related both to Abbot Lazzara and to my first wife’:32 this could impede the enquiry. Since Frigimelica





  Roberti’s friendship with Steffani was unknown in Padua, people might say that two enemies of the Franchini had joined forces to wreak vengeance upon them. He therefore advised Steffani to ask Prince Ercolani in Vienna and Violanta Beatrice of Tuscany to send references on his behalf to Padua and to the imperial ambassador in Venice, Count Johann Baptist von Colloredo-Waldsee, who knew and respected Lazzara. Steffani apparently took this advice, for he wrote to the imperial vice-chancellor, Friedrich Karl von Schönborn, asking him to prompt Colloredo-Waldsee into helping his agent in Padua to rescue his income from the hands of friends and the ‘iniquity of Mammon’.33 On  March  Frigimelica Roberti informed Steffani that ‘the conference with Lady F.’ had taken place:34 she had claimed that Terzago had wanted everything to be left to her and that Steffani had assented; that she had looked after the latter’s two sisters for a total of twenty-two years; that his financial contributions had never sufficed to maintain them properly, and that the last of the sisters had left everything to her. Furthermore, her husband had told Dr Checati that he had information that could ruin Steffani: the office of ‘collaterale’ had belonged to Marc’Antonio Bovicelli before Terzago and should have reverted to him when the latter died in ; instead, Steffani had retained the title to the appointment until Bovicelli’s death [in ] and sold it to Prince Santonini, to the detriment of the public authority (‘Pubblico’), which had had to pay several hundred ducats a year to the counts Leoni, who had bought it in anticipation (‘in aspettativa’). Frigimelica Roberti had verified Franchini’s story by finding the legal document showing that Steffani had sold the ‘collateria’ to Santonini on  October  for , ducats. From the statements made at the ‘conference’ a number of points emerge. The bulk of Terzago’s estate evidently passed to the Franchini, either directly or via Helena Perina; it is impossible to say whether this happened freely or under pressure from the family. Signora Franchini’s reference to Steffani’s two sisters is puzzling. His younger sister, Ippolita, had remained in her convent in Munich when the rest of the family left; she presumably visited Padua thereafter, perhaps on the death of her mother, and stayed with the Franchini—although if Helena Perina moved in with the family soon after the death of Terzago, she alone would account for twenty-two years. The testimony of Signor Franchini seems very damaging to Steffani. He alleged that the bishop had enjoyed the benefit of the ‘collateria’ illegally from  and profited from its sale. The truth of these allegations was borne out by the document found by Frigimelica Roberti and is suggested by Steffani’s letter of  June  to Santonini: I have always experienced such openness and punctiliousness in the administration of that ‘collateria’ undertaken by Your Most Illustrious Lordship that, having cause to be entirely satisfied, I shall not be averse to making you some remission, as happened on another occasion, granted the difficulties that you mention in your letter of the th of last month. It is, however, true that, in order for me to take adequate measures, it is necessary for Your Most Illustrious Lordship to explain in greater detail about the sum that you would wish me to remit.35

     ‒ That Steffani sold the title to the ‘collateria’ when he was travelling to Rome may be a sign that it was preying on his conscience. He presumably sealed the transaction on his way back to Germany in , when he visited Padua and Venice. During the summer of , apparently in August, Frigimelica Roberti sent him a copy of the Ducale, the instrument transferring the ‘collateria’ from Bovicelli to Terzago,36 and on  September he summarized the Franchinis’ charges: ‘these points of fact and law are incontrovertible . . . it follows that Monsignore di Spiga is liable to reimburse the prince [Santonini] , ducats or such smaller sum as the prince may have disbursed’.37 Steffani finally addressed the allegations in a letter to Frigimelica Roberti of  October .38 Since he had spent only two days in Padua since , and those in , he had known little of his brother’s affairs: Signora Franchini had told him that Terzago had left everything to her. Of the ‘collateria’ he knew only what the Franchini and now Frigimelica Roberti had told him: that the office had been transferred from Bovicelli to Terzago; that the Ducale had been untraceable, and that the Franchini had been persuaded by Santonini to propose the sale to him. The ‘news’ of the transfer had ‘disappeared’ in order to facilitate the sale. If the Franchini had told him what Frigimelica Roberti had revealed to him now, he would not have agreed to the contract. He was innocent, and the public authority could not take action against him: the purchaser was liable in law for any loss or damage arising from such a transaction, and it was Santonini who had profited from the ‘collateria’ [from ] to  and from the Franchinis’ iniquity. Steffani would be supported by friends in Venice, the pope and two congregations of the church, the emperor, and the king of England. The Franchini and Santonini would not convince anyone that they had acted innocently. If Signor Franchini were to publish his allegations, Steffani could divest himself of his possessions in the area by resigning from Carrara, in which case the public authority would demand restitution from the Franchini and Santonini. So as far as the ‘collateria’ is concerned, Steffani’s defence was that he did not know that, after Terzago’s death, the office should have reverted to Bovicelli: the Franchini had told him that the Ducale could not be found; he had believed them, assumed he could inherit the position from his brother, and thought he was within his rights in selling the title to Santonini. If Steffani was telling the truth, he was guilty at least of naïvety and possibly of dishonesty. The Franchini may have meant to deceive him about the Ducale, but he had been willing to be taken in. It is inconceivable that a middle-aged man of his education and experience could have believed that a legal document relating to such a prominent position could have been lost: Frigimelica Roberti had little difficulty in  in finding the document relating to the sale of . Steffani may not have believed the Franchini, but he went along with them and allowed himself to be deceived. His motives were probably a sense of grievance on top of straightforward avarice. He was bitterly disappointed to have inherited only , or , ducats from his brother, who may have been worth over ,, and that the bulk of his estate had ended up with the Franchini. He suspected that Signora Franchini had persuaded his brother and half-sister to leave it to her, just as she had persuaded Helena to move in with her family. When the Franchini informed him that the Ducale could not be found, he presumably saw hanging on to the ‘collateria’ as a way of recouping some





  of his lost inheritance. If asked to account for this action, he might have claimed that the money would help to finance his activities as apostolic vicar, but his behaviour would not have come up to the standard required of a man of the church. Having been deprived of his brother’s fortune, he had allowed himself to be compromised over the ‘collateria’. If he had tried any harder to recover the inheritance, the Franchini would have exposed his appropriation of the office. He must have felt very aggrieved, especially as, when Marc’Antonio Franchini had been outlawed from Venice in , he (Steffani) had made representations on his behalf.39 This is where the correspondence ends and matters appear to have been left. The episode may have been just a squabble over money, but it was a lot of money—well worth fighting for—and other issues were involved. The Franchini may have felt that, by leaving his ‘patria’ and working in Germany, Steffani had forfeited his right to his brother’s estate and was wealthy enough. He believed that he had been robbed by them, used doubtful means to recoup his loss, and was not above trading threats. His sense of grievance exposed his love of money and his capacity for self-deception and intrigue. It may seem strange that such traits could be found in a bishop, but compared with the excesses of some of his predecessors his weaknesses were relatively minor. It may seem surprising, also, to find them in a man so widely trusted and admired as a politician and diplomat: perhaps he drew a line between his public and private lives. His actions should not be forgiven or forgotten but were not so serious as to ruin his reputation. Maybe they are best understood as an unwise (but human) reaction to a fait accompli. Above all, perhaps, his battle with the Franchini shows that, where money was concerned, it was hard to trust anybody or to control one’s affairs from afar. Similar conclusions can be drawn from his experience as abbot of San Stefano in Carrara, a village between Padua and Rovigo. The previous incumbent, Cardinal Francesco Maria De’ Medici (protector of the monastery to which Ariosti belonged), resigned in June  in order to marry Eleonora Gonzaga, daughter of the duke of Guastalla. When Steffani was appointed abbot in September,40 he agreed to pay his predecessor a pension for ten years from the proceeds of the benefice. Francesco Maria soon withdrew from this arrangement, which was meant to be secret, and died in , but the pope used the money to provide smaller pensions for a couple of prelates in Rome, including Monsignor [Valerio(?)] Rota, bishop of Belluno. Because he did not live in the area, Steffani was forced to rent out the benefice. His ‘leaseholder’ was his agent in Padua, Abbot Francesco Mori, who had already acted for the cardinal.41 Mori presumably met Steffani in spring , when the latter was returning to Germany from Rome. On  August he informed the vicar that Carrara was rumoured to be destined for him,42 and that autumn he met his half-sister in Padua, praising her ‘most refined and tender courtesy’.43 According to Melchiori, Steffani went to Padua in connexion with the benefice in ;44 though nothing that is known of his movements that year would render such a visit impossible, Steffani stated in  that he had spent only two days in Padua since , and those in . In  he promised Mori income from Carrara for three years, but in  he regretted that he could not pay him for the previous year owing to his own unusually high

     ‒ expenses. When Frigimelica Roberti told Steffani in  that Mori still had these letters, he added that the latter was claiming to have received no income since .45 Steffani and Mori were already disagreeing about money. The vicar had grown to distrust the Florentine, complaining on  June  that his agent was deceiving him.46 Soon after this he tried to replace him, for on  August Cosimo III De’ Medici wrote to his daughter Anna Maria Luisa, wife of Johann Wilhelm, urging her to persuade Steffani not to appoint another tenant at the same rate.47 In early  Steffani asked Mori to interview Signora Franchini but soon after enlisted Abbot Lazzara and Count Frigimelica Roberti to investigate both her and Mori. On  July he also appealed to the Venetian procurator Lorenzo Soranzo: I have interests in Padua which, unfortunately, are in bad hands—particularly those to do with my abbacy of Carrara, which is administered by a man more used to looking after his own purse than that of his superiors. I have shown the greatest patience for some years, in the hope that those who have used me and my weaknesses for more than fifty years in Germany would allow me eventually to go and enjoy a few moments of peace in Italy. . . . This man is a Florentine priest called Abbot Mori, to whom I made over my abbacy in order to please my predecessor, the Cardinal De’ Medici of illustrious memory. No doubt he believes that my long residence in Germany has either stripped me of my status as a subject of the Most Serene Republic or deprived me of all protection from patrons in Venice. In order not to bore Your Eminence unduly, I humbly beg you to listen to Count Eustachio Mocenigo on the subject, who will do me the greatest favour of giving you a minute account of the reasons that impel me to desire that Abbot Mori should know only that you deign to honour me with your supreme patronage, and that he should know it, if at all possible, through the medium of Abbot Lazzara and Count Girolamo Frigimelica; and the favour would be even greater if Your Eminence would deign to extend the protection that I humbly ask of you, generally, over all the little interests that I have in Padua, which the two aforesaid ‘cavalieri’ [Lazzara and Frigimelica Roberti] will not refuse to promote when they know that this would please Your Eminence.48 Whatever Soranzo’s response, the ‘cavalieri’ set to work. On  August Frigimelica Roberti told Steffani that, ‘concerning Mori, Abbot of Carrara, as he is called by his villains, you will receive a report from our abbot’.49 Asked by Steffani to find a replacement for Mori, Lazzara proposed his own nephew, Monsignor Alessandro Papafava. On  November Steffani declared himself ready to resign in his favour, but Papafava refused to pay him the level of pension he wanted.50 Steffani may have resigned in June , but his resignation did not take effect until the beginning of .51 His successor was Maffeo Niccolò Farsetti, a Venetian nobleman who became archbishop of Ravenna in . Melchiori stated that the revenue of Carrara was ‘about , scudi per annum’ and that, after his resignation, Steffani drew a pension of , per annum for life;52 the latter had claimed in 





  that his share of the income was , scudi, of which  were withheld,53 presumably as tax. Farsetti agreed to pay him a handsome pension of , scudi,54 but there is evidence from the period  –  that he did not pay promptly or in full.55 Furthermore, in the mid-s Monsignor Rota claimed that Steffani owed him money from the pre-Farsetti period and challenged him to furnish proof of payment. If Rota had not been paid, Steffani replied, he would not have waited seven years to complain; Steffani could not produce documentation because he had not administered the benefice; and in any case, since  he himself had received less than his due from Farsetti. No wonder he was anxious to resign! And no wonder he recalled with gratitude, on  August , how Lazzara had had ‘the signal kindness, at such great personal inconvenience, to look after my abbacy of Carrara during the last years in which I possessed it’.56 Steffani’s tenure of this benefice brings to the fore, incidentally, the question of his relations with Florence, to which he was connected in several ways. From  to  he corresponded with Violanta Beatrice of Bavaria, who had married Ferdinando De’ Medici. When he moved to Düsseldorf in , if not before, he became acquainted with Anna Maria Luisa, the Florentine consort of Elector Palatine Johann Wilhelm, and with Count Antonio Maria Fede, the resident in Rome of both the elector and the grand-duke of Tuscany. He met Cardinal Francesco Maria De’ Medici in autumn , at the latest, when he stopped in Florence on his way down to Rome. Anna Maria Luisa’s return to Florence in  means that two of his female patrons were in Tuscany during the last eleven years of his life. The library of the Conservatorio in Florence houses three volumes of chamber duets, two by Steffani and one by Torri, that were ‘Copiati in Dusseldorft l’anno ’;57 they may have been ordered by, and sent to, Anna Maria Luisa after her return. According to Melchiori, Steffani became director of chamber music to the grand-duke of Tuscany and resigned from Carrara because he was continually away ‘either at the court of the elector palatine or at that of Florence’.58 There is no other evidence that he held an appointment in Tuscany, but given his links with the court, it would not be surprising if he went there more than once.

Retirement and Return In the early s Steffani became increasingly anxious to retire as apostolic vicar, return to Italy, and take personal charge of his affairs in his ‘patria’. He had expressed this desire as early as  to Lorenzo Soranzo and Frigimelica Roberti. The latter had responded enthusiastically and looked forward to seeing his old schoolfriend again; he even imagined living with Steffani and thought about where their accommodation should be: May it please Heaven that Monsignore di Spiga should be able to come, with his dignity, not to his detriment, to spend his peaceful old age in Padua and its environs. But as much as I desire it, so much do I distance myself from hoping for it. To have such a friend and such a person so close would

     ‒ be too rich a treasure, too welcome a pleasure. How many priceless conversations would we have in our leisure hours, how many delightful symposiums from time to time, how many talks, on a thousand-and-one topics, by the hearth in the winter and in some shady room in the summer. In case this ever should happen, I say now that we should want accommodation in our own part of town, between Sant’Agata and the Duomo. I do not think that you would wish to take quarters in Santa Sofia, nor in that area. Do you understand me now—that it is a fact that we shall not find in that neighbourhood comfortable, cheerful, and salubrious shelter such as would be suitable for you?59 Santa Sofia is the parish in which Terzago had been buried60 and the Franchini presumably lived. This may be the reason why Frigimelica Roberti advised Steffani to avoid it! Five years elapsed before Steffani was able to retire. Nobody was found to replace him as vicar, so he still held the post when he set off from Hanover in July . Travelling via Frankfurt and Augsburg,61 he arrived ‘in paese’ in August and remained there until  September .62 His letters from this period were dated in Venice between  January and  March  and in Padua between  March  and  September . During the last third of  he may have spent some time in Turin, where he had a patron in King Vittorio Amedeo II of Savoy and where his secretary, Gioseppe Bossis, dated letters from  March  to  September .63 The king wanted Steffani to try to broker a marriage between his son, Carlo Emanuele, and a princess of Modena, presumably Amalia D’Este, but in  the prince married Polixena Giustina of Hesse-Rheinfels (his first wife, Christine Louise of Bavaria, having died in the previous year). Vittorio Amedeo also intended to appoint Steffani rector or president of Turin University, which had reopened in  after nearly a decade of reform and rebuilding,64 but this plan, too, came to nought and Steffani returned, still impoverished, to the Veneto. Because he did not know how long he would be there, he initially relied for hospitality on friends. He may have stayed first with the Contarini family (a Reverend Contarini had visited Terzago on his deathbed ), but in April  Frigimelica Roberti offered him the use of his palace in Padua. Since the count had moved to Modena in , however, his vision of setting up house with the bishop was never fulfilled. Steffani accepted his offer but wrote on  April that he had unfinished business in Venice;65 he probably moved to Padua in May. On  August he informed Mauro that he was in Frigimelica Roberti’s ‘house, or palace, if you like, which is for me a great pleasure, because in the whole town of Padua there is certainly no ground-floor apartment equal to that in which I am lodged’.66 Between  November and  December he was back with the Contarini,67 but by June  his sojourn in Padua was sufficiently permanent for him to have acquired a house of his own, ‘in contrà di San Giovanni alle Scalette della contrà di Sant’Anar’.68 Life in Padua was not what it had been some forty years back. The fair had gone downhill,69 and in nearly twelve months he had not seen two ‘gentlemen’ together in the street: ‘You who saw it in the time of our youth’, he told Mauro, ‘would be struck by such a terrible change’.70





  By , also, he had contacted some of his relations and become involved in an attempt to retrieve a hereditary deed of trust. He seems not to have visited Castelfranco: according to Melchiori, he wanted to go there, and his relatives prepared accommodation for him, but he could not get away from Padua because he was acting as bishop, the see being vacant.71 On  June he wrote to Giacomo Antonio Stievani, the son of a cousin on his father’s side who had visited him twelve months before, and to another cousin, Antonio Scapinelli, archpriest of Castelfranco.72 The deed related to some houses in Venice, in the contrada of San Marcuola, in the vicinity of the Ghetto; it had formed part of the estate of a sixteenth-century Giulia Fermana (or Perina) Da Ponte, to which Stievani, Scapinelli, and Steffani were heirs, but had fallen into the hands of the Labia, a family of the Venetian nobility. Steffani invited Stievani to Padua to collaborate with him on the investigation. He should visit during the feast of St Anthony ( June), when Steffani would have with him the Venetian procurator who had encouraged him to intervene. He should convey this message to Scapinelli, who was welcome to come in his stead and whom Steffani warned to expect an approach. If Stievani did not oblige, Steffani would contact the archpriest’s nephew, a Dr [Antonio] Scapinelli. The bishop was anxious to get involved, for success might improve his financial position, but his relations, presumably unwilling to share the inheritance with him, appear to have ignored his overtures. When Steffani left Hanover, he was not intending to return there but hoped to do so, because he feared that, in his absence, ‘the state of religion’ would deteriorate.73 He was forced to leave by his financial predicament, which was due partly to the problem of Seltz. He drafted the aforementioned ‘Pro Memoria’ on the expenses of an apostolic vicar of north Germany and estimated his debts at , scudi.74 The Congregation of Propaganda rejected his view of the costs, refused to pay his debts, and, in December , appointed Canon Ludolf Wilhelm Majus of Hildesheim as his temporary replacement (apostolic ‘provicar’). The appointment took everybody by surprise, including Majus himself. Steffani tried to pave his way in Hanover but was informed in January , by Bothmer, that George I would accept no other vicar and a week later, by Görtz, that ministers were not allowed to admit Majus, on whom they had not been consulted. Steffani’s departure sent shockwaves through the Catholic community in Hanover. In January  a French missionary, La Sisière, asked him: ‘Where will another prelate be found who is so liked by the king, so acceptable to the whole court, so respected by the first ministers and all distinguished persons—qualities that are absolutely essential to defend us against persecution and which you, hitherto, have employed in the service of our religion?’ According to La Sisière, Majus lacked the ability and authority for the job. He constantly sent requests for assistance or advice to Steffani and the Propaganda (who passed them on to the bishop). Steffani also received news from a friend in Hildesheim, where Majus was wickedly known as the ‘contrevicar’. Dissension in Hanover and Brandenburg was laid at Majus’s door, and the missions and community reported on the situation to Rome. The appointment of Majus, who was regarded as a simple missionary, had done more harm than good; Steffani might be old and frail, and deep in debt, but for the sake of religion he must be enabled to return.

     ‒ By early  the situation was so bad that the new nuncio of Cologne, Gaetano De’ Cavalieri, asked the Propaganda for permission to take charge of the vicariate himself. In February a friend in Rome informed Steffani that the Congregation was reluctant to send him back to Hanover until his debts had been cleared; he should warn the cardinals that the missions would go under without a vicar who was accepted at court, implore them to find a suitable appointee, and offer to return if his debts were paid. The new apostolic vicar of Scandinavia, Baron Johnn Friedrich Adolf von Hörde, believed that he would fare better in Hanover than Majus, but as the nuncio’s auditor, Giovanni Carlo Antonelli, found out in December, Hörde was not favoured by the local Catholic community. By January  the Propaganda was ready to let Steffani return but not to settle his debts. Steffani rejected this idea: the pope should negotiate with the French and the Germans and secure his income from Seltz; if this failed, he should give him another benefice. The Propaganda ignored Steffani’s advice and continued to look for a German replacement. Three candidates were approached but none would accept, and Bothmer repeatedly explained that Steffani alone would be acceptable to the court. Steffani also received news of Hanover from his friend and former librettist, Ortensio Mauro. Their correspondence extends from at least  June  to  August , by which time the latter was terminally ill. As the elder statesman of the Catholic community in Hanover, Mauro could not prevent dissension breaking out or disguise it when it did. Steffani wrote to him on  May : The evil is not in London, nor in Vienna, nor in Paris, nor in Rome. It is in Hanover, where you have false Brothers who, by their unfortunate statements, ruin all your efforts, all your labours, and particularly all your remonstrances on the ‘Absentia episcopi’; for it is precisely from this absence that those people derive their advantage. They will get something else out of it in the next world. . . . But until one finds the means of discovering these ministers of the devil who write that ‘All is going well at Hanover, and it would therefore be wrong to go to the trouble of having a bishop there’, you see that everything that one does to make the truth known is a waste of effort.75 Mauro also strove for Steffani’s return. He made representations on his behalf to the electoral family and wrote the prose work ‘Absentia episcopi’, of which he had sent a copy to Steffani in March or April. The near-septuagenarian bishop seems to have enjoyed good relations with the teenage Prince Friedrich: ‘If this incomparable great prince deigned to be regent for one hour, to see me in a position to return to Hanover, you can assure him that I would grow wings and fly there to pay my respects’.76 Both before and during his retirement in Italy Steffani continued to press for payment of his income from Seltz, and Hanoverian ministers became increasingly involved in attempts to find a solution. On several occasions since  he had asked Hanover for assistance, hoping that Britain would put pressure on France. In  he had petitioned George I to make representations in Paris; the king had responded by recommending him to the emperor for the vacant see of Ypres, an idea put forward by Steffani himself, but the negotiations had broken down. In January  the En-





  glish ambassador in The Hague had interceded with Abbé Dubois, to no obvious effect. In August Bothmer had raised the matter with the French ambassador to London, but it had emerged that the governor of Strasbourg was a Jesuit sympathizer. Two years later Steffani had suggested that another benefice might be found for him by the French regent, the duke of Orléans, but according to Bothmer the king was unable to help. Efforts to find a new benefice in France had been made in Paris in  and seemed to bear fruit: as soon as one was available, the regent would give it to Steffani—a message that was passed by Dubois to the English ambassador. In Italy Steffani grew more determined. In March  he informed the elector of Mainz that Clement XI, who had died in , had regarded his claim to Seltz as well-founded. A special congregation of five cardinals had resolved to ask the nuncio of Paris to restrain the Strasbourg Jesuits, but then Cardinal Albani had convinced his colleagues that Steffani had been offered a pension by Cardinal Damian Hugo Philipp von Schönborn and persuaded them to set their decision aside. This must have hardened Steffani’s attitude. Later that year his agent in Rome had a meeting with Cardinal Corradini, of the datary, and Cardinal Cienfuegos, imperial ambassador to the Curia. Corradini proposed splitting the provostship, but Cienfuegos bore a letter from the emperor stating that he and the Palatine elector opposed this idea. Steffani also disapproved but would accept the will of the pontiff, Innocent XIII (no friend of the Jesuits). In , also, Bothmer advised Steffani to return to Hanover to see the king and keep up the pressure in person; but he did not go, Dubois died in the summer, followed by the duke of Orléans in December. In  the English ambassador in Paris enlisted the help of the duke of Bourbon and Benedikte Henriette, the elderly widow of the Hanoverian duke Johann Friedrich, who had lived in France since his death. Various solutions were proposed and news of them spread: in August it was rumoured that Steffani would be given a new benefice if he renounced his claim to Seltz, and in  that arrangements had been made for his pension (a deal opposed by the Palatine elector). The situation in Hanover went from bad to worse. In January  the Catholic priests were expelled because they refused to take an oath of allegiance. The Propaganda responded by offering Steffani , scudi to go back; he demanded  more and was given it. Because of the expulsions, however, he would not have a priest. Mauro and the ladies of the court attempted to have the order revoked, and Steffani made representations to ministers, but the king was adamant—and he was expected at Hanover in the summer. On  June Görtz informed Steffani that the priests had gone but that deputies from Hildesheim might be tolerated; on  July, however, Bernstorff opined that only Steffani’s personal intercession with the king might succeed in reversing the measure. Steffani dispatched a letter and memorandum for George, but they were not presented to him before August. In the second half of the year it was rumoured first, that agreement had been reached in Paris on a pension for Steffani of , thalers for life, then that the French king had granted him a pension of , thalers until he received his income from Seltz, and, finally, that an abbacy in Artois had been earmarked for him. None of these rumours was confirmed.

     ‒ By the autumn of  Steffani had decided to go back to Hanover. The only Catholic priest at court was the imperial ambassador’s chaplain, and Steffani was the only person who could hope to remedy the situation. He left Padua on  September. In Venice he picked up the money promised by the Propaganda; in Mainz he saw his episcopal consecrator, Elector Lothar Franz von Schönborn. He reached Hanover on  October, to learn that Mauro had died six weeks earlier.77 In November he informed Schönborn that he had dined with the king: ‘he received me in such a friendly manner that everybody was astonished. My hopes have risen not a little that an agreement will be reached whereby our religion in future cannot be damaged; but this will take time’. He was reinstated as apostolic vicar of north Germany on  May . He might not have left Padua if he had known what state the mission was in, but with the help of Bernstorff, Bothmer, and Görtz he gradually restored order and secured the re-admission of priests. But the problem of Seltz still remained. In January , under pressure from the elector palatine, the Jesuits of Strasbourg offered Steffani a lump sum of , livres and an annuity of ,, subject to certain conditions. This would probably have given him enough money on which to live and work, but the elector would have had to relinquish his right to revenue from Seltz in the future. He therefore instructed Steffani to reject the offer and renewed his demand for the income due from those parts of the provostship that lay within his domain. The elector of Mainz heard from Vienna that Cienfuegos had been ordered to press their claim but refused to cross the Jesuits. The deadlock caused Steffani in spring  to consider returning to Italy, but he was not keen to go and the king wanted him in Hanover. In the summer Steffani informed the Propaganda that he was driven to begging for alms; the pope had written about Seltz to the parties concerned, and the Congregation regretted that the briefs had had no effect. Around the same time Steffani sent an agent to Rastatt to collect income that had accrued on the margravine of Baden’s land and been sequestered since ; there the agent met a Jesuit Father engaged on an identical mission: to guarantee the collection or receipt of Steffani’s income from Seltz was clearly an impossible task. By spring  Steffani was so short of money that he arranged to sell his pictures. On  March he informed his friend Giuseppe Riva, the Modenese resident in London, that the artist Georg Wilhelm La Fontaine, who had worked at Celle and Hanover and was in London to paint portraits of George I and his family, had an inventory of his collection and had been trying to persuade him for over a year to sell part of it in England.78 Indeed, Steffani had told Riva on  March  that La Fontaine was having trouble with the English law on lotteries, which suggests that the pictures were meant to be raffled or auctioned. Steffani presumably owned the portrait of Violanta Beatrice that she had promised him in , and in  he had asked Carlo Luigi Pietragrua, then maestro di coro at the Ospedale della Pietà in Venice,79 to approach Pellegrini about the possibility of painting two pictures for his ‘beautiful church’; the artist would have been able to begin them that winter.80 On  May  Steffani told Riva that he had decided to sell via Giuseppe Como, a merchant in London whom Riva had recommended; a month later he was





  informed by Pallavicini that he would be unlikely to find a buyer in Dresden. Details of any transaction are lacking, but in November Steffani wrote to Lothar Franz von Schönborn: I have sold everything I can, even my small silver chalice, so that I can no longer provide for the people that I regard as necessary. You know very well that in this country business is done at table. I now have nothing more to sell in order to maintain myself here [at Hanover] a little longer, except a small number of pictures which I have collected here and there over the last forty years. Since private individuals have little money I would approach the king of England, but they are mostly sacred pictures, and when it is a question of money there is no point in starting with him. In this dire necessity I have turned to the emperor, [asking] that he, out of affection or charity, might buy them from me so that I can exist here a little longer.81 That he now had ‘a small number’ of ‘mostly sacred’ pictures suggests that his collection had been more substantial and diverse and that the bulk of it had been shipped to England in the summer. His approach to the emperor apparently bore fruit, for in late  or early  the imperial treasury granted him , florins a year for the missions in Hanover, Brunswick, and Celle; Schönborn may have smoothed the path by sending a line to his nephew Friedrich Karl, the imperial vicechancellor. Apart from helping the missions, this grant was a boost to Steffani’s morale. Although he was well over seventy, he was still involved in the work of the church, especially in Hanover and Prussia. He was also preoccupied, however, by the question of his successor and the intractable problem of Seltz. In the winter of  –  he sought an assurance from George I that the next apostolic vicar would be admitted to court, but the king would not give such a promise; to facilitate admission Steffani also proposed that his successor be nominated by the emperor, but this idea was rejected by the Propaganda. He therefore concluded that a vicar was not wanted at Hanover and that, since no one would solve the problem of Seltz, he himself was not needed. He set down his thoughts in a memorandum that appears to date from February .82 He had ‘sacrificed all his substance’ and had nothing more to spend; the Jesuits were frustrating the efforts of the pope, emperor, and the Palatine elector; the missions were falling down; there was a shortage of missionaries and teachers, and the situation in Brandenburg was deteriorating, thanks partly to Father Matthias Hempelmann, abbot of Huysburg and commissary of Halberstadt. Hempelmann aspired to succeed Steffani as vicar but was opposed by him and the nuncio of Cologne, both of whom favoured Baron Friedrich Burckhard Johannes Matthias von Westerholtz, a prebendary of Hildesheim and canon of Halberstadt.83 But the outlook was not promising: Westerholtz had declined the vicariate in ; Steffani had failed to persuade Hanover to admit him and doubted whether anyone would accept the vicariate for fear of being dominated by the Prussian king. By April  Westerholtz had turned down the offer of appointment because his income would be too small for him to discharge his duties in appropriate style, and on  May

     ‒ Steffani informed the Propaganda that Westerholtz would accept if he were given a dozen benefices in addition to Halberstadt, Hildesheim, and Minden. Steffani’s view of the expenses associated with the vicariate was evidently shared by Westerholtz: the bishop had probably been right all along to insist that he needed his income from Seltz.

Coda The last year of Steffani’s life was brightened by sunshine from an unexpected quarter. On  June  he was unanimously elected as the first president of the Academy of Vocal Music in London, the institution later known as the Academy of Ancient Music. This superficially astonishing development prompts a review of his involvement with music during his last nineteen years. He did not compose much over this period and did not appear as a performer, but he was constantly in touch with music, musicians, and patrons, in person and by letter, and remained interested in the subject to the end of his life. Between  and  he must have renewed his acquaintance with Handel. They probably overlapped in Hanover in the first half of June : Handel arrived by  June and was appointed Kapellmeister from the th; Steffani was there from  to  June and on  July. When Handel was in Düsseldorf (from August to September ), Steffani was in Bamberg ( August to  September). Handel returned to Düsseldorf in mid-June , en route for Hanover, where he spent most of the next fifteen months (until October ): Steffani was in Hanover on  June but in Düsseldorf on the th; he was also in Hanover in November and December , after his visit to Berlin, and probably (on and off ) during the first half of . In other words, there are at least two periods when both composers appear to have been in Hanover at the same time. Handel’s knowledge of Steffani’s music probably owes something to these periods. At Düsseldorf in – he was consulted on the question of harpsichords: one wonders whether he came across the ‘new and rare’ instrument by Ivo Salzinger with seven manuals, each tuned in perfect fifths from a different note, which was in Düsseldorf in .84 Steffani may have acquired a new harpsichord around that time, for on  September  Pietragrua wrote to him from Düsseldorf as follows: The man who told Your Most Illustrious Lordship that Kaman makes good harpsichords does not know much about instruments. I, who profess to be a faithful servant of Your Lordship, would look hard before proposing such an exchange to you. Even with all the mathematical measurements of Salzinger, Kaman will never succeed in making a harpsichord as good as yours, or as good as your first one from Berlin, which you can have in exchange for the other one, when you give the word, since you doubt whether the one from Vienna can be ruined any further. I will talk to the maestro about this and have you sent the harpsichord from Berlin, and him given the other one, since Your Lordship wishes it thus.85





  That Steffani’s harpsichord from Vienna was thoroughly worn out suggests that it had been heavily used in the past, even if he had little time for it now. He could not always get to the opera, even when it was promoted by a friend and he himself had recommended a performer. On  September  Duke Anton Ulrich of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel wrote to him thus: It is also for this reason, Sir, that I shall speak to the director of opera, in order to ascertain whether we shall need the musician whom you recommend to me; and if we do, I shall not fail, out of deference to you, to employ him in the festivities to be given on the entry of the hereditary princess. If your affairs permitted you also to come here around that time, I would find your presence most agreeable and you could then give your blessing to the newly-weds.86 The marriage in question was that of Anton Ulrich’s oldest surviving son, August Wilhelm, to Elisabeth of Holstein-Norburg, who was to become his third wife; the opera was Georg Caspar Schürmann’s Issé, oder Die vergnügende Liebe,87 probably an adaptation of the Issé of Destouches (). But Steffani was unable to accept the duke’s invitation, and on  October Anton Ulrich expressed irritation that he would not be there.88 Shortly after this, Steffani sent copies of some of his music to the duke’s sister, Henrietta Christina, abbess of Gandersheim. On  February  Anton Ulrich informed him that the ‘airs’ he had sent her were pleasing her ‘more and more from day to day, and I think that they will even have charms similar to those of the Sirens— with this difference, however, that yours will save her whereas those tended only to the destruction of their listeners’.89 The reference to the abbess’s salvation may relate to her imminent conversion, which occurred, as we have seen, in ; if so, it seems to confirm the evidence of Baldassari’s mission in Berlin—that Steffani used music as a way into people’s hearts. On  April the abbess thanked him for ‘the beautiful music’ he had sent her; she was pleased above all with some ‘guitar’ pieces.90 At least one movement by Steffani survives in tablature: in a manuscript in the Fürst zu Bentheimsche Musikaliensammlung, in Münster University Library, the saraband at the end of Act II of I trionfi del fato is notated for a standard early eighteenth-century eleven-course lute.91 The volume also contains many anonymous pieces that could have been written by Steffani. This is not the manuscript that he sent to the abbess, for it belonged in  to ‘Amalie Louise, Comtesse de Nassau’, but it shows that his music was transcribed for domestic use and suggests that he composed for plucked instruments. The works that were mentioned most frequently in his correspondence, and sent most often to patrons, are his chamber duets. On  June  the countess of Egmont finished a letter to Steffani with the following postscript: ‘You must accord me a favour, in spite of your change [of heart] toward music, and that is, to send me two duets—one Placidissime catene, the other Dolce è per voi morir [recte soffrire]’.92 He evidently obliged, and promptly, for on  July she was able to write: ‘I begin, Monsignor, by sending you a thousand thanks for the two duets that you had the kindness to send me. They are so celebrated among connoisseurs that you must not be surprised by the

     ‒ eagerness with which I wanted to have them’.93 The ‘celebrity’ of Placidissime catene may have derived partly from the fact that Steffani had composed it, in , for Sophie Charlotte. Nevertheless, that duet and Dolce è per voi soffrire, which is probably a slightly later work, are both beautiful examples of his mature style. His readiness to serve the countess, incidentally, was reciprocated two years later when she assisted him in the purchase of books.94 Steffani’s ‘change toward music’ is illustrated in his correspondence with Ruggiero Fedeli. On  November  Fedeli sent him an account of music at Kassel, where he was then employed: ‘We have operas from Hanover, besides all those composed by you at Düsseldorf, and also the prized duets’. Ten days later Steffani replied: ‘Let us talk about music. Those things are delicta iuventutis. I confess to you that I still love it more than ever. But I can truthfully say that sometimes I have gone many years without seeing a harpsichord’.95 Fedeli accepted that composition was a ‘sin’ of Steffani’s youth, but doubtless he voiced the feelings of many when he wrote back on  December: ‘I am very sorry that one can no longer see or enjoy those blessed, baptized compositions of Piva. I think there is no greater mortal sin than this in the world, because they are things that revive the dead and prolong life—aside from the philosophers’ stone’.96 Despite his change of heart, Steffani (‘Piva’) composed one or two duets at around this time, as we shall see, and at least three vocal pieces in the s. On  January  Fedeli reported that two musicians had just arrived in Kassel from Düsseldorf. By  January they had sung twice to the landgrave; their names were Pasi and ‘Gaettano’. A week later Steffani wrote to Fedeli: I know very well the two ‘virtuosi’ Pasi and ‘Gaettano’ and am sure that the Most Serene Landgrave [Karl of Hesse-Kassel] will have heard them with great pleasure, because they deserve to be heard. They were with me last summer for about two weeks at Herten, where I was taking the mineral waters, and where the Most Serene Elector [Johann Wilhelm] had the kindness to send them to entertain me during the middle of the day.97 The soprano Antonio Pasi had created the role of Rotrude in Tassilone (Düsseldorf, ); the other singer was the celebrated alto castrato Gaetano Berenstadt, who served the Palatine elector between  and .98 Herten was the seat of the counts of Nesselrode-Reichenstein: having bought the manor of Reichenstein in the seventeenth century, Franz von Nesselrode was raised to a count at the beginning of the eighteenth and succeeded in  by his son, Bertram Carl.99 The latter was a good friend to Steffani, who often stayed at Herten as his guest. In the summer of  he had stayed there at least from  to  July, during which period he and the singers evidently worked through some of his soprano-alto duets. The singers were still at Kassel, incidentally, in late January , but on  February Fedeli informed him that ‘the “signori virtuosi” left by the post yesterday and I think they will travel via Neuhaus, but they said they could not stop on their journey, which is why I did not give them [this] letter. They have truly taken away my heart, for they sing very well’.100 If they had stopped at Neuhaus, they would have found Steffani there. He was also at Herten during the previous summer, when he appears to have been joined by musicians once more and to have composed his last chamber duet. On





   July  his friend and librettist Stefano Benedetto Pallavicini wrote to him from Düsseldorf as follows: We shall have his electoral grace of Trier [Franz Ludwig of Pfalz-Neuburg] here for some ten days more. As this makes it impossible for our musicians to pay you their visit, what would you say if, instead of this, I sent you Schiavonetti and his wife for an evening? Today she is to sing in the electress’s chamber, and I will take care to advise her that she will not go far out of her way to Münster if she travels via Herten.101 Giovanni Schiavonetti was a Venetian oboist, cellist, and continuo harpsichordist; his wife, Elisabetta Pilotti (or Pilotta), was a brilliant soprano who worked at Hanover prior to the English succession, sang at the Queen’s Theatre in London in –, and had given two concerts for the duchess of Shrewsbury as recently as June .102 Steffani would have been thrilled to welcome the couple to Herten. In the Florence Conservatorio MS D.  his duet Dolce labbro, amabil bocca is preceded by the following note: ‘This is the last duet he composed in  being a prelate, and he composed it at Herten, fief of their lords the counts of Nesselrode, near Wesel in Westphalia’.103 Since the manuscript was copied at Düsseldorf in , the note is presumably reliable. Dolce labro comprises a single movement for soprano and alto: perhaps Steffani composed it for the Schiavonettis and sang it with Elisabetta while her husband accompanied at the harpsichord, and perhaps, while he was about it, he also wrote Quando ti stringo (for the same combination), his only other duet in one movement. Steffani apparently had little to do with music between  and , when he was suffragan of Münster, though he may have seen Handel at Hanover or Herrenhausen in the second half of . In – , however, he tried to procure singers for the Kapelle of Johann Philipp Franz von Schönborn and sent him copies of his duets. This member of the remarkable Schönborn family was a nephew of Steffani’s consecrator, Lothar Franz, elector of Mainz and bishop of Bamberg; of his six brothers, Friedrich Karl was imperial vice-chancellor and became bishop of Würzburg and Bamberg. All of them were enthusiastic musicians or patrons: Rudolf Franz Erwein, duke of Wiesentheid and an imperial privy councillor, left fifty-six instruments and a large music library, including the score and parts of Arminio and other works by Steffani.104 In  Johann Philipp Franz became bishop of Würzburg, started work on the magnificent episcopal residence (Pellegrini was one of the artists involved105), and set about enlarging his cappella. For assistance he turned naturally to Steffani, sending him thirty-two letters between June  and October .106 On  June Schönborn asked him ‘to give new food to my passion and new life to my little orchestra by honouring me with some of your duets’. Steffani obliged. On  December Schönborn asked for more: he had given the first batch to the count of Stadion and not had them back. Steffani obliged again: on  April  the duets were ready for copying;107 by late September the ‘little box of duets’ was on its way to Würzburg,108 and on  October Schönborn declared them ‘in very fine taste and as delightful to me as their author is venerable’. But he still was not satisfied: on  June  he requested more ‘duettini’, for which Steffani seems to have been thanked on  March .

     ‒ Schönborn’s first cry for help in the recruitment of singers dates from  August . His cappella was ‘very defective’ and in need of a soprano and an alto; he would like to engage castrati but was afraid of the cost. On  September he informed Steffani that he would pay each of them  to  thalers a year, inclusive of board and lodging; that he could not allow them to go to England or elsewhere in the winter because he would need them then himself, and that he also needed a bass. Steffani contacted Pietragrua, maestro di coro at the Pietà, and asked him to look out for the singers required. The search took roughly a year: on  September  Pietragrua told Steffani that he had found a soprano in Bologna and expected news of an alto in Modena and a bass called ‘Benedetto’. Schönborn, meanwhile, had put out feelers in Rome and heard from [Pietro Paolo] Bencini of a soprano and alto who would accept his terms if the others did not.109 In the event, Pietragrua’s recruits agreed to travel, arrived in Würzburg on  December, and were heard that evening. The next day Schönborn pronounced himself satisfied with the bass and alto but not with the soprano. By  January  he was also unhappy with the alto, and by  February he had decided to release both castrati. By  February the soprano had gone, the alto was staying on for less money, and ‘Benedetti’ had set off for Mantua, intending to return. On the way, however, he stopped at Ansbach and sang to the margrave, who offered to reward him; Benedetti, who had appeared as Charlemagne in Tassilone, rejected the award, which he considered ‘mediocre’, and insulted the margrave, ‘using, moreover, many impertinent words’. When Schönborn learnt of the incident he dismissed this singer as well,110 so that an indifferent alto was all he had to show for nineteen months’ effort (the situation presumably improved later that year with the appointment of Fortunato Chelleri as Kapellmeister). In addition to writing to Pietragrua in Venice, Steffani had also sought assistance from Giuseppe Riva in London. When Riva visited Hanover in autumn , Steffani showed him some of Schönborn’s letters and asked him to bear the prince-bishop’s requirements in mind; he also referred to them in his letters to Riva of  January and  February . Steffani’s correspondence with Riva extended from  to .111 Riva’s letters are concerned partly with politics, economics, and current affairs, but they also give news of the Royal Academy opera company and Bononcini (whom Steffani evidently knew: they could have met in Vienna or north Germany), observations on singers and singing, and information on the Academy of Vocal Music. Although Steffani’s letters also deal with current affairs, especially on the mainland, and with his financial position and health, they are more preoccupied with music and musicians. There are three main musical topics in Steffani’s letters to Riva. In addition, however, we learn how Margherita Durastanti fared in Torri’s L’amor d’amico at Munich in autumn . Having sung Steffani duets in London in July,112 she was taken by the Bavarian electress to the Convent of the Visitation, where the composer’s sister Ippolita was mother superior. Durastanti complimented the latter on her brother, saying that he was known to the whole Catholic world and admired by the king of England. On  October  Steffani told Riva about the five hours of chamber music that he had enjoyed at Hanover two days before with Jacob Jan Hamel-Bruynincx, Dutch envoy to Vienna, who played the viola da gamba ‘very well’, his wife, who sang ‘in the best taste’, a Swedish girl, who played the lute ‘perfectly’, and orchestral musicians of





  the court, who were allowed by the regent to join them; Steffani played the harpsichord. Writing from Padua in August  he suggested that Angelo Maria Poli [Polli], ‘a contralto in Venice whom I know perfectly well’, should be engaged by the Royal Academy, and in  he helped Riva find a post at a Catholic court in Germany for the Florentine singer and composer Gioachino Landi, who had been in England for a year. The first of the three main topics is the proposal that the Royal Academy should perform Tassilone. This idea, mentioned by Riva in his first letter to Steffani, dated  December , appears to have emanated from the royal family. The directors of the Academy, anxious that the music be performed ‘with love and care’, had asked Bononcini to take charge; he had agreed and would adapt the recitative, but he would leave the arias alone. A month later, however, Riva informed Steffani that the project was to be abandoned because it would entail cutting out three of the roles, which was impossible without ruining the opera. Riva does not return to the topic, but Steffani mentions it in three letters between early April and late October . The librettist, Stefano Benedetto Pallavicini, had been aware of the plan and in touch with Riva and Steffani. When the idea was dropped, Steffani insisted that the king be informed that this was not due to him or to Pallavicini, both of whom had been willing to revise their work or supply revisions or new material. One wonders, in passing, whether Baldassari played a part in this affair: having created the role of Teodata in Tassilone, he sang for the Royal Academy in  – . Eight of the letters between May  and March  are concerned with the young Venetian soprano Benedetta Sorosina. From  to  Steffani also corresponded with her father, Giuseppe, who in  had succeeded Farinel as George I’s agent in Venice;113 Giuseppe was responsible, among other things, for the management of the king’s Venetian palace and theatre boxes. On  May  Steffani recommended Benedetta to Riva: he wanted to show kindness to her father (who had been seriously ill in – ), had enjoyed her performance in Venice (she was now in Naples), felt she needed experience abroad, and particularly favoured London, where, he claimed, she had already been invited to appear. She sang on stage first in the Teatro San Angelo in Carlo Francesco Pollarolo’s Arminio (autumn ), Leonardo Leo’s Timocrate, and the anonymous I veri amici (both in carnival ). Steffani must have seen her in one or more of these operas, even though the San Angelo was the only major Venetian theatre in which George I had no box. Riva replied on  June that there was no vacancy in the Royal Academy but that Bononcini would coach Sorosina if she were in England or he in Italy. There follows a seventeen-month gap in the correspondence, during which it was proposed that Sorosina should sing in London in the forthcoming season (/). Steffani wrote on  November  that she had been ready to leave since the beginning of September but had postponed her departure because she had received nothing definite from the academy. With winter approaching, she could not delay any longer: she would leave the day after tomorrow, her travel expenses being paid by Field-marshal [Count Johann Matthias von der] Schulenburg, eldest brother of George I’s mistress, Melusine. Steffani was so anxious about her undertaking the journey in such an inclement season, and with no guarantee of employment, that he wrote

     ‒ again on  November, asking Riva to find Sorosina and her ‘caravan’ a house near the [King’s] theatre and a cook, and to send a note of the arrangements to Dover, where she could pick it up on landing. Riva informed Steffani on  December that he had written to Benedetta’s father, assuring him that she would be in good hands, and on  December that she had not yet reached London. She must have arrived shortly after, having journeyed for seven weeks or more, for on  January  Riva sent Steffani an account of her début as Nerina in the revival of Handel’s Giulio Cesare. It was not the hoped-for success. Riva diplomatically attributed her poor showing to the fact that her role had been grafted on to an existing work and her two arias had little to do with the plot; he hoped that in some other opera she would be able ‘to support her singing with action’, a comment suggesting that her voice or projection was defective. The news of her failure was a bitter pill for her father and Steffani to swallow. The latter told Riva on  March that she had always been invited back to where she had sung, and he feared that her failure cast doubt on his musical judgement. What he did not admit is that his judgement had possibly been influenced by his desire to do good to her father. Fortunately, Riva’s account was corroborated by her brother, who accompanied her to London and noted that Bothmer was disgusted by the behaviour of the academy directors. Sorosina was given further chances, in Ariosti’s Dario ( April) and the pasticcio Elpidia ( May), but she was never invited to sing in London again. Steffani’s advocacy of Sorosina—and of Poli (or Polli)—shows that during his retirement in Italy in –  he went to opera in Venice and promoted the careers of singers. It would be surprising if he did not also show interest in music and musicians in Padua, especially as he had to act there as bishop. The leader of the orchestra at the Basilica del Santo was Giuseppe Tartini, the first cellist Antonio Vandini; both had moved there in  and were to remain for approximately fifty years. The maestro di cappella was the composer and theorist Francesco Antonio Calegari, to whom Benedetto Marcello sent his celebrated Estro poetico-armonico prior to publication in  and . Yet the only evidence of Steffani’s contact with a musician in Padua is Riccati’s statement that in  ‘the celebrated Padre Vallotti, outstanding maestro di cappella and great admirer of Steffani’s worth in counterpoint, had an opportunity to converse with him’.114 Vallotti, also, moved to Padua in , becoming third organist at the Santo in  and maestro in . He, Calegari, and Riccati made advances in harmonic theory that anticipated those of Rameau.115 Since Vallotti was still alive when Riccati wrote about Steffani, he presumably gave him an oral account of their conversation. Vallotti would have been about twenty-six years old, Steffani about sixty-nine. The two eighteenth-century volumes of the latter’s duets in the basilica’s archives (I-Pca, MS . D. ) may be a sign of the younger man’s admiration for his elder. Steffani’s election to the Academy of Vocal Music was not as surprising as it may seem, for in London he had long been known by repute. Music by him had been performed on the London stage as early as  in the pasticcio Thomyris, Queen of Scythia. The words of this ‘new opera’ had been written by Motteux to fit music by Alessandro Scarlatti and Giovanni Bononcini (according to the score printed by Walsh), and also by Albinoni, Gasparini, and Steffani (according to Hawkins116). Pepusch supplied recitative and probably adapted the borrowed arias. Two numbers were taken





  from Steffani—the duet ‘Prethee leave me or dare not to court me’, based on his chamber duet M’ingannasti, fanciullo bendato, and ‘Farewell love and every (or ‘all soft’) pleasure’,117 for which the model is unknown. After the Hanoverian succession and Handel’s removal to London, Steffani’s name was familiar at court and in government and musical circles, and in the s he corresponded with Riva, who passed messages to and from Bononcini. The inaugural meeting of the academy was held on Friday,  January .118 Among those present were Pepusch, Galliard, Greene, Gates, and the boys of St Paul’s Cathedral. The purpose of the academy, according to Hawkins, was ‘to promote the study and practice of vocal and instrumental harmony’; to this end ‘the foundation of a library was laid, consisting of the most celebrated compositions, as well in manuscript as in print, that could be procured, either at home or abroad’.119 Hawkins also states that these were ‘a voluntary donation from several of the members’120 and that ‘the most valuable part’ of Pepusch’s library was left to the academy on his death. Bononcini, Geminiani, and Haym joined in March ; Loeillet, Riva, and Senesino in May; and Chelleri and Tosi in November. By the end of the year the membership had risen to thirty-five, but in –  it settled down to two dozen. Steffani learnt of the academy during its inaugural year from somebody other than Riva, who first mentioned it to him on  December; his informant may have been Galliard, who had been his pupil in Hanover. Steffani took an immediate interest. Earlier that month he sent over his five-part madrigal Gettano i re dal soglio, which he had evidently composed for the academy.121 Riva reported that on the previous evening the madrigal had been performed several times; the bass had been sung by Bononcini, who dubbed the composer the ‘St Augustine of Music’, a reference, no doubt, to Steffani’s transformation from worldly musician to man of the church. The meeting had ended with the latter’s ‘sublime and divine’ chamber duet Saldi marmi. Finally, Riva asked the composer to send the academy more music by ‘Piva’ and a small sketch or portrait of himself. Steffani was flattered by these requests and promised to send what Haym described on  February  as ‘un così immenso favore’.122 The academy responded by proposing to make Steffani a member, which Riva assured them he would allow. Haym stressed that they were interested mainly in unaccompanied vocal music in four, five, or more parts and asked for further works by ‘Piva’ with Latin or Italian words; surprisingly, in view of Riva’s earlier letter, he claimed that ‘Cadono’ i re dal soglio was the only piece of his that they had. In his first surviving reference to the academy, on  April , Steffani informed Riva that he would submit the sins of his youth to their scrutiny. On  May he wrote again, worried that Riva had not yet received a little roll that he had posted in Hanover on  April: he had sent it via Cesare Sardi in Amsterdam, who had reported receipt on  April and promised to forward it as soon as possible; it contained a motet for five voices. Also ready for despatch was ‘Janus quadrifrons’, a manuscript copy of his Sacer Ianus quadrifrons (Munich, ) that Steffani hoped to post in a little box on  May. His election as president was an expression of the academy’s gratitude for his willingness to enlist as a member and his intention of sending more music. As the secretary later explained to Antonio Lotti, ‘when he asked for his name to be enrolled on our lists, [he] was elected president by the unanimous consent of all’.123 The elec-

     ‒ tion took place on  June  and was recorded in the academy’s minute-book: ‘This Day it was agree’d Nemine Contradicente, that D. Agostino Steffani, Bishop of Spiga (commonly known by the Name of Abbot Steffani) be President of the Academy of Vocal Musick establish’d in London; N:B His Compositions att present goe under the Name of Gregorio Piva’. The roll containing the motet reached Riva betweeen late May and early July. On  July Haym thanked Steffani for the ‘bellissimo Mottetto’ and told him that it had been sung several times ‘con grande attenzione’, very much admired, and received with great pleasure. Next day Galliard sent a description of the work to Riva, who had missed the performance; from this it is clear that the motet was Steffani’s five-part Qui diligit Mariam, which had evidently been composed for the academy.124 The beauty of this piece, according to Haym, increased their desire to have the other works that Steffani had promised. On  July Riva informed Steffani of the motet’s reception; two weeks later he told him how honoured the academy was that he had accepted their nomination as president. The academy appears to have received a consignment of music from Steffani in , for on  September Riva sent him a substantial list of the works by ‘Piva’ in their possession; he also urged him to send any they lacked, along with the portrait or drawing. The list was compiled by Galliard before the receipt of Qui diligit Mariam, which is conspicuously absent: Liste des Compositions que nous avons de Gregorio Piva. Le Discours, par lequel la Musique est prouvé éstre une Science. Imprimé en Italien, et en Alemand avec des Nottes. Les douze Mottetts, comme dans cette liste. Reginam nostram, Rec:t. Eia omnes Festinem[us], a [for three voices] Qui pacem amatis, a Felices adae Fillii, a Sonitus armorum, a Flores agri, a Tandem adest; Solo. Eia Populi, a Venite exultemus, a Videte gentes, Rec:t. Pro Christo affligemur, a Cingete floribus, a Surge propera Veni, a Elevamini, a Fuge cara anima, a Deux Madrigeaux. Gettano i Rè dal Soglio. a. & Al Rigor d’un bel Sembiante a. intitule La Spagnola. Bon Nombre de Duetti, particulierement les deux livres, fait au retour de ses ambassades, dont il se trouve dans l’un Saldi Marmi, & dans l’autre, E cosi mi compatite. Tout ceux qui ont eté fait depuis, nous ne les avons pas; particulierement un, ou il y a ces parolles Vestito Bruno. NB. Vous scavez que la plus part du tems nous executons dans notre Academie, des Motets & des Madrigeaux a  & a .





  Most of these items are easy to identify. The ‘Discours’ is Steffani’s Quanta certezza () and its German translation, Send-Schreiben ( and ). The ‘douze Mottetts’ correspond with the contents of his Sacer Ianus quadrifrons, of which the academy had a manuscript copy (GB-Lcm, MS );125 after this list had been compiled, but before  May , the academy received a further copy of six of these motets (Lgc, MS ).126 Like Gettano i re dal soglio, with which it is paired in a number of sources, Al rigor d’un bel sembiante (‘La Spagnola’) may have been written for the academy. It is impossible to identify the two books of duets (the reference to Steffani’s ‘ambassades’ is unhelpful); none of his chamber duets begins with the words ‘Vestito bruno’, but Occhi belli, non più ends with ‘vestite a duolo’. The last surviving letter between Riva and Steffani is extremely valuable. On  January  the composer offered to send the academy his celebrated Stabat Mater: Having always been informed that at their excellent meetings (‘virtuose esercitazioni’) diverse pieces are sung, but all without instruments, I believed that I could not, and should not, think of sending them a ‘Stabat Mater dolorosa’ by the usual Gregorio Piva; but if those revered gentlemen do not mind that this composition requires a chorus of instruments, I will gladly send it to them, because it is the aforesaid composer’s masterpiece—to the extent that he has not dared put his hand to any work since—so that I can assure Your Most Illustrious Lordship that there is no power of number in sound, nor vigour of harmonical proportion, that is not found in abundance in that composition. The dating of Steffani’s Stabat Mater has long been a matter of debate. Chrysander described the work as ‘the greatest and possibly the last of Steffani’s compositions’; Heinrich Sievers asserted that it was composed in , possibly in connexion with his nomination as bishop; Magda Marx-Weber suggested that it was written before  for a brotherhood in Italy.127 Steffani’s letter states that it was his last composition and that he regarded it as his masterpiece. It must therefore have been composed after Qui diligit Mariam, in the final year of his life. Steffani’s last letter was dated in Frankfurt am Main. He had left Hanover in October , intending to return to Italy. Before departing, he had attempted to ensure the future of the Catholic community and influence the choice of his successor as vicar, and he had written a pastoral letter to the missionaries. When he left, the nuncio of Cologne again stepped into the breach. Frankfurt was Steffani’s principal base from  October. There he visited Lothar Franz von Schönborn and tried to raise funds by selling further possessions. In January or February  he wrote to a councillor named Bauer: I must profess to Your Most Illustrious Lordship my greatest obligation for the kindness you showed in humbly presenting both the catalogue of my books and the inventory of my pictures to His Electoral Highness. . . . I thought I should send you the aforementioned inventory and catalogue so

     ‒ that it could be seen that the books and pictures, together with the casket and jewels, are enough to make anyone feel confident who should wish to advance , thalers.128 That Steffani still had books, pictures (presumably the sacred ones mentioned in his letter to Schönborn of November ), and jewels suggests that he was not as impoverished as he claimed and sheds light on his lifestyle and expectations. A sum of , thalers would have been a substantial amount—twice his annual salary in . Although no inventory of his pictures is known, a catalogue of his books has survived;129 it was drawn up in  and added to later. The ‘registro’ is arranged alphabetically by author or title (keyword), and the entries for each letter are classified under four headings—ecclesiastical, legal, historical, and miscellaneous. Within and in addition to these categories, the subjects represented include biography, classics, dictionaries, drama, essays, genealogy, geography, letters, mathematics, medicine, memoirs, music, novels, philosophy, poetry, politics, and prohibited books on the Index, including first editions of Luther. Most of the books were in French, Italian, or Latin. No copy is listed of Guillaume Bury’s Romanorum Pontificium Brevis Notitia, of which the Padua () edition was dedicated to Steffani:130 he presumably owned a copy, but did not take his catalogue to Italy or remember to add the title to it after returning to Hanover. He was assisted by the countess of Egmont in the purchase of theological and other books from Serstevens Libraire, Estienne Roger’s stockist in Brussels: on  April  she sent him catalogues; on  May she returned his list of desiderata, with prices; and on  May she reported that the books were being posted.131 The catalogue of Steffani’s library includes over  titles—an impressive number for a churchman or artist of the period—and bears eloquent witness to his wide-ranging interests and erudition. If the books formed a valuable reference collection for the diplomat and bishop, they also furnished subjects for the librettos of the composer’s operas. Steffani’s health deteriorated in Frankfurt to such an extent that in January  he had to seek medical advice. References to illness in his papers suggest that his health had never been entirely dependable. In  he complained of persistent catarrh and dizziness;132 in  he suffered from high blood pressure or angina and an irregular pulse, which made it impossible for him to write;133 in  – he was afflicted at the beginning of autumn ‘by my usual minor, though most inconvenient, indispositions, which, at the onset of winter, became more persistent than usual’, and by trouble with his eyes, which also prevented him from writing;134 in  he was advised by Elisabeth Charlotte, duchess of Orléans, to eat fennel seeds to combat wind and ‘spleen’;135 in late , apparently, he wrote out two remedies for gallstones;136 and in May  he asked Count Nesselrode-Reichenstein for advice on his eyes.137 He must also have written to him in early , for on  January the count invited him to Herten, where the air was good and he would be well looked after, and where Steffani had often taken the waters.138 Whatever his ailment on this occasion, it presumably was related to his final illness. Despite this list of afflictions, however, he must have been reasonably strong and healthy; otherwise he could not have worked so hard for so long.





  He died in Frankfurt on  February  and was buried two days later in what is now the cathedral. A death certificate was issued on  May: The most reverend and illustrious lord, by the grace of God Lord Augustinus, Bishop of the Apostolic Seat at Spiga, Domestic Prelate and Assistant of the Most Holy Lord Benedict XIII, Apostolic Vicar to the northern regions and throughout Saxony . . . the good Lord called him from this mortal life to immortal life by a most pious death, in the presence of many priests and their prayers, so that after all his labours he might enjoy rest, after all his many worthy deeds he might gain his reward, in recognition of all his virtues he might receive due honour and glory. . . . After suffering from apoplexy he received and was anointed with his last holy unction on  February of this current year, , and was buried on the th of the same month in the Imperial Collegiate and Parish Church of St Bartholomew, in a chapel dedicated to St Mary Magdalene. I have written this death certificate with my own hand and signed and confirmed it with my customary seal, Frankfurt,  May . . . . Albertus Prez . . .139 It fell to the nuncio of Cologne, Gaetano De’ Cavalieri, to deal with Steffani’s creditors and effects.140 The deceased had not left a will. The papers that were with him when he died were catalogued, packed, sealed, and consigned to the church archives for the time being; his chaplain, Johannes Wilhelm Tapper, was put in charge of them. The earliest claimant on the estate was the Palatine elector Karl Philipp, who asked for the return of some church plate and paraments ‘of no small worth’ that had been lent to Steffani by Johann Wilhelm. In May the pope asked Lothar Franz von Schönborn to send all the vicar’s documents and records to the Propaganda,141 but the Congregation ordered Cavalieri to take charge of them and prevent their dispersal. On  July the nuncio ordered Tapper to return the plate and paraments to the elector and move the other effects to Cologne; the papers arrived there at the end of the month. The nuncio, meanwhile, attempted to trace Steffani’s creditors. Two emerged in Hanover. An artillery major named Maillet and a certain Frau Brindau sequestered his harpsichord, furniture, pictures, and books, releasing them when they had been paid (, and  scudi, respectively). Cavalieri hoped to sell the furniture, which was valued by a missionary named Thomas Felling. Steffani’s music in Hanover, also, was catalogued in readiness for sale (the inventory is lost). The bulk of his library was dispersed, but the prohibited books were bought by a single buyer. Once customs formalities had been clarified with the archbishop of Cologne, about the end of September, the nuncio took delivery of Steffani’s remaining possessions—apart from his papers in Hanover, which were sequestered by the regency and survive there in the Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv. After the sale of belongings and payment of creditors, there remained , florins, a collection of papers, some relics, medals— and music (which Cavalieri had tried, but failed, to sell on  November via Sardi in Amsterdam). The church’s entitlement to Steffani’s estate had meanwhile been challenged by his relatives, Giacomo Antonio Stievani and Antonio Scapinelli. In  the Propa-

     ‒ ganda therefore ordered his remaining effects to be sent to Rome. At the beginning of August three chests of papers, letters, and music were dispatched to Amsterdam for shipping to Livorno and overland carriage beyond. The nuncio retained only ordination and faculty registers, which would be useful to him and Steffani’s successor as apostolic vicar. When the Propaganda opened the chests, they found that two small boxes of relics and papal seals were missing; the new nuncio, Jacopo Oddi, wondered if they had been taken by Cavalieri. The Curia’s claim was then tried in court and the proceedings were printed, but on  January  the cardinals of the Propaganda overturned the ruling of the Apostolic Chamber, deciding that the chest of music and remaining money ( scudi, ½ baiocchi) should be given to Steffani’s relatives. As Riccati ruefully observed, ‘the musical papers passed into the hands of his heirs, who did not take such account of them as they deserved’.142 Two chests of correspondence were left by Scapinelli in the Propaganda archives, where they were inventoried by Costantino Ruggieri in the s; this index came to light in , when Michael Feldkamp compiled the first thorough catalogue of the ‘Fondo Spiga’. This account of Steffani’s last twenty years ends with three instructive anecdotes. On  February , a year after his death, the Palatine elector concluded a treaty with the French by which he relinquished to the Jesuits of Strasbourg his rights to, and revenues from, the provostship of Seltz, ‘except that part of the revenues which will be reserved for His Palatine Electoral Highness by the accommodation to be made between him and the Jesuits of the College of Strasbourg within a period of six months, and without further delay, by commissioners to be appointed for that purpose by one party and the other’:143 the treaty, in other words, prolonged the impasse that had taxed much of Europe for nearly two decades. Second, in  Upper and Lower Saxony were reunited with Scandinavia in a single large vicariate such as had been split in :144 Steffani had done a great deal for the church in north Germany, but his achievement did not justify continued investment in the region on the same scale after his death. Finally, news of his demise appears to have taken a little while to reach the Academy of Vocal Music in London: his name was entered in the minute-book as president for the Seventh Subscription on  May  but omitted for the Eighth on  April , and Viscount Percival noted that about that time ‘the club resolved not to elect a president for the future, but to keep that post vacant, as if there were no man living worthy to supply his place’.145 As a diplomat and bishop Steffani was quickly forgotten; as a composer he continued to be revered, and some of his works continued to be copied, collected, performed, and admired for decades to come.



This page intentionally left blank

P II
T M

This page intentionally left blank


T S W Given that Steffani began his musical education as a choirboy and died as a bishop, it is not surprising that the first and the last of his datable compositions are sacred. At the Basilica del Santo in Padua he presumably was taught plainsong and mensural notation by the maestro di cappella, Antonio Dalla Tavola;1 from performing as a boy in operas by Carlo Pallavicino he must have learnt something about Venetian stage music. As a teenager in Munich he experienced further sacred polyphony and opera and had organ lessons with the Kapellmeister, Johann Kaspar Kerll. It is probable that Kerll also taught him figured bass and counterpoint and gave him lessons in composition, for when Steffani went to Rome in  to study with Ercole Bernabei, it was to ‘perfect’ himself in his art. It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of Rome in Steffani’s musical education. Not only did he study there himself: so too did both of his teachers. Kerll was a pupil of Carissimi and seems to have been acquainted with the works of Frescobaldi (died ); Bernabei was taught by Orazio Benevoli, director of music at the Cappella Giulia. If Venice was the principal centre for opera in seventeenth-century Italy, the Eternal City was the home of Catholic Church music, oratorio, and chamber music (vocal and instrumental). It was in Rome that the stile antico flourished most vigorously, especially in the Sistine Chapel, which had no organ.2 There was also much sacred music for two or more choirs, as in the Venetian polychoral tradition, and the concertato motet (or small sacred concerto) for a handful of singers and continuo was cultivated in Rome from the later s. Carissimi was a central figure in the musical life of the city, composing in various styles with equal assurance and success. As maestro di cappella of the German College he was also one of the most distinguished teachers of the period, exerting an influence on music north of the Alps. He was in his early forties when Kerll went to him for lessons (and in his late sixties when Steffani reached Rome). Kerll was one of the finest German composers of his day. His surviving output is overwhelmingly sacred, including fourteen Masses, a book of motets, and an allegorical drama for a Jesuit school, Pia et fortis mulier (Vienna, ), which probably gives some idea of his lost Munich operas (–). The only extant piece of secular music ascribed to him is a vocal duet, Il mio cor è un passaggiero (I-Bc, MS Mart. . ()), of which the bass line reveals the hand of a keyboard player (Example .). His Delectus sacrarum cantionum (Munich, ) is one of the few sacred works that he is known to have composed before Steffani departed for Rome. Of its twenty-six concertos for two to five voices and continuo, sixteen are duets or trios, for various combinations 



   . S

b . &b c œ

S

b &b c Ó

Johann Kaspar Kerll, chamber duet Il mio cor è un passaggiero (beginning)

j œ ˙

Il

Bc

Œ

mio cor

è un

œ

œ

œ

œ

œ j J #œ œ

œ

œ

œ

pas - sag - gie - ro, è un pas - sag - gie - ro

œ œ j œ œ œj œ œ œ J œ #œ. Il mio cor è un pas - sag - gie - ro, è un pas - sag - gie - ro œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œœœœœœœœ œœœ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ r ? b c œœœœœœ œœœœœœ œ œ œœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œœ j œ œ

œ.

        .  Extracts from Kerll, Delectus sacrarum cantionum: (a) from Admiramini fideles; (b) from O amor Jesu [a] S A

Bc

Qui re - gnat, qui re - gnat in - ter an - ge-los ‰ œj œ j œj b œj j j œj j r œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ Œ ‰ J J Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ . Rœ œ Qui re - gnat, qui re - gnat in-ter an - ge-los ?c œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ

∑ Œ

&c Ó

n [b] S S

6 5

Præ

#

Œ ‰ Jœ œ

#

n

a - mo

-

-

-

-

j & 3 Ó œ œ œ œ œ . œ œœ œœ œœ # œœ ∑ Ó Præ

Bc

6

? # 3 w.

 . A

&c ‰

Bc

?c w

a

-

œœ ..

-

4

-

3

-

re

œj œ Jœ œ œ œœ # œœ ˙˙ ˙˙

mo -

w.

5

-

-

- re

w

w.

Kerll, motet Admiramini fideles (beginning)

j j œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ . r j œj œ . œ œ ˙ #œ œ œ œ Ad - mi- ra

-

-

-

-

- mi-ni fi - de

w 8

-

les

w 7

n

of voices, and four of these call for violins.3 The melodic and harmonic style, in duple and triple meter, is typical of the small-scale concertato in Italy and Germany in the second half of the seventeenth century, recalling pieces by Carissimi and Schütz and anticipating others by Steffani, but the quality of invention and craftsmanship is high. Imitation may be based on extended phrases or brief rhythmic figures, while the bass may run in quavers, walk in crotchets, or stand still (Example .). The beginning of Admiramini fideles (Example .) was echoed by Steffani in Sonitus armorum (: see Example .). If Kerll’s musical style was an influence on his pupil, his Delectus sacrarum cantionum furnished a model for his Sacer Ianus quadrifrons.

   Kerll’s command of the large-scale concertato idiom is magnificently displayed in his Missa superba,4 which was included in an inventory of music at Regensburg Cathedral in May , two months before Steffani arrived back in Munich. Scored for two four-part choirs, two violins, four trombones, violone, and organ, this splendid work takes full advantage of the opportunities that the scoring affords. One choir answers the other; voices from both are combined; and instruments play before, during, and after vocal entries. The music displays textures of great intricacy, as is shown by the end of the Gloria (Example .). The instruments are omitted from parts of this movement and the Credo, and some of the vocal lines are for soloists. The descent of God from Heaven, in the Credo, is depicted by two basses and cascades of falling semiquavers. The ‘Benedictus’ is the only substantial portion set in triple time and scored for reduced forces; resembling a small sacred concerto, it thus affords contrast with the rest of the work. Structural coherence derives from the repetition of whole sections and the use of several short, versatile figures. The ‘Amen’ of the Credo repeats that of the Gloria; the ‘Hosanna’ reworks the material of Kyrie I, and the Agnus Dei is related to Kyrie II. In short, the work displays a total command of the musical language employed: if Steffani heard it, he must have been impressed. Bernabei is remembered above all as a master of the stile antico and the polychoral  . Vn I/II

Trombones I-IV

Kerll, Missa superba, ‘Gloria’ (end)

# œœ & # [c] œ˙ œ œ œ œ ‰œ Jœ j ## Œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ c œ V [ ]˙ Œ ˙ œ œ ? # # [ c] œœœ ˙ œ ##

[a]

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œœ œœ Ó œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ J ‰ œœ œ œ ‰ œj œ œ œ œ

men,

œ Œ œœ œJ œ Ja a men, a ‰ j ## œ c & [ ] ˙œ œ œ œœ Œ ? # # [ c] ˙ ˙

[Amen]

? # # [ c] Violone, Organ

? # # [ c]

˙œ a

˙

-

men, -

œ œ œ œ œ ‰J men,

œ

a men, a

œ œ œ œ œ. Ó Œ œœ œ œœ œ

a -

œœœ

-

men,

‰ j œ œ œ œœ œ Ó

-

œ

œ œ

-

- men, a -

œ

œ

œ

U ww

˙˙

j ‰œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ œ ˙

U w w

œ˙ œ œ

œœœ ˙

U w w

a - men,

a

-

men.

U ww

a - men. men.

œ œ œ œ ˙a œœ œ œ ‰J œ

U w w

- men, a men, a - men, a -

men. men.

j œœ ‰ J ‰ œj œœ œ -

œœ

œ œ œœ ˙ œ œ ‰J œ œ

j ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ J œ œ ‰

[Amen]

Choir II

a

Œ œ

& [c] œ œ œ œ Jœ œ˙ œ œ Œ ‰ Choir I

œœ

-

œ œ ˙ œœ œœ œœœ œœ œ œ œ - men,

˙

U w w

a - men.

œœœ œ œ a

˙

-

U w w

men.

U w





  idiom for which his teacher, Benevoli, was renowned. His liturgical works include hymns, antiphons, and motets, all for four to eight voices, and two Mass settings for sixteen (four choirs of four voices). The influence of Benevoli, which is immediately apparent, was transmitted to Steffani, whose earliest works are for two four-part choirs. Bernabei also cultivated the small-scale concertato, sacred and secular. One of his principal works in this medium is his Concerto madrigalesco (Rome, ) for soprano, alto, tenor, and continuo, in which a wide range of textures is displayed.5 In some respects, however, these madrigals are disappointingly conservative: even the most adventurous points, though prompted by words, can be rhythmically square; the continuo line is often a basso seguente or ‘dependent bass’,6 so there is little four-part writing; and although the voices often overlap at a cadence, there is little genuine three-part counterpoint, either (Example .). All the same, Bernabei exhibits a flawless command of musical grammar and concertato scoring, which an aspiring young composer would have been well-advised to emulate. A more modern—and more secular—approach is found in his solo motet In hymnis et canticis,7 which also predates his removal to Munich. This begins in triple time with a broadly flowing melody that is typical of mid-Seicento vocal style; hemiola rhythms and Neapolitan harmonies abound, and the bass occasionally imitates or anticipates the voice (Example .). The first of the sections in quadruple time begins with one of the commonest opening gambits in late-seventeenth-century music, in         .  From Ercole Bernabei, Per ch’io vado lontano (copy of Concerto madrigalesco in GB-Lbl, Add. MS ) S

& [c] Œ œ

œ

per A

o - gni ti - mo - re

œ

œ

œ

tor - vi

V [c] Œ œ

œ

per Bc

tor - vi

& [c] Œ # œ

? [c]

œ

-

-

-

-

j V Œ œ œj œ io vi

œ 4

-

-

œ œ

3

-

vi

la -

-

˙ -

-

-

- re

œ J

7

j j #œ œ scio il mio

∑

˙

œ

œ

˙ 5

Œ ‰ Jœ # m

‰ j j j j j œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ.

œ ˙. J la - scio il mio co ˙. œ œ 7

co - - - - - -

j œ œj œ io

Ó

Ó

- re

œ

co -

scio il mio

6

-

& ˙.

?

œ J ˙

˙

-

˙

œ J

o - gni ti - mo - re

œ.

˙

-

œ J

˙

[ #]

& œ œ

la -

Œ

˙

j œ Jœ ˙

œ

˙

#

j j œ œ ˙

io vi

o - gni ti - mo - re

tor - vi

˙

j œ œ œj œ

j j œ œ ˙

œ

#

per T

œ

e

que - sti lu - mi an - cor

œ -

-

œ

˙ -

-

˙

˙ -

[# ]6 7

-

-

- re

˙

e

j nœ m vi

[lascerei]

Ó m

[# ]6

   which the tonic note in the bass is suspended under a  –  chord and resolves, in the major mode, by falling a semitone (Example .a); a similar progression occurs at the start of the next section, in the minor mode, where the bass falls a tone (Example .b). As this example suggests, the ‘minor’ section is full of chromaticism, false relations, and other harmonic audacities, including a  –  chord and simultaneous dissonances. The faster sections, in the major mode, incorporate elaborate semiquaver passages, one of which includes upward and downward leaps of a tenth and a scale that covers a twelfth (Example .). The motet is full of the affective rhetoric associated with the period of Carissimi, and responds to the words as vividly as the medium allows. Steffani was to adopt many of these features, but not in his earliest sacred works. When he did, he eschewed the more extreme mannerisms and forged the remainder into a more consistent style concerned with fewer ‘affections’ (or emotions) at a time. In this respect he was a harbinger of the late Baroque.  . S

Bc

Bernabei, In hymnis et canticis (beginning)

& 43 Œ Œ œ

œ œ œ

In

hym-nis et

? 43

˙.

œ . œ œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . Jœ œ can

œ

˙

-

-

œ œ œ

-

-

˙

-

œ

-

- ti - cis

œ

˙

œ

˙

        .  Extracts from Bernabei, In hymnis et canticis: (a) ‘Qui dat gratiae dulcedinem’; (b) ‘Tu sola, anima mea’ [a] S

œ j J œ Jœ . Rœ Jœ Jœ

&c Œ

œ. œ œ J R

Œ

Qui dat gra - ti - æ dul - ce - di-nem Bc

?c

˙

œ

œ œ

#œ

œ œ m

4 2

[b] S

Bc

Adagio

& c Œ bœ œ. œ œ ?c

œ

Tu

so - la,

˙

œ

a

-

-

˙

S

7

œ

ni- ma me - a

˙

7 6

From Bernabei, In hymnis et canticis

# # #œœ œœ# œ œ. œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœœ œ œ & [c] Jœ œ #œ œ R R œ œ gus- tan

Bc

-

bœ nœ

2

 .

r r œ œ œ

‰ œ bœ #œ œ.

-

-

-

-

-

-

? [c ] j œ . œ œ # œ œ . œ #œ œ œ œœœ œ œ

-

˙

-

-

˙

-

-

-

#œ.

-

œ ˙ J

- ti -bus se

4 3

œ.





 

Psalmodia vespertina () One purpose of the teenager Steffani’s lessons with the fifty-year-old Bernabei was to acquire a thorough grounding in the stile antico, the foundation of polyphonic composition. The importance of mastering traditional counterpoint before attempting the concertato idiom had been stressed by Schütz in the preface to his Geistliche ChorMusic (),8 and when Bernabei became Kapellmeister at Munich he was asked to teach counterpoint to novices from Bavarian monasteries.9 The first fruit of Steffani’s period of study with Bernabei was his Psalmodia vespertina volans octo plenis vocibus concinenda, a printed collection of vesper psalms for two choirs and organ. The choice of words and medium was natural for a young composer in Counter-Reformation Rome. The psalms were a favourite source of texts for liturgical polyphony in the seventeenth century, and Vespers was generally celebrated more lavishly than other parts of the Divine Office. Some settings were extremely elaborate in style and designed for special purposes, but others were more modest in scope and intended for everyday use. Virgilio Mazzocchi’s Psalmi vespertini binis choris concinendi (Rome, ) and Graziani’s Psalmi vespertini binis choris, op.  (Rome, ; recte ) show that Roman settings were frequently scored for two choirs.10 Although Steffani’s psalms are in this vein, he presumably hoped that they would also be performed in Munich—and Hawkins perhaps implies that they were.11 Acknowledging his debt to Bernabei, whose style he had sought to emulate, Steffani dedicated his book to his patrons, the elector and electress of Bavaria. His collection includes the most frequently needed vesper psalms—those for Sundays, three each for feasts of the Virgin and of Apostles, and two for Confessors—and a setting of the Magnificat: Psalmi Dominicales Dixit Dominus (‘sesti toni’) Confitebor tibi Domine Beatus vir (‘octavi toni’) Laudate pueri In exitu Israel (‘mixti toni’) Psalmi Apostolorum Credidi In convertendo Domine probasti me

Psalmi Confessorum Laudate Dominum Memento Domine David Psalmi Virginum Laetatus sum Nisi Dominus Lauda Jerusalem Magnificat (‘quarti toni’)

The end of the Magnificat, from ‘Sicut erat in principio’, was scored by Padre Martini and published in the second volume of his Esemplare, ossia Saggio fondamentale pratico di contrappunto fugato (), together with the following remarks: It would be of great benefit to young composers if they could see this work [Psalmodia vespertina] in score, because, apart from the naturalness and concision of the style, they would notice from time to time some brief passages

   full of well-conceived and well-executed suspensions, and some singular progressions [‘modulazioni’] designed to express some special sentiment in the words. . . . The intention of this composer, then, was that music that must serve for the daily use of choirs should be composed in an easy style, comfortable for the singers. Since the latter are for the most part only mediocre exponents of their art, the compositions must be easy to perform and capable of being sung if one of the parts is missing, except, however, for either of the two basses, because they support the entire composition.12 Martini regarded Steffani’s psalm-settings as generally simple in style and texture, but well wrought and occasionally responsive to the words. More important, however, is the fact that he published this extract as a model for young composers a century after the work had been written. That the inaugural publication of a nineteen-year-old should be singled out in this manner speaks volumes for the precocious ability of its composer and the timeless quality of his music. Steffani’s settings are scored for pairs of identical four-part choirs and were issued in nine partbooks—one for each voice (cantus, altus, tenor, bassus), and one for the organ. Most of his psalms use the normal clefs for four-part vocal music (C, C, C, and F), but Dixit Dominus and Laudate pueri employ the standard chiavette combination of G, C, C, and F, while Domine probasti me and Nisi Dominus are set in the more unusual combination of G, C, C, and C. These four psalms are all notated at a higher pitch than the others—the range of the cantus in Nisi Dominus is b⬘–b⬙—and would have been transposed down a third or fourth in performance in late-seventeenth-century Rome.13 The settings include all the verses of the psalms, though in four cases the first verse is sung to a plainsong intonation. Steffani’s music is mostly in common time, but four of his settings are entirely or almost entirely in triple metre and most of the remainder incorporate one or two such sections. The use of triple metre, which normally implies a fast tempo redolent of dance, is generally related to expressions of praise or rejoicing. Although the musical texture is predominantly chordal and antiphonal, each choir singing half a verse at a time, the pattern is occasionally varied by the taking of a whole verse or by the antiphonal interjection of a word or two for emphasis, as at the end of Example .. The word-setting is mostly syllabic—Martini’s ‘concision’—but there is also melismatic and imitative writing. Each choir normally cadences independently, as the other begins its next entry, but sometimes the choirs combine for a verse and arrive at a full cadence together. The placing of cadences is the principal determinant in the structure of a setting. Metrical change is of secondary importance, because it does not occur in every piece and may not imply a break in the flow. The structure of Beatus vir, for example, which is in common time throughout, derives ultimately from Steffani’s desire to highlight the contrast between the words at the end of verse  and the beginning of verse . His setting of ‘misericors et miseratur’ (v. ) is the longest passage in the piece to be scored for both choirs, the only one to make extensive use of long note values, and the first not to cadence on G; the words ‘jucundus homo’ (v. ), on the other hand, are marked by an immediate return to quavers and sprightly antiphony (Example .).





   .

From Beatus vir (Psalmodia vespertina) et

& [c] Œ

∑

Choir I

? [c] ∑ -

œ & [c] œ Choir II

? [c] # œœ mi

Organ

-

? [c] ˙

j œœ . œœ ˙ . J ˙ j œ. œ ˙ #œ. œ ˙ J

-

˙

tor et

-

-

˙ ? œ˙

œ.

#4 2

-

-

œ -

7

-

-

w

6

5 4

-

j œ œ J stus. j œ J

- stus.

-

ra - tor, et

œ œ -

œ œ ˙

se

-

6

mi

˙œ ˙

œ

j œœ J j œ œ J

j œœ J j œ œ J

j # œœ J j œœ J

œ

œ ˙œ -

œ - tor,

œ œ

Œ

#

˙ ˙

œ œ œ œ

et mi - se -

ra

œ ˙œ

œ

œ œw œ œ

-

et

ju -

tor

-

-

w

˙

7

6

5

qui j ‰ œœ J j œœ ‰ J

j œœ Œ J j œœ J Œ j # œœ J j œ œ J

Ju - cun - dus

œ œ œ

œ

œ˙

j j ‰ œœ œœ J J j j œ œ ‰ œ œ J J

- stus.

˙

Œ œ œ œœ ˙ œ

Ju - cun - dus ho - mo Ju - cun - dus

Œ

se -

j œ œ œ. œ œ ˙ œ œ

5

j œœ J j œœ J

-

˙. ˙

ra - tor, mi - se - ra - tor et

˙

œœ

œ #

se

-

- stus. Ju - cun - dus ho - mo

-

w œ w J

˙ ˙

˙ ˙

˙˙

5

œ œœ˙ œ #œ #˙

˙

œ

w

-

-

se

et mi - se - ra -

w

#˙

ju -

˙ ˙

mi

-

-

˙˙

et

-

˙w

tor et

œ œ

-

Œ œ œ . œ œ œœ œ J

ww

-

& # ˙w

? ˙

ju -

œ œ œ œ

? # œw # œ œ ˙ - ra

Ó

œ ˙ w

se - ri - cors

& ˙˙ ju

mi

˙ w

n -

˙

se - ri - cors

#˙

- ra

et

w Ó

∑

mi

˙ ˙

mi

Ó

œ œ

qui ho - mo

j œœ J j œœ J

j œœ J j œœ J

ho - mo

˙.

#

His interest in reinforcing the meaning of the words is reflected both in his musical material and its treatment, and in the structure of the composition as a whole. The example thus illustrates his sensitivity to texts, clarity of purpose, and sureness of touch—hallmarks of his style in work after work. A more complicated structure is employed in his setting of the Magnificat (Table .). The beginning is supplied by an intonation, but the concluding ‘Amen’ is treated as an additional verse, making twelve to be set to polyphony. These are treated as two groups of six. On the evidence of the harmony and scoring, verses  – fall into three pairs, while verses – and the ‘Amen’ constitute a single six-‘verse’ span unbroken by a full close. The two halves of the setting are complementary in character and hinged by the use of triple metre on either side of the central verse.

    .

Structure of Steffani’s Magnificat At end of verse

Verse no.

Metre

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Amen




3 1


3 1




} }

}

Choir(s)

Cadence chords

I

a–E

I I and II II I and II II I and II I I I II II I and II

} } }

G–C a–E G–C E–A G–C a–E

} } }

a–E G–C E–A a–E G–C a–E

The Magnificat also illustrates points of style. As in Beatus vir and In exitu, the intonation is sung at pitch by Tenor I; in Dixit Dominus it is transposed up a fifth. All four intonations are accompanied by a bass-line in the organ book, implying harmonisation in falsobordone style. The performance of psalm tones with simple harmony supplied by organ or choir had been common in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries; though less widespread after , the practice continued to survive in Rome, Venice, and southern Germany.14 After their intonations the psalm settings make no further reference to plainsong, but in the Magnificat the tone is adapted in the ensuing counterpoint (Example .). Although the Magnificat differs also in using a cantus firmus, the long notes, which appear at the top and bottom of the texture and then in both basses in stretto, bear no clear relation to the psalm tone (Example .). Martini was right to praise the naturalness of Steffani’s settings. His melodic invention fits the words very well. Although it is not invariably expressive, his melody always facilitates effortless delivery of the text. The voices normally move by step or gracious leap, but there are also awkward lines for which the composer could find no alternative. He loved hemiolas and syncopation (Example .), and he made effective use of general pauses. If his harmony occasionally betrays its modal roots, it is broadly tonal in effect. Nearly half of the psalms have key-signatures that by later standards lack a sharp or a flat, but this is more a question of notation than of substance: although the Magnificat, for example, is described as being in the fourth mode, it is effectively in the key of A minor. The emphasis, only six bars before the end of Beatus vir, on the triad on the minor seventh of the major scale—a characteristically Mixolydian feature—is an extremely rare event. Harmonic sequence is uncommon, but suspensions are ubiquitous and Steffani liked placing the dissonance in the bass (Example .). He also used the dominant seventh chord, the Neapolitan sixth, and consecutive major triads a third apart (between phrases).





   .

&

S

Beginning of Magnificat (Psalmodia vespertina)

∑

∑

c

∑

c

A

&

T

V œ #œ œ œ œ c Œ œ.

j œ. œ ˙

Mag-ni - fi-cat

B

?œ œ

Org.

c

œ

me

-

-

˙

˙

-

a

#6

7

Œ œ œœœœ ˙

∑

ti - men

-

-

-

∑

-

-

-

6

n6

-

-

-

-

-

- mi - num.

-

-

-

-

- mi - num.

œ œ œ œ œ . œj œ #œ ˙ 5

-

w

9 8

-

-

ti - men -

˙. -

- men

-

-

ti - bus

-

ti -bus e -

-

#

w

ti - bus

e

w

w e

-

-

œ #œ œ ˙ -

-

œ œ w

-

w

œ

˙

j œ #œ œ œ ˙

Œ œ œ œœœ ˙

∑

? [c] w

 .

-

j w œ œ œ œ œ . œj œ #œ œ. œ

œ œ

A

ti - men

ti -

˙

œ œ

˙

& [c] Œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ .

B and Organ

w

From Magnificat

& [c]

V [c]

-

œ œ

˙

S

T

-

me - a Do

˙

#

w

mi - num.

j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ . œj w a Do - mi - num. j œ . œj œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ # w œ. œ Do

j œ. œ ˙ ˙

œ -

˙

˙

a - ni-ma

4

 .

Do

œ œœ ˙

∑

c

˙.

a - ni - ma me - a

me -

j œ #œ

a - ni - ma

∑

˙

˙

a - ni-ma

?

j œ. œ #œ ˙

Œ

- ti -bus e

w - um

w

-

-

um

-

-

um

w -

-

-

um

w

From Beatus vir

j œ œ. J j œ. J

com - mo - ve - bi - tur do - net de - spi - ci - am

Choir

j & [c] œœ J j ? [c] Jœœ

j œœ J j œœ J

j œœ R j œœ R

j œœ J j œœ J

j œœ . J. j œœ . . J

r œœ R r œœ R

j œ œ J j œ œ J

j œ œ. J j œœ . . J

j œ œ R r œœ R

j œœ J j œ œ J

com - mo - ve - bi - tur do - net de - spi - ci - am

Bc

? [c ] œ

œ

œ œ J

œ œ J

j œ

So as far as texture is concerned, the extract printed by Martini is the longest contrapuntal passage in the collection. Despite the occasional use of imitation, there is very little counterpoint in the Palestrinian sense. Furthermore, the ‘double choruses’ alternating with ‘florid, imitative duets in a narrow harmonic range, analogous to his secular chamber duets,’ 15 are more characteristic of other sacred works composed by Steffani in Rome.

  

Early Manuscript Works Five of the six pieces to be discussed here were written in Rome in  – and survive only in GB-Cfm, Mu MS .16 A note inside the front cover of the manuscript reads as follows: ‘Abbot Stephani’s own Writing, and bound for Himself ’. This is probably correct on both counts. The principal hand resembles that of his autograph operas and chamber duets, the differences stemming mainly from the fact that the latter are fair copies, not drafts, written between seven and thirty years later. The binding of the Fitzwilliam volume—full calf with decoration on the spine—is similar to that on some manuscripts of duets that Steffani had bound in the early eighteenth century.17 The pieces are bound in a different order from that in which they were composed: Sperate in Deo (SSATB, org), ; Triduanas a Domino (SMAT/SMAT, org),  November ; Beatus vir (SSB, vn, bc), undated; Laudate Dominum (SSSA/SSSA, org),  December ; Laudate pueri (SSATB/SATB, org), November []. Some of these works appear to be earlier than the Psalmodia vespertina, but since the latter’s dedication is dated  January  its contents must have been written well before the end of the previous year. This conclusion is supported by the music itself. The manuscript pieces are far more varied and ambitious than the printed settings, each being scored for a different combination of forces and addressing a different compositional problem. Taken together with the printed psalms, they indicate the outlines of Bernabei’s pedagogical strategy: it appears that, having made his pupil compose in the stile antico (Psalmodia), he allowed or required him to explore a variety of contemporary idioms, including the small-scale concertato. This was a challenge to which Steffani rose with alacrity. The earliest of the dated pieces, Triduanas a Domino (‘. br. ’), sets the antiphon for the fifth psalm at Second Vespers on the feast of St Cecilia ( November: ‘Quinta Antiphona Sanctae / Ceciliae / Octo Plenis Vocibus Concinenda’). The last four words of the heading recall the title of the Psalmodia vespertina, which includes a setting of the appropriate psalm (Lauda Jerusalem). The clef combinations and modes of these works are different,18 but it would be possible to perform them together, and this may have been Steffani’s intention. The date of the Fitzwilliam Laudate pueri, trimmed by the binder, must also have been . The piece is signed off with the inscription ‘Laus Deo / Beateque Virgini Marie / Sancteque Ceciliae’, an expression of gratitude to the Virgin and St Cecilia on completion of the work, and one which suggests that this setting, too, was intended for vespers on St Cecilia’s day. Perhaps Triduanas a Domino and this Laudate pueri are related to Steffani’s membership in Rome of the Congregazione dei Musici. The works are very different in structure and technique. The antiphon resembles an eight-part motet in Palestrinian style—the only example by Steffani to survive. It falls into two almost equal halves—the first contrapuntal and the second antiphonal. The first clause of text provides the basis for the subject (‘Triduanas’), a countersubject (‘a Domino’), and a further counterpoint (‘poposci inducias’), all announced by Choir I (Example .). The entry of Choir II, in which subject and countersubject





   . Tri S M

&C ›

Beginning of Triduanas a Domino (GB-Cfm)

-

dua -

w

„

-

-

- nas

˙ œœ w „

Tri - po -

S M

-

-

- sci in

-

du

w œ œ ˙ œ œ w ˙ & œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙. œ Do

A

-

-

&∑

-

-

-

w Tri

-

-

-

-

-

Do

-

-

-

-

- dua

-

-

-

-

-

œ œ w ˙ ˙

- mi - no

w

w

a

-

-

-

dua -

-

-

- mi - no po -

˙ ˙ #˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ›Ó ˙ œ œ œ œ w œ œ œ˙ œ œ œ w ˙ ˙

w „

-

- nas a

- ci - as

˙ œ

w ˙

po - po

˙

œ œ w

-

-

-

-

sci

˙ -

nas

are immediately combined, is followed by a series of strettos. The original time lag of three bars between entries is halved, then reduced to half a bar. The counterpoint is resourceful and exemplary, and the texture becomes more complex than any in the Psalmodia vespertina. Steffani’s use of contrapuntal and antiphonal textures, both of which entail repetition, may have been prompted by the brevity of the text, but he may also have regarded the stile antico as the most appropriate medium for a liturgical Cecilian work. Laudate pueri is a sacred concerto for two choirs and organ.19 Choir I supplies, or possibly comprises, the five solo voices, which both combine and alternate with Choir II (Table .). As indicated by the time signatures, the rhythmic notation is oldfashioned. In C. 13 and O 13 there are two perfect semibreves to the bar, in Ø 23 two perfect breves; semiminims are void. The concept of perfection is strictly observed: coloration and dots of division are used, and even an occasional ligature. The signature C denotes four full-black semiminims to the bar, except in verse , where the bars have four minims each. It is tempting to describe such notation as ‘archaic’, but it was employed by composers as diverse as Schütz, Purcell, Couperin, and Handel, and Steffani used it in secular contexts as well as sacred.  .

Structure of Laudate pueri (GB-Cfm)

Verse no.

Words

Vocal Scoring

Time signature

Key

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Laudate pueri Sit nomen Domini A solis ortu Excelsis super omnes Quis sicut Dominus Suscitans a terra Ut collocet eum Qui habitare Gloria Patri Sicut erat Amen

Tutti SSB Tutti AT Tutti SI SII ATB Tutti Tutti Tutti

C 3 C. 1

F F F d C–F F F F (B  )–F F F

C 3 C. 1 C C 3 C. 1 C 3

Ø2 C 3

O1

   The outline given in Table . reveals his customary concern with overall structure. Verses –  both introduce all the soloists and display a regular alternation of metres and of ‘tutti’ and ‘solo’ scorings. In the second half, however, verses  –  are for the soloists, the remainder are for full ensemble, and Steffani breaks the association of soloists with triple (or compound) metre and tutti with duple. The two halves are thus complementary. Details, also, deserve notice. In the opening verse there are chiaroscuro effects due to brief duets for the sopranos of Choir I.20 Verse  explores a piece of double counterpoint; verse  exploits simple antiphony. The texture of verse  resembles that of a chamber duet, two solo voices engaging in imitation over an independent bass, while at the words ‘et in terra’ verse  develops a thrilling full texture, with florid imitation over a harmonic sequence (Example .). In the Carissimi-like solo of verse  Steffani’s contrapuntal exuberance is channelled into the bass (Example .), and in the ‘Amen’ it overflows into nine-part fugue; the choirs are kept apart at the beginning but brought together at the end, where entry follows entry in joyous profusion. The challenge in Laudate Dominum was to write for eight high voices. The inscription ‘ Decembre  / Laudate Dominum omnes / gentes / A. . canti / concertato / Del Sig.r. Agostino Stefani’ is not entirely accurate, however, for although the vocal parts are all in the C clef, the voices needed in each choir are three sopranos  .

B B

From Laudate pueri (Cfm)

∑

& b [c ]

∑

∑

& b [c ]

Ó

œ . œ œ œ œ œ œj j œ œ

Ó

et

B

∑

& b [c ]

B

V b [c ]

?

? [c ] b

∑

œ

˙ ter

B B

& b [c ]

∑

-

Œ

œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

et

et

ter

in

∑

& b [c ]

ra,

œ

œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ

-

V b [c ]

?

? [c ] b

∑

œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ

in

œ

œ. ter

œ

in

-

˙

œ

˙

ra,

et

in

ter

˙ -

-

- ra, et

-

m m

œ œ

-

[ra]

ter

-

[ra]

Œ

m m

et

œ -

Œ

m

ra,

j œ œœœœœ œ œ œ œ in ter

m

˙

œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œj œ

-

ra,

et

in ter

-

[ra]

-

-

[ra]

˙

˙ -

-

œ. œ œ œ œ œ

ra,

œ

-

-

et

ter

-

œœ œ -

œ

œ

[ra]

et

œ. œ œ œ œ œ ˙ ˙

œ

ter

˙ ter

- ra,

œ

ter -

in

in

-

in

j œ ˙

.

et

et

-

m -

œ. œ œ œ œ œ

˙

j œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ j œ œ

.

et

B

in ter

œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ

in

œ

et

et

Ó

œ. œ œ œ œ œ

j œ ˙

˙

in ter -

∑

œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ .

-

-

-

m

˙ -

-

[ra]

m





   . S

j j r & b [c] Jœ œ œ . œ œ et de

Bc

From Laudate pueri

œ n j Œ Jœ œ n œ œ Rœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ J R

ster - co-re,

et de

ster - co-re e

œ œ

œ

œ œ &b J

œ œ J

j r r œ œj œj œ œ œ œ œ m

pe - re,

et de

pau

?

-

œ nœ

b ˙ 6 4

œ œ ˙

ster - co - re e

œ œ œ

-

-

-

-

œ œœœ œœœ

? b [c] œ

-

-

œ

-

-

nœ œ œ

œ œ J J - ri-gens

œ œ

[rigens]

œ œœ m

5 3

(or two sopranos and a mezzo-soprano) and an alto. Steffani clearly enjoyed writing for these forces and loved the sonorities they produced. The voices are often employed in pairs, in imitation and parallel motion, and the textures are enriched by dissonance or interjections from the full ensemble. Suspensions may be treated unconventionally: in Example . a resolution turns a harmony note into a dissonance (bar ) and a suspension is sounded against the note of resolution (bar ). But the piece is unfortunately marred by a harmonic problem. The setting of ‘et in saecula’ begins in the dominant (D) thirteen bars before the end and modulates sharpwards twice; it ought then to cadence in E. Since this would be far from home (G), the third of the chord is naturalized. At this point, however, a minor triad makes little sense. The passage could be improved by altering other accidentals, but the result would not be ideal: a thorough solution would probably entail an extension to the final section. Steffani could have furnished this, but he had other things to do. Sperate in Deo and Beatus vir are his earliest surviving essays in the small-scale concertato idiom. The heading above Sperate in Deo has been trimmed but appears to read ‘In die Unius [or ‘De Communi’] Martyris a ’. The work extols the virtues of St Anacletus (or Cletus), pope and martyr, whose feast, until , was celebrated on  April;21 since Steffani left Rome in early May , Sperate in Deo is probably one of the last compositions that he wrote there. The text may have been taken from a hymn associated with the feast. The setting falls into eight movements—a brace of duets for the two sopranos, a solo each for the tenor and bass, and the remainder for the full quintet. The new ingredient is recitative, which has not previously appeared in Steffani’s sacred works; both solo movements soon become arioso, however, and end with passages resembling arie cavate (Example .).22The work was clearly written for virtuoso singers with wide ranges. Fast runs and wide leaps appear in all parts, and the word ‘veloces’ is set to contrary-motion quavers in parallel thirds over a slow harmonic base in 23. In these respects, and in its longer imitative points, Sperate in Deo exudes an appropriate boldness and confidence.

    . ma

I

-

# w. & [ 32] w

-

-

# ww ..

-

ni

˙

Do

II

From Laudate Dominum (Cfm)

-

# Ó Ó & [ 32] w .

mi ma

˙

æ -

 . Ten: Solo Rec:º

V c ‰ œj œ ˙

-

-

-

-

˙ [#]

6

#

-

w.

-

in -

-

4

ter

-

˙ æ

-

- [num]

#m m

- [ternum] - [num]

ww .. -

-

mm -

-

-

[num]

m

w. 3

7

"

6

5

7

#

sunt bre - ves mun - di

pœ - næ

œœœ

˙

j Œ ‰ œ œ . Rœ # Jœ œj œ . # œ œ œ œ œ J su - per- bi - que sunt fu

˙

˙

# ? œ. œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ

su - per - bi - que sunt fu

-

-

-

et um

#

Œ

‰

j j œ œ ˙

‰ Jœ œ

mus

# œ œ œ# œ œ j œ #œ. œ #œ œ œ. œ

-

-

‰ œj œ . œ # œ œ

Œ

r Œ ‰ j # œj . œ # œj j œ . # œ œ œ œ œ j j Œ œ œ œ œ

j j Vœ œ Œ

˙w . ˙

-

œ ˙

˙w w .

˙

w 7

-

æ

w

- ter

6

w˙ .

- net

j . ‰ œ œ Jœ Jœ œ œ œ œ . # œj ˙ ˙

w

-

ter

From Sperate in Deo (Cfm)

Sunt bre-ves,

- mus,

7

[#]

-

in

˙ w

-

w.

6

æ

#˙

ma net

˙ w w.

? # [ 3] w . 2

?c

in

-

in

Bc

w. w

net

-

‰ Jœ œ .

#m

bra mor - [tis]

œ J #m

The same qualities are evident in the Beatus vir for two sopranos, bass, and two violins. Dating presumably from , this is Steffani’s earliest work with instruments in addition to continuo. Cusins thought it ‘not quite equal’ to the other Fitzwilliam pieces,23 but this judgement may be challenged. The layout of the setting exhibits Steffani’s usual clarity of purpose. The eleven psalm verses plus the ‘Amen’ are divided into four groups of three, set in
23,
, 23, and
time. The alternation of metres is complemented by the use of the voices: apart from verses  – , which are scored for B, SSB, and SII, respectively, each group of three is set as a solo or duet followed by two trios. Unlike the Beatus vir in Psalmodia vespertina, which stressed verses  – , this one emphasizes verse . Most of the piece is in A major (with a signature of two sharps), the key in which verse  ends; verse  begins with an unexpected and exposed D  in the bass, drawing attention to the word ‘peccator’, while the clause ‘dentibus suis fremet et tabescet’ provokes an even more vivid response (Example .). When the latter is repeated, it is intensified by more inversion and contrary motion and by the use of both sopranos and violins. The presence of strings is the major new feature of this piece, and Steffani exploits them extremely resourcefully. They launch the setting, often introduce the material of a verse before the singers have finished the one





   . Vn I

Vn II

SI

S II

From Beatus vir (Cfm)

# œ œ œ œ œ œœœœœ & # [ c] #œœœ. # & # [ c]

##

œœœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ# œ œ œ .

∑

# œ & # [ c]

œ œ œ œ œ J R R J J

Œ Ó

- tur,

& [ c] œ

œ œœ œœ #œ œ

den-ti-bus su - is

Œ

B Bc

Vn I

Vn II

# & # 23

œ #œœ œœœ œ Œ

Adagio

∑

23

∑

3 2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- met

-

-

- met

œ œ œ œ œ œ jj J R R J J œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ . œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ 23

den-ti-bus su - is fre

et

B Bc

fre

? # # [ c] w Œ w œ # & # 23

Ó

œœ œ œ œ œœ # œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ œj œj Œ 23

∑

- tur, - tur,

Œ

-

-

w

Π23

˙. #

∑

∑

∑

c œœœœœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ m

∑

∑

∑

c Ó

ta - be - scet,

? ## 3 Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ 2 #w

et

ta - be - scet,

ta - be

Ó ˙ # ˙ ˙ . w œ ˙˙ #˙ w

-

scet:

c

œ˙

œœœœ œ m Œ Ó ˙

m

before, and play both between vocal phrases and together with the voices, the latter especially at the end of a verse. The writing for violins is not particularly idiomatic, being influenced by that for the singers, but the work explores the possibilities of its medium in a highly imaginative way. If it belongs to the tradition of accompanied sacred music stretching back to Monteverdi and his contemporaries, it also represents for Steffani an impressive début in a new genre. The last work to be considered here is a further setting of Beatus vir, surviving in Assisi, for two four-part choirs (each SATB) and organ. Steffani penned the heading (‘A Pieno Agostino Steffani  :bre ’), the words of the psalm, and most of the continuo line, but the vocal parts and the rest of the bass are in the same hand as the A-Wn manuscripts of two of his Munich operas, Servio Tullio (: see Fig. . in the next chapter) and Alarico il Baltha (). Whether the setting was composed for Munich or Assisi is not known. Although its antiphony recalls that of the Psalmodia vespertina, the word-setting is less consistently syllabic and the melodic style more mellifluous. Changes of metre at verses  and  draw attention to the points that Steffani had emphasized separately in his earlier settings of the psalm. The final section (‘et in saecula’) is treated contrapuntally and is more extended than any in the Psalmodia. It provides a fitting conclusion to a work that displays great assurance and marks an advance in Steffani’s handling of the polychoral medium. Although they are mostly contemporary with the Psalmodia, these manuscript settings differ markedly from those in the print. There the music is a functional, though not ungracious, medium for the words: the collection was intended for daily use by

   choirs of average ability, and the survival of examples in church archives suggests that it was used in this way.24 The Fitzwilliam pieces, on the other hand, are scored for a variety of ensembles and, with the possible exception of Triduanas a Domino, call for solo singers. Steffani’s handling of the forces is no less virtuoso than his writing for the voices. The textural and structural possibilities of the media are exploited with alacrity, intelligence, and sensitivity. He may have encountered recitative and aria, and concerto-like scoring, in the Lenten oratorios in which Bernabei acted regularly as organist, but his vocal writing reflects the secular influence of opera and the chamber cantata. If Steffani was restricted in the Psalmodia vespertina, he spread his wings in these manuscript works, which display remarkable confidence and potential. When he and his teacher left Rome, they must have felt he had come of age.

Sacer Ianus quadrifrons () By the time he published his second book of sacred music, Steffani was nearly thirty years old and an experienced composer. His first opera had been performed in  and he had probably written dozens of his chamber duets. The composition of Sacer Ianus quadrifrons tribus vocibus vel duabus qualibet praetermissa modulandus was completed by March  and the publication was dedicated to Elector Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria; since the latter’s recent campaigns against the Turks had been brilliantly successful, Steffani argued that music went well with arms (‘non male Musica convenit armis’) and extolled the elector as ‘the most illustrious defender of the faith, shield of the Empire, ornament of Germany, sweetheart of Bavaria, father of his subjects, and patron of musicians’.25 The collection represented a further technical challenge, the novelty of which was emphasized in Steffani’s preface. As indicated by the title, the contents are scored for three voices (and continuo), any one of which can be omitted in performance; since each of the twelve works can thus be rendered in four ways, the collection can be said to contain forty-eight pieces. As Einstein remarked, ‘the man who could do this, and Steffani could, was a master of the art of melody’.26 Each work was assigned to a particular feast or occasion (Table .). Most of the texts reflect the purposes for which they were intended: the Blessed Sacrament is revered in Felices Adae filii, martyrdom in Videte gentes, and chastity in Cingite floribus. Others refer indirectly to the exploits of Max Emanuel: Qui pacem amatis is a call to arms, while Sonitus armorum and Surge, propera, veni are prayers for peace; Tandem adest and Flores agri seem to glorify the elector, and Venite exultemus ends with a plea for delivery from war, famine, and the plague. Although some of the pieces incorporate words from Marian or biblical texts—Reginam nostram formosissimam combines parts of the ‘Salve Regina’ and ‘Alma Redemptoris Mater’; Sonitus armorum draws on ‘Alma Redemptoris’ and ‘O salutaris hostia’; and Surge, propera, veni adapts verses from the Song of Solomon (. –; .; . and )—none of them is liturgical in function. Each comprises a number of stanzas dealing with the topic in hand; the stanzas complement each other, saying similar things in different ways, but there is no narrative and little development of subject: they are less like cantatas than series of arias. The most suitable term for such invocations, exhortations, hymns, and prayers appears to be ‘motet’.





   .

Contents of Sacer Ianus quadrifrons

Title

Scoring

Feast

Reginam nostram Qui pacem amatis Felices Adae filii Sonitus armorum Flores agri Tandem adest Venite exultemus Videte gentes Cingite floribus Surge, propera, veni Elevamini in voce tubae Fuge cara anima

CCB CCB CAT CAT CAB CAB CAB CTB CTB ATB ATB ATB

De Beata Virgine Pro omni tempore De SS. Sacramento De Beata Virgine Pro quolibet Sancto Pro Sanctis Confessoribus Pro Sanctis Viduis Pro Sanctis Martyribus Pro Virgin. Martyr. Pro Virgin. non Martyr. Pro omni tempore Pro omni tempore

The texts must have been written in the light of the musical constraints. Since a voice could be omitted in performance, any portion of text that was set as a solo had to be dispensable. Each work had to include at least one movement for the trio of singers, and it was desirable to provide a solo for each—but to avoid duets, lest the omission of one of the participants turned such a movement into a solo. The shortest texts thus comprise four stanzas or sections, set as a trio and three solo movements. In the motets that exhibit this structure—Flores agri, Elevamini in voce tubae, and Fuge, cara anima—the opening trio is repeated at the end to round the work off. The other motets each have two different trios. These are placed at the beginning and end of Felices Adae filii, Sonitus armorum, Venite exultemus, Cingite floribus, and Surge, propera, veni, while in Tandem adest and Videte gentes the movement order is solo, trio, solo, solo, trio. In Reginam nostram and Qui pacem amatis one of the trios is repeated, in whole or in part, making six movements in all. The motets thus derive their musical structures from those of the texts and are less dependant than Steffani’s psalm-settings on the content or meaning of the words. The only way to appreciate the quality, variety, and subtlety of the motets is to look at one of them in detail. We shall examine Reginam nostram, because the composer accorded it pride of place at the head of his collection, in which it is one of the largest works, and there is a standard edition.27 As usual in Steffani, the patterns of scoring and metre combine to form a satisfying overall structure (Table .). So as far as scoring is concerned, the six movements fall into three pairs, each comprising a solo and a trio; the last trio is a restatement of the second half of the first and imparts a sense of conclusion. The metrical pattern, on the other hand, consists of two groups of three—one movement in common time followed by two in triple or compound (the pattern is more complex in the first movement, which includes recitative in
and arioso in
23 and
). The tonality is constrained by the possibility of a solo movement being omitted, but internal modulations create more variety than appears from the plan. The quality of Steffani’s craftsmanship is immediately apparent in the construction of the opening bass solo (Table .). The movement presents contrasts between

    .

Structure of Reginam nostram formosissimam

Voice(s) B SSB SI SSB SII SSB

Movement

}

Reginam nostram Eia omnes, festinemus (pt. : O Domina mundi) O pulcherrima virginum (v. : Cordis humiles) Salve virgo, mater ave Fac nos culpa O Domina mundi

} }

Metre

Key

{


–
23 –
3 C. 1

F F


23

F

{



23

F d–F F

3 C. 1

recitative and arioso and two kinds of arioso. When the first arioso, in triple time, is repeated, its flowing melisma is extended to create a phrase of Gargantuan proportions. The second arioso, in
time, resembles a cavata in both its transposed repeat and its imitative bass line. The tonality is at once varied and unified, and it reinforces the repetition scheme. The style of the movement is reminiscent of mid- to late-seventeenthcentury Roman music, in which the aa⬘b pattern was common. The trio movements are put together like sixteenth-century motets. Each portion of text is set to a point that provides the musical material for a section. The material may be treated contrapuntally or homophonically, and the end of the section may overlap with the beginning of the next. Art is displayed in the beauty and aptness of the material and in the ways in which it is used, while variety is provided within a clear and appropriate framework. The first trio in Reginam nostram falls into two parts (see Table .). The three sections of part  each display a different texture. The first is contrapuntal, with subject, countersubject, and strettos. The subject is a setting of the first three words; the entries occur at irregular intervals, creating an impression of stretto as early as bar . The countersubject sets the first two words only and is fitted into the texture as frequently as possible. Even if a voice were omitted, the result would be lively and interesting (Example .). The second section is marked by a change of texture. Although ‘jubilantes’ is pitted against ‘consurgamus’, the former is doubled by a second voice in parallel motion, creating a more homophonic and quasi-antiphonal texture in which the voice groupings are constantly varied (Example .). The setting of line  is treated imitatively and is inverted before  .

Structure of opening movement (bass solo) of Reginam nostram

Bars 1– 6 7–11 12 –17 18 – 23 24 – 29 29 – 35

Lines of text

{ { {

1–3 4 1–3 4 5–6 5–6

Style of setting

Metre

Key

Recitative Arioso Recitative Arioso Arioso Arioso



23

23



F–C C C–F F d F

} } }

a a⬘ b





   .

Structure of ‘Eia omnes, festinemus’ (Reginam nostram)

Line no.

Text

Bars

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Eia omnes, festinemus jubilantes consurgamus, adeamus ad Mariae sacram aram, et praeclaram eius gloriam celebremus O Domina mundi, o clemens, o pia, Salve Regina nostra, ave Maria.

Key

1–10

F–C

}

10–23

C

}

23–39

F

39– 43 43–69

}

F

}

Part 

}

Part 

being combined with that of line  in the approach to the cadence in bar . The final section of part  is more extensive and elaborate. The point itself is long, comprising a ‘head’ (based on line ) and a ‘tail’ (line ), separated by a rest. The section is divided into two by a cadence in the subdominant at bar ; in the first half the subject appears in the Bass and Soprano I, in the second half in the Bass and Soprano II. Against the latter, after the cadence, Soprano I has the tail of the point, which then appears in all three parts in quick succession. In bars  –  there is an entry of this tail on every half-bar, creating a climactic effect that is appropriate to the mid-point of the movement (Example .).  . formosissimam SI

S II

Beginning of trio ‘Eia omnes, festinemus’ from Reginam nostram

˙. & b c. 31 Ó & b c. 31 ∑ .

E

œ ˙ œ œ ˙ -

ia om -

-

- nes fes - ti - ne -

Ó œ œ œ œ ˙ w E -

B

Bc

-

? b . 31 Ó œ œ œ œ ˙ w c ? b . 31 w . c

E -

& b Ó ˙.

-

- ia,

˙ w

e

-

ia om -

&b ˙ œ œ ˙

˙ ˙.

om -

- nes fes -

?b ?

-

œ œ œ ˙ w ˙ œ

- mus, e -

b ˙ w

-

- ia,

˙ w

- ia,

e

Ó ˙. œ ˙

˙ - nes

œ ti -

-

-

-

œ œ ˙ -

˙ ˙. œ ˙

-

-

œ œ œœ

Ó

e - ia om

œ ˙ œ œ ˙

˙ œ œ œ œ ˙

˙ ˙. œ œ œ œ œ ˙

-

œ œ ˙

˙.

œ œ œ œ œ ˙ sti- ne

-

-

-

nes fes

˙ w

˙ m -

˙. e

-

ia om

œ ˙

-

-

œ œ ˙

-

mus

nes

m

- ia,

Ó

ia,

˙ ˙ œ œ nœ œ ˙ nw œ œ œ œ ne - mus, e - ia, ˙. œ ˙ œ œ ˙ ˙ m Ó ˙

-

˙ w

˙.

œ

e

˙ ˙.

-

fe -

mus, e -

w

-

ia

œ œ œ œ œ ˙ -

ti - ne -

-

œ œ œ œ ˙

-

    . SI

3 & b [1] w

S II

& b [ 31 ] ˙

B

? b [3] ˙ 1

Bc

? b [3] w . 1

From trio ‘Eia omnes, festinemus’ in Reginam nostram formosissimam

∑.

Ó

Ó

- mus,

ju

˙.

- mus,

œ œ œ œ œ ˙

ju

-

˙.

- mus,

ju

 . SI

-

bi-lan

bi-lan

w.

-

-

-

˙.

tes,

ju

˙ -

˙

-

bi-lan

-

bi-lan

˙

? [3] ˙ w b 1

-

-

-

con - sur - ga

˙

˙

-

-

tes

n˙ -

tes

Ó

˙

w

tes

˙

-

œ œ œ œ œ ˙

˙

mus

˙

w.

Mid-point of trio ‘Eia omnes, festinemus’ in Reginam nostram formosissimam

-

& b [ 31 ] ˙ œ œ œ œ ˙ w

- ram,

Bc

-

˙

œ œ œ œ œ ˙

˙ ˙ œœ˙ ˙ œœ m

˙ ˙ & b [ 31 ] Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙ . œ ˙ Ó

- cla -

B

-

œ œ œ œ œ ˙

e - ius glo S II

˙.

-

- ram,

Ó ˙ ˙ e - ius

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ? [3] b 1 ˙ ˙

-

-

ri-am,

e - ius

glo

-

-

-

-

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ ˙. œ ˙ Ó ˙ ˙ e - ius glo

-

-

ri-am,

˙ ˙ œ œ ˙. œ ˙ glo

-

-

-

-

ri-am,

[riam]

m

e - ius

˙ ˙ œœ m Ó ˙ ˙

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ . w

e - ius glo

-

˙ ˙ ˙

[riam]

m

Part  is the portion to be repeated at the end of the work; preceded by a rest, it is easily detached, like part of a liturgical respond. The brief, homophonic setting of line  acts merely as a springboard for line , the longest and richest contrapuntal section in the motet; similar pairs of sections are found in Steffani’s secular duets. The subject is based on the whole of line , the countersubject on fragments of line  (‘O Domina’, ‘o clemens’, ‘o pia’). Stretto is introduced from the very beginning, where the distance between entries is progressively reduced from three bars, to two, to one-and-a-half, and finally to one. The last four entries in the movement are two pairs of strettos for Soprano I and Bass, and Soprano II and Bass, respectively. The subject appears ten times in all, thrice in Soprano I, twice in Soprano II, and five times in the Bass. Even if the bass voice were omitted, the continuo would preserve the outlines of two of its entries: whichever voice were omitted, seven or eight entries would remain. The material and its treatment also reflect the meaning of the words. In the opening bars the word ‘festinemus’ (‘let us hurry’) is set to a quick rising scale, ‘hurrying’ is conveyed by fuga, and excitement is reinforced by the busy countersubject. The more homophonic texture at ‘jubilantes’ reflects the unanimity implied by ‘consurgamus’ (‘let us rise up’). The setting of ‘ad Mariae sacram aram’ (‘to Mary’s sacred altar’) is the only place in the movement where the bass voice is silent: the sopranos draw attention to the Virgin, the subject of the work, in sensuous parallel thirds. The





  wonderful accumulation of entries in bars  –  (Example .) is a contrapuntal response to her glory, mentioned in the text. The homophony of ‘O Domina mundi’ both tees up the contrapuntal section that follows and emphasizes a change in the text, which here becomes a direct address to the Virgin. And the use of ‘O Domina, o clemens, o pia’ as a countersubject to ‘Salve Regina nostra, ave Regina’ constitutes a kind of rhetorical reinforcement of which only music is capable. Far from hindering expression, counterpoint here promotes it. The price of this textural intricacy is a limited harmonic vocabulary, but the material and texture are so appealing and absorbing that the price is well worth paying. The third movement of Reginam nostram is a short strophic aria for Soprano I, in aba⬘ form. The material of section a is stated twice in different keys, F and C; section b modulates from C to D minor, after which the second half of the section is repeated in A minor and the aria concludes with a tonic repeat of the first line of a. The next movement, the second trio, contrasts with both this aria and the earlier trio. The music emphasizes the acclamation of the opening words (‘Salve virgo, Mater ave’) by setting the entire quatrain syllabically in quavers. The movement, in common time, comprises only sixteen bars and a beat and is composed like a miniature mosaic. There are two pieces of material—(a) set to the first line of text, and (b) set to the other three—and their disposition is beautifully balanced (Table .). Material (a) is given to all three voices, together and in turn, while (b) is assigned to every possible pair. The beginning and end of the movement are concerned only with (a), which acts in the middle as a counterpoint to (b). The apparently effortless surface of this music disguises great intricacy of craftsmanship (Example .). Like that for Soprano I, the solo for Soprano II is an aria, but it differs from its predecessor in structure and texture. The form is a:|bcc, the texture predominantly contrapuntal. The first four lines of text are set as a unit beginning in D minor, ending in A minor, and marked to be repeated. The next two lines plunge into F and are set only once. The last four lines are set as another unit, starting in F and finishing in C; a repeat of these, reversing the modulation, is then written out. In the brief central section the bass moves in parallel with the voice, but in the longer outer sections it imitates and anticipates vocal phrases with almost canonic precision, while continuing to provide harmonic support (Example .). The texture of this aria is a perfect foil to the final movement of the work, the repeat of ‘O Domina mundi’, which begins, as we have seen, homophonically.  . nostram)

Structure of ‘Salve, virgo’ (Reginam

Bars

Material (Voices)

Key

1– 4 5–8 8–12 12–15 15–17

a (SSB) a (SII), b (SI, B) a (SI), b (SII, B) a (B), b (SI, SII) a (SSB)

F ⫺C ⫺d ⫺F F

    . SI

From trio ‘Salve virgo, Mater ave’ in Reginam nostram formosissimam

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ J J J J J J J Rœ

j œ. œ œ œ j œ œ & b [c] Œ Jœ J J Jœ J R J J œ œj œ . Rœ Jœ Jœ

te de-vo - ta plebs ho - no -rat, tu -um in - vo - cans im - plo-rat no-men dul - ce et su - a S II

B

& b [c] Ó

-

œ J n Jœ Œ sal - ve,

sal - ve, sal - ve vir - go Ma - ter

œ œ ? [c] Œ œ œj œ Jœ Jœ . n Rœ J J œ Jœ Jœ œ b J J J J

a - ve, sal - ve vir - go Ma-ter a - ve

œ œ nœ œ J Jœ Jœ Jœ J J J œJ œ œ œ

œ œ J J

te de-vo - ta plebs ho - no -rat, tu -um in-vo - cans im - plo-rat no-men dul - ce et su - a Bc

? [c] ˙ b

˙ œ œ œ. nœ 7

 . S II

6 4

 . SI

# . & [ 31 ] w

S II

# & [ 31 ] w

B

? # [ 3] w 1

Bc

? # [ 3] w . 1

- te,

- te,

- te,

œ

˙ 5 3

5 3

œ

9 8

6

-

ve

œ nœ œ œ ˙

5

7

œ

6 4

5 3

From aria ‘Fac nos culpa’ in Reginam nostram formosissimam

si in te Bc

6

w

n˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w

est

ca - ri - ta - tis et

3 & b [2 ] œ œ œ œ w ? b [23 ] w

ve

j j r œ œj Jœ . œ œ . œ œj . œr œj œj Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ œJ . Rœ œ . n Jœ œ R

fons

Ó œœœœw

˙ w ˙ ˙ ˙ œ œ n˙ ˙ Ó ˙

n˙ ˙ w

pi - e - ta - tis,

e - ia

tra - he nos

post

˙ n˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w

˙ ˙ n˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ n˙ ˙ w

te

˙

From ‘Qui pacem amatis’ (Sacer Ianus quadrifrons)

˙

Ó

Ó

pu - gnan

˙ w. qui - e

-

-

˙ œ œ œ œœœ pu - gnan -

w.

-

w.

-

-

˙ ˙

œ œ œœœœ˙

-

˙ -

-

-

-

w.

do, cer - tan

-

w.

-

-

-

w.

-

-

-

-

-

˙ œ œœœœœ ˙ ˙ - do, cer - tan -

w.

œ œ œœœœ˙ ˙ ˙ -

w. -

do, qui - e - tem

w -

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

˙

˙ ˙

-

tem

˙ ˙

- do, qui - e - tem spe - ra - te

w.

w.

˙ ˙

Examination of Reginam nostram prompts a number of general observations on the motets in Sacer Ianus quadrifrons. The first concerns the nature of the continuo part. In most of the pieces the lowest voice is a bass and the continuo doubles it; the number of real parts is thus three rather than four. In the two motets in which the lowest voice is a tenor, however, the continuo is largely independent and the trio movements are mostly in four real parts. The bass line adopts various manners and performs a variety of functions. In common time it may walk in crotchets or run in quavers, like an ostinato; it may also provide an introduction to an aria or a postlude to a trio. Cingite floribus shows Steffani adding extra notes to the continuo line in imitation of the voice, while Qui pacem amatis illustrates his use of pedals—in this case two at a time, a compound fifth apart (Example .). In arias or arioso sections for bass voice,





  the continuo tends to be independent at the start and when the voice is announcing new material; at the approach to a cadence, however, the vocal writing may change character, growing less melodic and more bass-like, in which case the continuo becomes a dependent bass. The solos for bass indicate that Steffani was writing for virtuoso singers. The range employed is two octaves, and there are occasional wide leaps—down a seventh in Qui pacem amatis and up an eleventh in Tandem adest clara dies.28 Repeated semiquavers are found in Qui pacem amatis and dotted rhythms in Elevamini in voce tubae (Example .). Melismas, for bass and other voices, are often florid and long, and there are examples of rapid passaggi in arioso sections (Example .). The arias and trios tend to be in one of two broad styles. Some are in a rather robust common time in which, by and large, the words are set syllabically to quavers while melismas move in semiquavers. Others are in a flowing triple or compound metre, redolent of the Venetian forlana, with more frequent melismas and hemiolas. The harmonic language may be limited by contrapuntal constraints or the rotation of phrases from one voice to another, but interest is sustained by frequent suspensions and occasional sequences. The last movement of Sonitus armorum exhibits both rotation of material and double suspensions (Example .); the opening of the same work illustrates the use of static harmony and arpeggio-based melody to evoke an atmosphere of war (Example .), while Tandem adest includes echo effects.29 The arias tend to be in the forms encountered in Reginam nostram. Some exhibit a ternary structure in which the opening section is repeated, in whole or in part, after one or more other sections; the repeat is always written out, not indicated by a verbal instruction, and the forms employed include aba⬘, abba⬘, and aabcca. The other aria in Reginam nostram may be described as through-composed: although two of its sections are repeated (the form is a:|bcc—perhaps an elaboration of binary form), each of the repeats immediately follows the initial statement of the section concerned. Other examples of through-composition in Sacer Ianus quadrifrons include arias in abb, abc, and abcd form. The da capo structure is far less common than in secular cantatas of the period. Of the trio movements in the collection, only two out of seven, or  percent, are in this form; of the arias, which are more numerous, only one in ten exhibits a da capo structure. In the secular field, a da capo repeat was prompted by the rhyme scheme of the text. Some of the texts of these motets employ the same layout but are not set in da capo form (cf. ‘O pulcherrima virginum vale’): although the conventions governing sacred and secular composition overlapped, they also clearly differed. Further evidence of this, perhaps, is provided by the structure of three of the motets. In Flores agri and Elevamini in voce tubae the final aria ends with a repeat of a section from the previous one. What makes this remarkable is the fact that in each motet the passage in question is sung twice by different voices. An even more surprising thing happens in Surge, propera, veni, where the opening of the third aria provides the basis for the close of the final trio (Example .). Neither of these procedures is common in Steffani’s secular works, although a similar example can be found in Orlando generoso;30 indeed, they are clearly most at home in the rarefied atmosphere of a collection composed as a tour de force.

    . B

From Elevamini in voce tubae (Sacer Ianus quadrifrons)

n ˙ ? # # c 23 ˙ . œ ˙ ˙ . œ ˙ ˙ # ˙ ˙ . œ ˙ œ . œ œ . Jœ œ . Jœ œ . Jœ œ . œ œ . œj œ . œj œ . œ œ . œ ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ w J J J w. J Dex-te-ra Do-mi-ni

Bc

? ## c 3 w 2

˙ w.

 .

S

fe-cit vir-tu-tem,

S

A

Bc

-

#

˙ w

œ œœœ

op - pres -

-

-

- sos

e -

˙

-

- le- vas

w.

ma - ris stel - la, o

˙

˙ #˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

o

ma

-

˙

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

- ros,

o

ma - ris stel - la, o

? # # [3] 2 w.

w

w. 8 6

˙

7 5

˙ #˙ ˙ w ma

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

ris stel - la, o

# V # [23] w

˙ #˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ma

-

9 7

˙

w 8 6

˙ la

ma - ris stel

-

la

ma - ris stel

-

la

ris stel

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w

ris stel - la, o

w.

˙ -

-

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w

ma - ris stel - la, o

w.

w.

˙

7 5

9 7

8 6

˙ w w.

7 5

Beginning of Sonitus armorum

S

# j r j j j & # c œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œj Œ

A

# & # c Ó

? ## c w

-

˙ w.

ma - ris stel - la, o

-

˙

tem

ww .

#

o

So

˙ w

-

˙ œ ˙ œœœ˙ ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ .

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

 .

- cit vir - tu

w

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

# & # [23] w

-

From Sonitus armorum

9 7

Bc

-

# ˙ & # [23] Ó Ó

- ros,

T

-

˙ w.

˙ ˙ w ˙ #˙

˙ ˙ ˙ w

 .

-

From Sonitus armorum (Sacer Ianus quadrifrons)

af - flic - tos re - cre -as, Bc

-

˙ w

w #˙ w

# 3 & # [2 ] ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ . œ ˙ ? # # [23 ]

fe

-

-

ni-tus ar - mo-rum,

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Jœ . so

-

j r j j j j Œ œ œ œ œ œœœœ œ . œ œ œ œ œ So

-

-

-

- ni-tus ar - mo-rum,

œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ.

-

-

œ œ R J -

ni-tus,

œ œ œ œ œ œ m so -

-

- [nitus]

œ œ. œ ˙

Compared with his earlier sacred works, Sacer Ianus quadrifrons is in some ways restricted. It is scored for fewer voices and calls for no instruments other than continuo. The possibility of omitting a voice in performance constituted a compositional challenge and imposed a number of constraints. Steffani’s success represents a triumph not only for his melodic invention, as Einstein claimed, but also for his skill and resourcefulness in counterpoint and structure. His ‘integrated and tidy’ contrapuntal





   . quadrifrons)

(a) Aria and (b) closing Trio from Surge, propera, veni (Sacer Ianus

[a] A

j j j r j & b c œj œj œ œ œ . œ œ œj Fe - lix

Bc

? c b ˙

vir - go

œ

[b] A

j j & b œj œj œ œ Fe - lix

T

Vb œ - tem.

Bc

?b

˙

sa - pi-ens quam

vir - go

Œ

Œ

j r j j œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œj œj Do - mi- nus in - ve

œ œ

j r j r œ . œ œ j œj . œ œj œj œ sa - pi-ens quam Do - mi-nus

-

œ œ œ.

-

-

œ

œ. J

-

-

-

-

sa - pi - ens quam Do - mi- nus in - ven -

œ

œ

œ

- nit

œ

œ

œ

-

-

-

-

nit

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œœœœ m R J J

Fe -lix vir - go

œ

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œj œj m

in - ven

j j j œ œ Jœ Jœ Jœ . Rœ Jœ œ

-

œœ œ

œ

œ

œ

- [nit]

˙

7

technique has been attributed to his German environment,31 but it should not be forgotten that Kerll was influenced by Carissimi, that Bernabei composed in the Roman style, and that music at Munich was mainly Italian in outlook. If Sacer Ianus quadrifrons anticipates such a German contrapuntal masterpiece as Die Kunst der Fuge, it also belongs to the seventeenth-century Italian tradition that was soon to produce Giovanni Battista Vitali’s Artifici musicali (). Unlike either of these works, however, Steffani’s motets are not merely displays of technical skill but are also settings of words, the meaning of which he sought to convey. In some respects they may appear abstract, but in others they are concrete and expressive. It is remarkable that he succeeded in both spheres at once.

Later Manuscript Works Seven sacred works are ascribed to Steffani in later manuscript sources. One of these, Non plus me ligate, can be attributed to him on bibliographical and musical grounds, while a further two, his Qui diligit Mariam and Stabat Mater, are known from his letters to date from the last year of his life. The other four pieces are of doubtful authenticity. Non plus me ligate, for soprano, two violins, and continuo, survives only in D-B, Mus. ms. , where it is ascribed to ‘Signore Stefani’. This copy of the motet was previously part of the collection of Heinrich Bokemeyer ( –), a composer and theorist who studied in Brunswick and worked at Wolfenbüttel from .32 It did not belong to the oldest portion of his collection, which was transcribed at Gottorf in –, but must have been added soon after, for it was copied by a scribe who had been active there. That the manuscript originated in north Germany during Steffani’s lifetime inspires confidence in the ascription.

   The words of the motet are reminiscent of those in Sacer Ianus quadrifrons in content and form. A prayer for release from this mortal coil, they compare the joys above to ‘gems’ and ‘flowers’ and recall such pieces as Flores agri. The first of the four stanzas is divided into two in the setting, which therefore comprises five movements; the last line of the first stanza and the penultimate line of the second are repeated as refrains and thus help to unify the setting (Table. .). Although the beginning of the fourth movement consists of recitative, the bulk of the text is set in aria style. The vocal writing is consistent with that in Steffani’s motets, and the piece contains nothing unworthy of him. The violins are employed in movements , , and , both with and between vocal phrases, but in movements  and  they play only in the repeat of ‘Cari coeli’. The motet does not bear any unmistakable fingerprint of the composer, but two features frequently found in his works are the reinforcement of a cadence by repetition and imitation in the bass under a held note in the voice (Example .). Since Non plus me ligate is apparently his only sacred piece for solo voice and two violins, it was presumably composed for a specific purpose. The implication of the text is that it was written for a Catholic patron or friend who was in difficulty or pain, or close to death. The affinity with the motets in Sacer Ianus quadrifrons points to a Bavarian origin, yet the manuscript is of north German provenance. Whatever its original purpose, the motet appears to be an attractive, if modest, creation of Steffani’s maturity. Qui diligit Mariam is the new motet that was sent by the composer, via Giuseppe Riva, to the Academy of Vocal Music in .33 In accordance with the academy’s preference for unaccompanied vocal music, Steffani scored it for voices (SSATB) and continuo only. It is a substantial work in four movements, in which a bass solo, two duets, and a trio are embedded in sections for all five voices. The contrasts in scoring, metre, and tonality resemble those used in the composer’s earlier works, and the opening line reappears at the end of the first and last movements in the manner of a refrain. Riva was absent from the academy when the motet was first performed, so Galliard sent him a detailed account of the work. He concluded by praising Steffani’s ‘expression of the words, which is so natural to the composer that one cannot decide whether his art lies more in his choice of material or in its assembly’.34 In terms of ex .

Structure of Non plus me ligate

Movement no.

Section

1 2

Non plus me ligate Venite zephyri Cari coeli Nolo in terra Pulchra Sion Cari coeli O quam sordet terra Videte, observate Solo in coelo Pulchra Sion

3

4 5

Metre

}

} } }

Tempo

Refrains



Refrain 

3 4 3 4

Adagio




[Allegro] [Recitative]

Refrain  Refrain 

3 4




3 4

Refrain 





   .

From Non plus me ligate (D-B)

Adagio

S

Bc

œ œ & 43 Œ ?3 4 ˙.

No -lo in

#˙

œ

ter - ra

œ œ œ sem - per

˙

œ

œ œ œ

#6

6

5

#

6

œ œ œ œ #m œ. œ #œ œ œ

˙. fle

œ #

œ- œ 6

-

#˙ 6

-

-

œ

-

-

œ œ œ

[6]

-

[re]

m #

pression and structure, Qui diligit Mariam is as polished as anything that Steffani composed—a beautiful example of what he could do in the last year of his life, despite his financial and medical problems. It is not surprising that the soprano duet movement ‘Non pavescat lethales horrores’ was appropriated by Handel as ‘Music, spread thy voice around’ (Solomon) or that the work became a favourite with the academy and continued to be performed in England until well into the nineteenth century. A month before he died, Steffani described his Stabat Mater as his last composition and his masterpiece and offered to send it to the academy.35 He must have completed it between April  and January . Later commentators, unaware of the composer’s assessment, have reached similar conclusions about the setting. Chrysander considered it to be Steffani’s greatest musical achievement; Cusins regarded it as ‘undoubtedly one of the finest works of any composer of the period immediately preceding that of the giants Bach and Handel’.36 It would be hard to disagree. Apart from the operas, it is Steffani’s largest, most varied, and most heartfelt composition. The scoring is given in the principal surviving sources, which are of English provenance, as six voices (SSATTB), six string instruments (two violins, three violas, and violoncello), and continuo (organ).37 The use of sixfold voices and instruments recalls the emphasis on the Senary in his treatise Quanta certezza (). If his Stabat Mater could be performed by just thirteen musicians, it may also be given by a larger ensemble of six solo voices, six-part choir, string orchestra, and continuo.38 The Stabat Mater is the most powerful musical expression of Steffani’s religious fervour. The grief of Mary at the foot of the cross and the reactions of the Christian worshipper are conveyed in music of great seriousness, intensity, and power. The setting is characterized by its restrained use of the performing forces and oldfashioned musical style. The vocal writing is confined mainly to the middle and lower registers, which contributes to the sober mood, while the instruments play generally a supporting role, providing an unobtrusive contrapuntal background, punctuating vocal phrases, or doubling the voices in sections for full ensemble. The use of the voices and instruments betrays little influence of the eighteenth century; indeed, much of the work is permeated by the sombre tone of sixteenth-century sacred polyphony, although this is thrown into relief by passages in seventeenth-century style. The mixture of ancient and modern is reminiscent of that in Steffani’s contemporary, Purcell. The style of the opening, for soprano and instruments, seems rather older, recalling a Jacobean verse anthem or possibly a sacred symphony by Schütz. This archaism of style evokes the other-worldliness of the subject—the mystery of the cross—and eloquently promotes the composer’s expressive and devotional purposes.

   The old-fashioned style may also have been a response by Steffani to the interests of the Academy of Vocal Music. He had been informed by Riva and Haym that they specialized in vocal polyphony of the period from Josquin to Carissimi, so he fashioned his setting accordingly. Since he had also been told that the academy preferred works without instruments, one might ask why he chose to use strings. Two possible explanations spring to mind. He may have felt that the metrical regularity of the text needed offsetting or disguising by a greater variety of musical texture than an a cappella setting could provide, or he may have feared that an unaccompanied setting of such a lengthy text might exceed the ability of the academy’s members to perform it. Whatever the answer, Steffani took a chance, adopting an antiquated style appropriate to both the atmosphere of the words and the interests of the academy, and hoping that his use of instruments would not prevent them from accepting the piece. It seems to have been more important to him—presumably for religious and personal reasons—to compose the setting as he wished than to conform entirely to the academy’s preference. To judge from the location of the surviving sources, his gamble paid off, and the academy accepted the work, though not necessarily before he had died. The text of the Stabat Mater is a medieval sequence, believed to be of Franciscan origin. Essentially a prayer to the mother of Christ, the poem depicts Mary at the foot of the cross, expresses sympathy with her and a desire to share her grief and her son’s suffering, and prays for protection on the day of judgement from both her and the cross. There are twenty versicles of three lines each, grouped into pairs by the rhyme scheme—aab, ccb, dde, and so on. Removed from the liturgy by the Council of Trent, the sequence was restored to universal use by Benedict XIII in  (which may explain why Steffani set it when he did). It had been included for decades before this, however, as part of Mass on the Feast of the Seven Dolours (or Sorrows) of the Blessed Virgin Mary, a feast that in  had been granted to the Servites for the third Sunday in September and in  had been assigned for the German empire to the Friday before Palm Sunday.39 Various versions of the text were in circulation during the early eighteenth century. The one set by Steffani differs from that in the Liber usualis; minor variants are found in about half of the tercets, but the largest discrepancies occur in verses  and : Steffani  Inflammatus et accensus . . .  Fac me cruce custodiri Morte Christi premuniri, Confoveri gratia.

Liber usualis  Flammis ne urar succensus . . .  Christe, cum sit hinc exire, Da per Matrem me venire Ad palmam victoriae.

The ‘Steffani’ version of these lines is found in a late-fourteenth- or early fifteenthcentury copy of the text by Georgius Stella (died ca. ) and in the settings by Alessandro Scarlatti (date unknown), Domenico Scarlatti ([?]), and Pergolesi ().40 The other version appears in the setting by Caldara, while a mixture of the two was employed by Astorga. Vivaldi’s Stabat Mater differs from all other known versions from this period in setting only the first half of the poem, in its guise as a vesper hymn.41 The layout of Steffani’s work is summarized in Table .. The column headed ‘Text’ shows how the content and ‘mode’ of the poem are reflected in five groups of





   .

Structure of Steffani’s Stabat Mater

Text

Description

Rhetorical questions Narrative

Prayers to the Virgin

Versicle

{

{ {

{ { {

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Stabat Mater Cuius animam O quam tristis Quae moerebat Quis est homo Quis non posset

Musical continuity

Metre

Key

Voices

Instruments

S Full S SST A T

All

6 2

g g–d d–F F–d B  –g g




g

Full B

All  vn, va

g

Full TT Full SS

— All — — All —

E E  –c c

Full T ATB SST

All

E g g E  –B  g

Full AT B Full

All




} }

7. Pro peccatis 8. Vidit suum 9. 10. 11. 12.

Eia Mater Fac ut ardeat Sancta Mater Tui nati

}

6 2

13. 14. 15. 16.

Fac me vere Juxta crucem Virgo virginum Fac ut portem

}




17. 18. 19. 20.

Fac me plagis Inflammatus Fac me cruce Quando corpus Fac ut animae

6 2





} 4 2




 vn, va —  va

— —

 vn, vc All

four versicles (the second group, vv. – , being subdivided). The brackets in the ‘Musical continuity’ column indicate groups of versicles set as continuous movements. The music of vv.  –  is continuous despite the change of metre, and in all cases but one the musical continuity reinforces groupings inherent in the text; the exception is vv.  –, which are run together, presumably to set off the final ensemble. The deployment of the voices, also, seems to have been prompted by the meaning of the words. The emphasis on soloists in vv. –  draws attention to subjective elements in the text. The opening soprano solo poignantly conveys Mary’s loneliness as well as her grief, while the alto and tenor solos in vv.  –  underline the fact that these rhetorical questions are a challenge to every listener. The full ensemble of v.  portrays the sins ‘of his people’ (‘suae gentis’), while the bass soloist in v.  depicts the dying Christ. The vocal scoring of the prayers of the faithful in vv. –  is characterized by greater emphasis on the full ensemble and on duet and trio combinations. Versicles – are set as a single movement that alternates full and duet textures, and the similarity between the opening words of vv.  and  prompts Steffani to use the same music for both, though with slight changes. A similar thing happens at vv.  and , in which the changes are confined to rescoring. The shape that these versicles impose on the last third of the setting is reinforced by the tonal similarity be-

   tween vv. – and – , respectively. The use of the six voices over the work as a whole is well balanced—each has a solo and a trio, and there are duets for two sopranos, two tenors, and alto with tenor—but this was due less to an interest in pattern than to a desire to reinforce and convey the meaning of the text. This aspect of Steffani’s setting appears more striking when one looks at Caldara’s.42 Scored for four voices (SATB), two violins, viola, two trombones, and continuo, Caldara’s Stabat Mater is far more schematic in approach. The text is divided into two equal halves, and each half into two subsections. The setting of vv. –  is in common time and introduces all four voices (together in vv.  and ; as soloists in vv.  –). Versicles  – are all in 32 and scored as solos and duets. The first half of the work thus makes no attempt to depict the isolated figure of Mary at the beginning or ‘his people’ in v. , or to highlight the start of the prayer in v. , and the connexion between vv.  and  is obliterated by the break after v. . The second half falls into two equal groups of five versicles, with frequent changes of metre and scoring, but it is difficult to relate the musical layout to the structure or meaning of the text. Of vv. –, all but one (v. ) are set for four voices, all but one other (v. ) use instruments, and the group begins and ends in the same key. In vv.  –  the vocal scoring expands from alto solo to full ensemble, and the work ends with a fugue on the subject that had been used at the beginning for the words ‘Stabat Mater’. The device imparts a sense of finality, but like the rest of Caldara’s structure, and in marked contrast to Steffani’s, it has no basis in the text. Steffani’s response to this emotive poem is evident also in his quasi-madrigalian word-painting. Examples leap from every page, but a few may be singled out for special mention. The idea of weeping or lamenting is conveyed, predictably enough, by chromaticism, but in v.  this involves an unusual modulation (Example .a) and in v.  it is combined with pedals and suspensions (Example .b). The scourging in v.  is represented by rhythmic turbulence and searing double suspensions (Example .), while the word ‘inflammatus’ (v. ) evokes an animated response reminiscent of Monteverdi (Example .). The use of word-painting can lead to musical fragmentation, but Steffani guards against this by means of his text-related structure and tonal plan and his use of melodic material and imitative techniques. Some of the salient ingredients are present in the opening vocal phrase, which exhibits a prominent leap of a minor sixth (Example .a): this interval recurs at the beginning of vv.  and , and the whole phrase appears, in a modified form, at the start of the central movement, ‘Eia Mater’ (Example .b). Not content with imitation at the unison, octave, and fifth, Steffani also makes frequent use of entries at the second and seventh. His setting of v.  begins with three pairs of such entries in the space of four bars, and the words ‘passionis eius sortem’ in v.  provoke further successive entries at the second; but the culmination of this technique occurs in v.  where, at the word ‘morietur’, each voice enters a note above the one before (Example .). The setting of this final versicle represents the contrapuntal and emotional climax of the work. The first line, up to ‘morietur’, is set spaciously but briefly as an introduction to the masterly fugal movement that follows. The first section of this fugue is scored for voices and continuo only, the subject and countersubject being





          .   Extracts from Stabat Mater: (a) from v. , ‘Quis est homo’; (b) from v. , ‘Virgo virginum’ [a] A

& b [c ]

fle

& b [c ] Strings and Organ

-

-

-

˙

œ

? b [c ] œ ˙

œ œ œ

œ œ b œ œ n œ œ œ œ œ œ . n œj ˙ œ

œ œ œ œ b œj j b œ œ

œ œ œ bœ. bœ œ œ -

-

- ret, qui

fle

. œ b œ œ b œ b œ b ˙œ

˙

œ

non

j j œ ‰bœ œ. œ œ ˙ ˙

œ

œ ˙

-

-

-

m

- ret

j œ b œœ .œ b œœ b œœ œœ b œœ œœ b m m

˙

˙

˙

m

[b] A

3 & b [ 2] . w

w.

w.

w.

˙ n˙ b˙ ˙ bw

- re,

T

V b [ 23] ˙ n ˙ b ˙ ˙ b w

fac me

w.

B, Bc and Org

? b [ 23] w .

-

fac me

j œj œ œ b c [ ] & J Jœ et

A T

T B

œœ

œœ b œœ

-

-

œ

fla - gel

 .

-

œœ . œ b œ œ œ J J ‰ Jœ

fla - gel - lis,

j œ j ? b [c] Jœ œœ J et

œœ

fla - gel

j j œ œ V b [c] Jœ Jœ et

&b c Ó

T Bc

?b c Πw

˙ w

-

-

-

-

-

w.

n˙

- ge - re.

˙ b˙. œ b˙ ˙. œ w. -

w.

w.

te - cum plan

j œœ J

-

-

w. -

-

ge - re.

w.

w.

-

-

ge

-

re.

-

j œ J

j œœ œœ J

j œœ J

lis,

j œ. bœ œ œ . œ œ œj œ œ œ J œ J J J J

et

fla - gel - lis

œ œ

œœ

-

-

et

j j œœ b œœ œ œ Œ J Jœ Œ -

-

j b œœ œœ J

j œœ J

fla - gel

j œœ Œ J Œ

lis,

fla - gel

-

lis,

et

-

lis,

et

b œœ ..

j œœ œœ .. J

et

fla - gel

Œ

j œ œj

-

-

-

- tus et ac - cen- sus

œ . œ œ # œ œ œ Jœ Jœ In - flam-ma - tus j j j j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ. œ œ#œ œ œ ˙.

j j œ œ # œj œj

et ac - cen- sus

j j œ œ œ

œj Jœ

j œ œœ œ J

Beginning of ‘Inflammatus et accensus’ (Stabat Mater) In - flam - ma -

A

-

w -

From ‘Pro peccatis suae gentis’ (Stabat Mater)

[with strings] S S

-

˙ n˙ b˙ ˙ bw

w.

- re,

 .

˙ w.

w

- re, fac me te - cum plan

˙

w

te - cum plan -

j j œ˙ œ

j œœ œœ .. J lis,

et

    . Mater)

Beginning of (a) Stabat Mater and (b) ‘Eia Mater, fons amoris’ (Stabat

[a] S

& b [ c] ˙

œ œ b œ . Jœ ˙ .

œ œ ˙

Sta

-

bat Ma

-

ter do - lo - ro -

[b] S

bw 3 & b [2] Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ . œ ˙ E - ia Ma - ter

 .

& b [ C]

fons

∑ -

ri - e

-

˙ b˙ w bw ∑ mo

? b [ C] b w .

˙ -

-

ww .

ri - e

-

-

œ

˙.

jux - ta

ri - e

˙w b w

w b˙

mo tur,

- ri - e mo ri - e

bw w˙ ˙ bw

ri - e

˙

˙

cru - cem

˙› w

ri - e -

-

tur -

-

-

tur

w -

˙

tur tur

˙ tur

œ bœ œ œ bœ œ ˙ œ bœ w ˙w w ›

˙

bw -

mo

w∑ .

∑ w

V b [ C] ∑

mo

jux - ta,

a - mo - ris

mo T B

sa

From ‘Quando corpus morietur’ (Stabat Mater)

mo A T

œ Œ

˙

˙ ˙ ˙

[with strings] S S

œ

-

-

-

-

tur

based, respectively, on the last two lines of text. The voices then rest while the instruments enter with new material, the significance of which is revealed when the voices re-enter twelve bars later. The final section, for voices and instruments together, is a double fugue that combines the material of the first (vocal) section with that of the instrumental interlude, which turns out to be the music for ‘Amen’. The potential of these pieces of material is skilfully exploited in the twenty marvellous bars that bring the work to a close. The effect of this movement is enhanced by the fact that it is the only extended piece of six-part fugal writing in the piece. Steffani saved his most ambitious counterpoint to the end, thus ensuring that his setting of the closing words, which refer to the day of judgement, would make the greatest possible impact. As he composed the music to these words, he must have been conscious of his own mortality: that he died only a month or two later lends a special poignancy to his setting. It seems highly significant that his last two works—Qui diligit Mariam and Stabat Mater dolorosa—should be heartfelt settings of Marian texts.

Doubtful Works No survey of Steffani’s sacred works would be complete without a discussion of some of the doubtful attributions.43 Careful consideration must be given to two vesper psalm-settings and six Latin duets. The Confitebor tibi Domine for two sopranos and bass, two violins, and continuo was described by Cusins as a ‘glorious’ work, ‘full of exquisite beauties’, and ‘with a





  splendid bass solo’.44 It survives only in GB-Lbl, Add. MS , where it is ascribed to ‘Abate’ Steffani and dated . The manuscript, however, appears to have been copied much later than this. A note at the front, by Vincent Novello, states that ‘the Whole is in the handwriting of Mr. [Edmund Thomas] Warren’ (ca.  – ); another inscription reads simply ‘Score/’. The volume, which contains mostly sixteenth-century pieces, is a product of the English antiquarianism that had accorded Steffani an honoured place as president of the Academy of Vocal Music.45 Although the Confitebor calls for the same voices and instruments as his ‘Fitzwilliam’ Beatus vir, the use of the forces is different. Unlike the earlier work, this one is set almost entirely for combinations of two or three voices and avoids solo sections for soprano. Only twice do the violins accompany the singer(s). The first instance of this occurs in the bass solo, which Cusins described as ‘a species of accompanied recitative’ (Example .), the other in the final ten bars. It is these that raise the greatest doubts about Steffani’s authorship, for they contain inexplicable dissonances untypical of his style (Example .). If they are the mistakes of a copyist, it is hard to find satisfactory corrections; if they are not, it is difficult to see how these bars could have been written by Steffani. A similar problem is posed by a setting of Dixit Dominus ascribed to him in D-B, Mus. ms. , a manuscript that did not belong to Bokemeyer and which also contains music by Caldara. Poelchau wrote inside the cover that the score appeared

 . to Steffani Vn I

Vn II

B

&C w

Œ

w

&C w w œ . œœœ . œ œ .œ œ . œ œ ˙ ?C Sanc

Bc

Bass solo ‘Sanctum et terribile’ in Confitebor tibi, Domine (GB-Lbl), ascribed

?C w

 .

-

-

- tum

w

Ó

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ ‰ œ œœœœ œœœœ œ œ œ œœœœ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœœ

œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ r rrr r ‰ œ œ œ Rœ œ œ œ œ œ œ Rœ Rœ Rœ Rœ œ œ œ Rœ R R R R J R RR R RR RR et ter-ri-bi-le, ter-ri-bi-le, ter-ri-bi-le, ter - ri-bi-le, ter-ri-bi-le, ter-ri - bi-le

œ

Œ

œ

Œ

From ‘Amen’ in Confitebor tibi, Domine

œ

Œ

œ

Œ

   to be autograph,46 but Dixit Dominus is not in Steffani’s hand. Although the scoring— for two sopranos, alto, tenor, and bass voices, two violins, two violas, and continuo— is not identical with that of any of his known psalm-settings, it is within the range of his style. So is much of the music, including the use to which the forces are put. Verses  and  begin convincingly with imitation (Example .); the soprano solo ‘Tecum principium’ (over a quaver bass) and the florid setting of ‘De torrente’ (on a crotchet bass) could have come from his pen, and the emphatic ‘conquassabit’ for full ensemble is reminiscent of ‘et flagellis’ in his Stabat Mater (see Example .). But other features are less convincing. The setting of ‘Tu es sacerdos’ over a pedal that consists of a major third creates uncharacteristic dissonance (Example .); the ‘Gloria’ for tenor, violin, and continuo employs figurations and echo effects redolent of earlier seventeenth-century Venetian music (Example .); and the ‘Sicut erat’, for full ensemble, is based on the same material as the opening ‘Dixit Dominus’—a unifying         .   From Dixit Dominus (D-B), ascribed to Steffani: v. , ‘Dixit Dominus’; v. , ‘Virgam virtutis tuae’ [a] S S A T B

Bc

Di

r œ œ Jœ . œ œ

w ww

w & c ww w ?c w

-

Di

-

?c w

SI

xit,

Di - xit Do - mi-nus A

w w

&

xit,

Ó

œ Di

œ œœœœœ

w

-

œ.

Œ

œœœ

Do -

œ

j r œ . œ œ œ.

xit

Do - mi-nus Do

œœ œ

-

-

œ J Rœ Rœ œ œ -

- mi-no me - o

r r œ œ ˙

mi-no me

œ

œ œœ œœœœ œ

œ -

o

œ œ

[b] S

3 & 2 w.

A

3 &2

Vir

˙

w -

gam

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

vir - tu

-

tis tu - æ

∑.

∑

w

˙

˙ ˙. œ œ #œ ˙ ˙ w

w #˙ ˙ #˙ -

gam

˙ ˙ ˙

vir - tu

-

˙˙ ˙ w

˙

˙ ˙ ˙ w #˙

tis

tu - æ

e - mit - tet

w

˙ w

˙

#6

 . S S

Tu A T B Bc

6

From ‘Tu es sacerdos’ in Dixit Dominus

‰ Tuj esj saj- cerj- dosj inj æj - terj-num,j esj saj- cerj- dosj inj æj - [ternum] c & [ ] ˙ œ œ œ œ˙ œ œ œ œ˙ œ œ œ œ˙ œ œ œ m m es

sa -

-

-

cer

-

-

-

j j j j j j j œ œj œj œ œj œ œj œ œ œj œj œ œj œ œj ˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ ?[c] ˙˙ & [c ] ‰

˙ ˙

e - mit - tet Do - mi-nus ex Si - on, e - mit - tet

w. Vir

? 23 ˙ # ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

w

[dos]

m m m

9

˙ 8

#





   . [Vn]

T

Bc

&c

˙

Vc Ó ?c w

Beginning of ‘Gloria Patri’ in Dixit Dominus

œ œ #œ #œ œ #œ œ œ #œ. Œ

œ #œ #œ œ. œ ˙ J R

œ Glo

œ J ˙

-

-

˙

-

Ó

œ œ œ #œ œ #œ œ m _

≈ œ œ œ œ œ# œ œ Jœ .

ri-a,

˙

≈

glo

˙

-

-

œ œ R -

˙

m

ri - a

m

device not found in Steffani’s psalm-settings. It is not inconceivable that the Confitebor and Dixit Dominus were composed by him, but they cannot be regarded as reliable attributions. The Latin duets, which survive in Oxford and Durham, are less likely to be his. The Oxford manuscript (Ob, Mus. d. ) is of eighteenth-century origin and once belonged to Philip Hayes. The statement, on a flyleaf, that ‘this volume is Steffani’s Composition’ may have been written by him or his father, William Hayes, in the s or s. The pieces are followed in this source by three duets to Italian texts, which cannot be by Steffani. All nine works are in the same hand, but none is individually ascribed. The Latin duets appear anonymously and in the same order in DRc, MS E. . Most of the ‘E’ manuscripts in Durham date from the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century and were bequeathed to the cathedral in ,47 but the date ‘’ on Steffani’s Gettano i re dal soglio in MS E.  suggests that this manuscript, at least, was added later. MS E.  could conceivably have been copied from the Oxford volume, though it omits two of the Italian duets and has the third incomplete. If the sources furnish no reason for attributing the Latin pieces to Steffani, the music itself provides grounds for not doing so. This is not to say that it is inferior or unlike anything he wrote. On the contrary, the works are extremely attractive, well composed, and generally within the range of his style. They were also, clearly, conceived as a set, since except for the combination of tenor and bass there is a duet for every permutation afforded by those voices, two sopranos, and an alto. Four of the pieces are based on words from the psalms, but two are not: Ad supernam coeli mensam looks forward to the joys of the heavenly feast, thus recalling Felices Adae filii in Sacer Ianus quadrifrons, while Omnes gentes ad Jesum venite condemns the vanity of the world— a favourite theme in seventeenth-century Italy.48 However, in a carefully planned group of late works by Steffani one would expect greater variety of form and metre than appears in this set. All six of these pieces have duet movements at the beginning and end and a solo for each singer in the middle, and many of the movements are linked by a phrase in the continuo. Although all of the works have at least one movement or section in triple metre ( 32 , 34, or 38 ), common time seems far more prevalent than in his authentic works. Some features are quite uncharacteristic of his style. A leap of a rising augmented fourth can be found in a melody, unprepared and unresolved sevenths between the parts, and an unprepared  –  chord in the harmony. There is a high concentration of chromaticism, and the treatment of chains of sus-

    . S

# & 43

Bc

?# 3 4

From Ad supernam caeli mensam (Anon.)

- a - tu-ra mor - ta - lis œ œ œ Siœ cre œ œ œ œœœ œ œ œ 6

&

-

?# œ œ œ

-

5 #6

4 2

 . S

6

6

œ.

-

-

- dat cum

œœœ ˙

#

gra

-

-

-

- lis ac -

-

-

-

-

-

-

7 6

4

3

- ti - a

œ

œ ˙

6

7

[# ]

From Super flumina Babilonis (Anon.)

j j rœ j r œ. r j œ œ œ. œ œ j œ & b c J œ œ Jœ œ . œ œ # œ . R R J R J œ Jœ œ œ . œ œ œ œ . œ œ Œ # Jœ . œR Jœ J ?b c ˙

œ

#

6 6 4

œ. #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ

œ

-

œ œ œ œ ˙

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ . œj ˙

Quo-mo-do can-ta - bi-mus can-ti-cum Do-mi-ni in ter-ra a - li - e

Bc

˙

œ œœ œ

œ œœ

œ œœœ

#

6

quam ci - bat e - sca vi - ta

6

# œ. #œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ - ce

œ œ . œj œ œ . œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ

∑

˙

#6

˙

˙

œ 6

œ

-

˙ 7

na?

˙ 6

#

Si ob-li-tus

˙

œ. œ œ JR fu - e-ro

#w 6

pensions over harmonic sequences is often mechanical. More unusual, however, though not obviously so, is the structure of the melody of ‘Si creatura mortalis’ in Ad supernam coeli mensam, which does not reflect the metrical regularity of the text (Example .). Recitative is more melodic and measured than is normal in Steffani (Example .), suggesting, perhaps, that the composer of these works may have been an Italian-influenced Frenchman. The two other doubtful works can be dispatched far more quickly. Estote fortes in bello is preserved only in a nineteenth-century manuscript in the Proske collection in Regensburg. The words are the antiphon to the Magnificat at Second Vespers on feasts of Apostles and Evangelists; that Kerll published a setting of them in his Delectus sacrarum cantionum () suggests that they were used at Munich. The version ascribed to Steffani, however, begins in a most uncharacteristic manner, and since it is scored for four bass voices and continuo one wonders whether it is the motet that Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei sent to Munich in . The setting of the Credo that survives in the same source looks even less like Steffani’s work. The composer’s output of sacred music presents an unusual profile. Although it includes psalms, motets, and a Stabat Mater, there is no authentic setting of a movement from the Ordinary of the Mass (despite Hawkins’s statement to the contrary49), and although a few pieces later than Sacer Ianus quadrifrons () can be credited to him, most of his sacred works were composed in the earlier part of his career. If this seems surprising for a composer who became a bishop, it should be remembered that Munich is the only Catholic court where he was formally employed as a musician. Furthermore, by the time Sacer Ianus quadrifrons was published, he had be-





  come deeply involved in the secular worlds of opera and chamber music. His first opera had been performed in  and followed by others from . In , at the latest, he had also encountered the music of Lully. There is little sign of French influence in his sacred works—perhaps it was considered too secular—but this was put to good use in his operas and chamber duets.


T O, I: G S

The composition and performance of opera occupied Steffani during the major portion of his musical career. The première of his first opera, Marco Aurelio, to a libretto by his brother Ventura Terzago, took place at Munich in January , the month in which he was promoted to director of chamber music there. He set three more Terzago librettos for Munich—Solone (), music lost; Audacia e rispetto (), a tourney, music lost; and Servio Tullio ()—and two by Luigi Orlandi: Alarico il Baltha () and Niobe, regina di Tebe (). His appointment that year as Kapellmeister at Hanover was a central part of Duke Ernst August’s plan to establish Italian opera there and enhance his standing in the eyes of German electors and dukes. Between  and  Steffani composed six three-act operas for Hanover to librettos by Ortensio Mauro—Henrico Leone (), La superbia d’Alessandro (), Orlando generoso (), Le rivali concordi (), La libertà contenta (), and I trionfi del fato (); in addition he probably wrote the two one-act operas performed there during that period—La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo () and Baccanali (). By the time he moved to Düsseldorf Steffani was active mainly in political and ecclesiastical spheres, yet he is credited with three of the operas produced at that court—Arminio (), a pasticcio to a libretto by Stefano Benedetto Pallavicini; Amor vien dal destino (, but composed at Hanover to a libretto by Mauro); and Tassilone (; Pallavicini). Meanwhile, his three-act Hanover operas had become more widely known. All six were performed in German between  and  at the Gänsemarkt theatre in Hamburg, the first public opera house outside Venice; four of them were produced at Brunswick in –, and four others were given during the same period in the southern cities of Augsburg and Stuttgart. Publication followed: arias from Orlando generoso were printed at Lübeck in ; instrumental music from the same opera was advertised by Roger in Amsterdam in about , and in the following year the overtures and other instrumental items from all six operas appeared from the same press under the title Sonate da camera. Even if Steffani had nothing to do with the performance or circulation of his operas outside their spheres of creation, their revival and publication were important in bringing his music to a larger and more varied audience than originally envisaged, including other composers and performers. They thus encouraged the cultivation of opera and instrumental music in Germany and help to account for his influence in northern Europe. By the time of Marco Aurelio, Italian opera had been established as a commercial activity in Venice for over forty years and introduced to virtually every city in Italy.1 



  Mythological subjects were giving way to historical, but comical and magical elements remained common and there was still a strong interest in spectacle—stage design and costume. The spotlight, however, fell increasingly on the singers, who were coming to be seen as the most important feature of the whole. At the same time, the recitative and arioso of mid-Seicento opera, epitomized by Cavalli, were being curtailed to make way for growing numbers of short arias (‘ariette’ or ‘canzonette’); this development attracted criticism particularly from librettists, who felt that it pandered to the vanity of the singers and vulgarity of the public and brought the theatre into disrepute. Before the century had come to an end, a major reform of Italian opera was well under way. By , also, Italian opera had long been known beyond the Alps. The imperial court enjoyed various kinds of Italian musical drama in Prague and Vienna from , and the Bavarian court in Munich did so from . Dresden mounted the first Italian opera in east Germany (Bontempi’s Paride) in , while Hanover saw its first (Cesti’s Orontea) in , the year in which the Hamburg theatre opened. Meanwhile, between  and , Mazarin had imported seven Italian operas into France; they did not succeed in supplanting the ballet de cour, the form of musical theatre traditionally preferred by the French court, but they did provide impetus for the creation of the tragédie lyrique. It is partly to France that we should look for the origins of the Italian operatic reform.2 Like most of Catholic Europe and parts of protestant Germany, Italy was influenced to some extent by the artistic culture of the court of Louis XIV. The classical theatre of Corneille and Racine, the ballet and tragédie of Lully, and the French academies of poetry and music set examples that could not be ignored. The reform of Italian opera associated with the Venetian poet and librettist Apostolo Zeno, and with his immediate predecessors and the Arcadian Academy (founded in Rome in ), resulted in a more coherent kind of drama expressed in more formal literary and musical styles. Comic was separated from tragic, casts were slimmed and subplots trimmed—all with gains in dramatic focus. Librettists cultivated a more elevated poetical style and consistently observed the distinctions between recitative and aria verse, of which the alternation became increasingly regular. By the s an Italian opera seria could have been viewed in its native land as a play clothed in music—the music, like the libretto, being subject to formal and stylistic conventions. As a composer in Germany, Steffani could not depend on such a high level of comprehension or appreciation. In Catholic Munich, with its proximity to Italy and tradition of opera, it is possible that many of his audience understood Italian librettos; even so, those of Servio Tullio and Niobe were both published in separate German and Italian editions. In Protestant Hanover, which knew only sporadic performances of opera before , the problem was evidently acute, for the librettos were printed with explanations and synopses in German and French, the main social language of the court. The wordbook of Henrico Leone, for example, includes synopses in both languages at the start of each scene, and its publication was accompanied by that of a separate German summary of the work. A similar account, usually in both French and German, was published with (or in the wordbook of ) each of Steffani’s fulllength Hanover operas, and scene-by-scene synopses in both languages appeared in most of them (this is not true, however, of the two one-act works, of which the li-

 , :   brettos are entirely in Italian). That such efforts were made to ensure intelligibility suggests that the court took its operas very seriously—something suggested also by their careful preservation of wordbooks and scores. The environments in which Steffani’s operas were created had a decisive effect on their librettos and music and the way in which he worked. In the commercial theatres of Venice, impresarios aimed to cover their costs and make a profit: they had good reason to give the public what it wanted by way of subject, librettist, composer, and, especially, singers. In German (and Italian) courts, however, opera depended on the interests of the ruling prince and the amount of money he was willing to spend on it. The rulers of Munich, Hanover, and Düsseldorf were generous patrons of opera because they saw that it could be used to political advantage. Steffani’s operas were not generally based on librettos that had been set by other composers, but on unusual subjects chosen for their relevance to contemporary situations and their potential for furthering political ambition. In most cases we do not know who chose the subject, but the material of Henrico Leone was evidently suggested for dynastic reasons by Duke Ernst August himself.3 If Steffani’s audiences were liberally helped to understand and interpret his operas, his librettists appear to have followed fairly closely, compared with their counterparts in Venice, the sources on which they drew. Steffani seems to have taken the composition of opera very seriously. Evidence of this is provided by Johann Mattheson: I was once told, of the world-famous and musically learned Steffani, that, before he even set pen to paper, he continually carried the opera, or the projected work, around with him for a period of time and, as it were, came to a complete agreement with himself as to how the whole thing might most suitably be organized. After that he committed his [musical] statements to paper. It is a good method, though I suspect that nowadays, when everything has to be done on the wing, there are few who take pleasure in exercising such deliberation.4 We are fortunate in having such an account of the working methods of an Italian composer of this period. The identity of Mattheson’s informant is unknown, but the writer himself was sufficiently close to Steffani, in time and place, to be regarded as a reliable witness. He was presumably comparing Steffani’s practices at Hanover with those of opera composers in Hamburg—or Venice, for the contrast is between a court and a public opera house and the conditions associated with each. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Steffani could afford to take his time and consider his operas carefully. This raises the question of how to approach Italian opera of the late seventeenth century. One should not assume that it shared the principles or concerns of earlyeighteenth-century opera seria, nor that it was all so thoroughly debased as to stand in need of reform. An understanding of the methods of production and consumption of opera in seventeenth-century Italy is instructive but not entirely appropriate to Steffani’s circumstances.5 Chrysander and others asserted that the composer was more of a lyricist than a dramatist,6 but this is a false opposition. In Baroque opera the dramatic is articulated by the lyrical: the music conveys thoughts and emotions,





  and Steffani’s expression of emotion in opera was praised by Johann Kuhnau.7 The numbers to be sung by a character during a work make up a portrait of his or her personality; drama resides in the relationships between the characters. As theatre, opera may ‘work’ in diverse ways, but as drama its success depends on credibility of situation and character, aptness and quality of their representation in music, variety and balance in action and music over the work as a whole, and the ability of singers to realize these features in performance.

Subject and Spectacle Many of Steffani’s operas are allegorical, reflecting the political or social concerns of the courts in which they were created. Most of the librettos that he set are based on historical subjects from classical or medieval sources—two on ancient Roman history (Marco Aurelio and Servio Tullio), three on ancient Greek (Solone, La superbia d’Alessandro, and La libertà contenta), and four on German (Alarico, Henrico Leone, Arminio, and Tassilone). The prominence of historical subjects is reminiscent of opera in contemporary Venice, but the emphasis on German history, especially of the medieval period (Henrico Leone and Tassilone), reflects Steffani’s working environment and is quite distinctive. Greek and Roman legend furnish material for five of his works (Niobe, La lotta d’Hercole, Le rivali concordi, I trionfi del fato, and Amor vien dal destino), and Renaissance literary sources that of the remaining two (Orlando generoso and Baccanali). If the moral of Marco Aurelio is underlined in its comic afterpiece (‘scenico spettacolo’), the political significance of Servio Tullio is announced in its eulogistic prologue. This is exceptional in Steffani: the prologue to La superbia d’Alessandro and the ‘introduzione’ to Amor vien dal destino merely introduce the dramas that they preface; Le rivali concordi and Baccanali begin with an introductory scene, after which there is a change of set. Most of his operas have three acts, but those to librettos by Pallavicini (Arminio and Tassilone) are in five, reflecting perhaps the influence of French tragédie. With few exceptions, the acts are concluded by ballets—another indication of French influence; these were performed at Munich by members of the court and elsewhere by the numerous extras (‘comparse’) required on stage. Together with Marco Aurelio and I trionfi del fato, which include parts for comics or gods, respectively, the three operas with prologues inevitably have larger casts than the others: the norm is eight or nine characters, including one or two nurses or servants (typical of Venetian opera before Zeno’s reforms). There is also a marked emphasis on spectacle. Most of Steffani’s operas call for ten or eleven sets and stage machinery. Several of his Hanover operas include a coup de théâtre intended to astonish the audience: the rescue of Henry the Lion from a stormtossed boat, the fall of the city of Oxydraca to Alexander, and the collapse of Atlante’s palace, together with the abduction of Ruggiero by his hippogriff (Orlando generoso), are notable examples. Scenes and machinery are described in detail in the librettos and scores, and many were extremely elaborate; here is the list from the wordbook of La superbia d’Alessandro:

 , :    Heaven, with clouds Enclosure inside the walls of Oxydraca The Macedonian camp A temple in Oxydraca with statues of Jove, Hercules, and Alexander A desert place, surrounded by hills with rising water A portico with colonnades and arches on the main square of Oxydraca A ground-floor room with a staircase leading to the apartment prepared for Alexander Ruined houses in a corner of the city, with a tower closed by an iron gate A delightful place outside the city A vast landscape dotted with Indian tents and stalls for elephants and horses; in prospect, a river crossed by a wooden bridge; in the distance, grassland.  In the prologue, a Heaven with twenty-four people The walls of Oxydraca brought down by the Macedonians The descent of Jove and the gods in the temple Alexander’s apartment and staircase, which falls in ruins The bridge, cut by the soldiers of Taxiles, from which the conspirators throw themselves into the river. It would be easy to condemn such ostentation; as Mario Praz wrote, ‘the weak spot of Europeans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was display, display in sumptuous ceremonies, theatrical performances, opera, ballet, witty devices in which the chivalrous past became atrophied, elegant emblems into which the precepts of the classical authors, philosophers and love poets were distilled and crystallized’.8 One might respond, however, that if spectacle was a vehicle for the precepts of classical authors, then display, or the love of it, was not necessarily a ‘weak spot’ at all. The crucial question, with reference to opera, is whether display—visible (scenographic) or audible (musical)—is used for a worth-while purpose or merely for its own sake.

Steffani’s Writing for the Voice So as far as music is concerned, any introduction to Steffani’s operas must begin with the voice and his style of writing for it. His key position in the history of vocal music was highlighted by Rodolfo Celletti, who saw him, along with Alessandro Scarlatti, as ‘the late seventeenth- or early eighteenth-century composer closest to the Golden Age of bel canto singing’.9 Steffani developed ‘virtuoso figurations and melodic resources manifested through a sort of vocal amplification of all the styles which from Cavalli onwards had made up Baroque opera’. Over half the cast in an average Steffani opera consists of sopranos, female and male (castrato); there are normally a couple





  of altos (male or female), and two or three tenors, basses, or baritones for smaller roles. In these respects his works are typical of Italian opera of the late seventeenth century. The tessituras of his operatic parts, however, are probably the highest of the period. Sopranos sing a⬙ more frequently than in the past and occasionally ascend to b⬙ flat or natural. Similar demands are made of alto, tenor, bass, and baritone, though perhaps the most striking feature of Steffani’s writing for natural male voices is its cantabile ‘grace and elegance’. His recitative often includes rapid declamatory flourishes that take the voice high in its range. Fast arias, particularly those conveying anger or vengeance, employ rapid scales, ‘vaulting’ leaps, and varied passages extending sometimes over several bars. Slower arias, for such ‘softer’ emotions as love, regret, or doubt, may begin with narrow intervals but intensify expression by expanding the range and embracing affective leaps. Tempo indications, slurs, and occasional dynamic and other markings help to ensure that the expressive intention is never in doubt. Celletti’s observations may be amplified. Most of Steffani’s recitative is supported by basso continuo alone; the few accompanied recitatives in his operas are reserved for special effects or moments of high tension, such as the prophecies of the Ghost of Tarquinio Prisco in Servio Tullio (Fig. .) or the Underworld scene in I trionfi del fato, o Le glorie d’Enea. The melodic quality of his ‘secco’ recitative is clearly related to the style of Cavalli: the voice generally moves by step or modest leap, and the melody is not broken up into small fragments by frequent rests—as it is in later composers. For emphasis, however, Steffani may use wide leaps, rests, pauses, or sequential repetition, as well as diatonic dissonance or chromatic motion in the voice or bass. The declamatory flourishes mentioned above, which may incorporate scalic or jagged figures and cover an octave or more, usually employ intricate syncopation, often at the level of the semiquaver, demanding exceptional energy in performance (Example .). His recitative occasionally ends with a cavata (an aria-like section for one or two voices based on the last line or two of a stanza of recitative verse), but this is far less common in his operas than in his chamber cantatas and duets.10 Over half of his operatic recitatives modulate, in the sense that they begin in one key and end in another;11 the remainder begin and end in the same key, even if they modulate midstream. Whether modulatory or not, however, the overwhelming majority of his recitatives end in the key of the aria, duet, or other movement that follows: in this they reflect the more common practice of the late seventeenth century, not that of Alessandro Scarlatti, who normally ends in a related key. These composers resemble each other more closely in the number of arias that their operas contain. Steffani’s full-length works, like most Italian operas of the period, include an average of fifty to sixty arias apiece (the number decreases during his career: Niobe and Le rivali concordi are watersheds).12 Each aria is a self-contained movement with a definite shape and identity. Its musical character is prompted by the sense, rhythm, rhyme, and even sound of the words to be set, and by such factors as the quality of the singer, the nature of his or her role, and the place of the aria in the work. The dramas are concerned above all with the emotions and relationships of the kings and queens, princes and princesses, and their servants and confidantes, who largely people the casts. The hearts and minds of the principals are the battlefield for Amore (Cupid), Fortuna (Fortune), Speranza (Hope), and other gods or personifi-

 , :  

       .  Beginning of accompanied recitative ‘Di regia salma a la salvezza assiste’ from Servio Tullio (), Act I, scene , in the hand of a Munich copyist (A-Wn, Mus. Hs. ., p. ; by permission)

cations, while their voices are vehicles for expressions of jealousy and disdain, fear and valour, anger and contrition, hope and despair, joy and sorrow, certainty and doubt, kindness and cruelty, love and every other human emotion. If all such arias hold a mirror to the courtly society that produced them, others do so more overtly by commenting on a soldier’s, lady’s, or servant’s lot. Steffani responded to all these challenges, furnishing music that reinforces the emotion, character, or situation in hand and fits the words like a glove. That he was trained as a singer in his youth is reflected in the nature and quality of his vocal lines, which may also give an indication of his own performing ability, aspirations, or preferences. The arias in Alarico were divided by Riemann into three broad categories—‘aria di bravura’, ‘aria ornata’, and ‘aria semplice’—according to the demands made on the virtuosity of the singers.13 Bravura arias are easy to identify: whether in duple or triple time, they usually move quickly and involve extended virtuoso passages, arpeggio-based melodies, and occasional precipitous leaps in the expression of strong emotion (Exx. ., .). At the opposite extreme the ‘aria semplice’ can be equally distinctive: no one would deny that a syllabic setting in dance metre should be described as ‘simple’ (Example .). Between these extremes, however, difficulties of classification abound. The difference between a ‘simple’ and an ‘ornate’ aria depends on the extent and complexity of its ornamentation. Riemann





   .

Recitative from Le rivali concordi, III/ #

# Arianna

S

Bc

r r jj # œœ œ œ œœœ œ & [c] ≈ # œ # Rœ œ œj œj ®œ # œ # œ œ œ œ J R R Jœ Jœ ≈ œ # œ # œ œ œ œ J R # Rœ œ œ ‰ Jœ Jœ Jœ Ó ? # [ c] # ˙

che già ti piac-que

˙

al -

-

- za le lu-ci

in - fi - de.

˙

˙

œœœ m

Aria ‘Han battaglia’ (Alarico il Baltha, II/)

p f œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ œ j Œ J œ

Sabina

Bc

- za le lu-ci,

œ

j j &b c Œ œ œ ˙ Han bat - ta

?b c ˙

-

#˙.

 .

S

al -

∑

-

-

-

‰ œœ ˙ œ

-

-

‰

-

-

j j œ œ ˙

Œ

glia,

œœœœ œœœœ˙ œ œ œ

œœœœœœœœ

˙ ‰œœœ

han bat - ta -

-

-

r & b œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ -

?b ‰

-

-

 . Vn

T

Bc

-

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

# & [c 23] ˙

˙

˙

# Giasone ˙ V [c 23] Ó ˙

&

a

le

-

 . Alarico

S

& 43 œ ˙

Bc

?3 œ 4 ˙

Quì ti

-

˙

œ œœœœœœœœœœœ œœœœœœœœ œ

w.

-

-

-

˙

-

-

Ó Ó 

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #˙ ˙ œœœœœœœ œ 



-

-

˙

-

-

˙

-

-

- le

w

˙

Aria ‘Qui ti voglio, o mio tesoro’ (Alarico, II/)

˙

œ œ œ œ œœœœœ œ ˙

vo - glio, o mio te - so

˙.

˙ œ œ œ

-

ro,

œ

a dar

œ

˙





w.

w.

w. 





w.

mi - e pro - cel

œ ˙

˙.

˙. œ #œ œ œ œ

˙. Ÿ œ ˙

#œ ˙

cal - mar

# ˙. œ #œ œœœœ V -

œ J

œ œ ˙. Ÿ œ ˙

˙

˙.

# ˙ w

?# ˙ ˙

[glia]

Extract from aria ‘Deh tornate, occhi stellanti’ (Le rivali concordi, II/)

˙

? # [c 23] w .

-

˙

œ œ œ œ ˙.

pa - ce

a ques -to cor.

˙.

œ œ œ ˙.

.. ..

˙

-

-

˙

-

 , :    . S

Aria ‘Se il mio cor dovratti credere’ (Alarico, I/)

Sabina . b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œj . œ & b c Œ Jœ Jœ Jœ R J R R R Se il mio cor do-vrat - ti

Bc

? c œœ œ œ b œ œ

 . S

Bc

œ bœ

cre - de- re, Dio d’A -mor?

œ œ

œ œ

Se il mio cor do - vrat - ti

œ. œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ

œ œ œ

œ bœ

m

Aria ‘Ti cedo l’alma, sì’ (Alarico, I/)

Semiamira r j & b c ‰ œj œj . œ œ œj Œ

?b c ˙

œ œœœ Œ œ Jœ Jœ . b Rœ m J

œ Œ

Ti ce - do l’al - ma,

j j ‰ j œj . œr œ œ œ œj œ J œ ti ce - do l’al - ma, sì, sì,

‰ œ œ. œ œ œ ‰ œ J

œ.

œœ

sì,

‰ œ œ œj œ œ œj œ œ œ ti

œ œ. œ œ œ

ce - do

œ œ

l’al - ma,

œ

œ

sì

œ. J

classified ‘Se il mio cor’ (Alarico, I/) and ‘Ti cedo l’alma’ (I/) as ‘ornate’ and ‘simple’, respectively, but apart from the former’s melismas of up to three bars they seem rather comparable in style (Exx. ., .). The same could be said of such 3 2 arias as ‘Care soglie, a voi mi porto’ (I/: ‘ornata’) and ‘Dove mai senza riposo’ (II/: ‘semplice’), as well as of others in 128 or 68, including ‘Son le donne senza fede’ (I/: ‘ornata’) and ‘S’io non voglio inamorarmi’ (I/: ‘semplice’). Furthermore, to describe as ‘simple’ such major set pieces as ‘Gelosia, lasciami in pace’ (I/), ‘Già comincio a farmi piangere’ (II/), and ‘Palpitanti sfere belle’ (II/), with their elaborate structure, texture, and scoring, is to defy common sense. It would be unwise to perpetuate Riemann’s system of classification, which, apart from the problems mentioned above, led him to find a large preponderance of ‘semplice’ arias in Alarico and conclude that the majority of Steffani’s movements are ‘true songs, easy to perform’.14 This is not the case. His vocal writing runs the gamut from dance-like songs to bravura arias; between is a continuous spectrum, ranging from the almost totally syllabic to the highly melismatic. Even in basically syllabic settings he often supplies extremely intricate ornamentation, particularly in his Hanover operas. For all these reasons it is doubtful whether any attempt should be made to consider his arias purely from the point of view of the vocal part; among other factors to be taken into account are the bass, texture, scoring, and presence or absence of a motto.

Aria Technique and Form The character of an aria is normally clear from the words and music of its opening phrase. This establishes its metre, tempo, key, texture, and principal melodic, rhythmic, and harmonic material, and possibly also the nature of the accompaniment. The phrase may appear at the very start of a movement or it may follow or interrupt the initial instrumental ritornello; wherever it occurs, however, it sets the tone for the





  movement as a whole. Riemann called such a phrase a ‘motto’ (German: ‘Devise’), because it functions like a heraldic device, announcing the stance of the character concerned. A motto also symbolizes the Baroque adoption and transformation of Renaissance word-painting. As Olga Termini shows with reference to Carlo Francesco Pollarolo, the melodic figures of the Baroque aria are descended from those of the Renaissance madrigal.15 The differences between the two forms derive partly from the numbers of figures involved and the ways in which they are used. The madrigal has no autonomous musical structure; the form of the setting depends largely on the nature of the text in which the important words and phrases are matched by a corresponding number of musical figures. If the compositional approach to the madrigal is therefore centrifugal, the tendency of the aria is centripetal: the text suggests a small number of musical figures that encapsulate its dominant affection and are extended, repeated, transposed, and organized into one of the standard musical forms. The motto announces the character of the aria, but the structure of the movement is founded, in most cases, on autonomous musical principles. The character of an aria is particularly clearly defined if the opening vocal phrase or motto supplies the material for an ostinato bass. An example of this is provided by the brief continuo aria ‘Io nacque sfortunata’ (Alarico, II/), in which the sixnote ostinato is made to begin on every conceivable beat of the bar and is repeated sequentially to effect modulation (Example .). Steffani was a master of every aspect of ostinato technique, which is extremely common in his first three surviving operas but comparatively rare from Niobe onward. Like ‘Io nacque sfortunata’, most of his ostinato arias are accompanied by continuo only; the few with obbligato or orchestral instruments are exceptionally fine and should be counted among his most ambitious movements. In ‘Gelosia, lasciami in pace’ (Alarico, I/), for tenor (Stilicone), two recorders, two solo violins, orchestral strings, and continuo, for example, the pain of the rejected lover is conveyed by increasing angularity and chromaticism in the vocal line and rhythmic complexity in the accompanying parts, reinforced by antiphonal use of the instruments (Example .). The aria unfolds over thirty-three statements of an abbreviated version of the ‘ciacona’ bass, in four different keys (F, C, D minor, and A minor); the phrases in the voice do not always coincide with those in the bass, as Example . shows, and the whole is arranged in a kind of abb⬘a⬘ form. Elsewhere in Alarico, Steffani uses both longer and shorter ostinatos, ranging from a full ‘ciacona’ bass in ‘Luci belle, benche nere’ (II/) to a four-quaver pattern in ‘Bianco seno’ (III/), but he does not employ the kind of ostinato based on an idiomatic instrumental figure, which was introduced in Italy around . Nevertheless, for his skill in ostinato movements he has aptly been compared to his contemporary, Purcell.16 Steffani also made liberal use of a freer kind of bass that Riemann christened ‘quasi-ostinato’. An example is provided by ‘Non ti voglio, no, no, no’ (Alarico, I/), of which the a section of the bass is given in Example .. Although this begins like a strict ostinato, the composer soon extends the quaver phrase, introduces a new intervallic pattern, and abandons quaver movement altogether at the approach to a cadence. Such basses seem to represent a halfway house between strict ostinatos and free basses running in quavers or walking in crotchets or minims.17 Quasi-ostinato and free basses, in duple, triple, simple, and compound metres, are common in operas from

 , :    . Bc

Ostinato bass of aria ‘Io nacque sfortunata’ (Alarico, II/)

%œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ ? c Œ ‰ Jœ œ # œ œ œ œ . Œ ‰ j œ œ J œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ . œj œ ‰ œ J #œ œ œ ‰ J ? œœ

% U j œœ ‰ œ Œ ‰ Jœ # œ œ # œ œ œ ‰ Jœ # œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Jœ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ ‰ œ #œ œ œ

 . Rec I/II

Vn I/II

From aria ‘Gelosia, lasciami in pace’ (Alarico, I/)

j œœ œ J

3 œ. & b [ c4 ] # œ . 3 & b [ c4 ]

Œ

Ó.

Œ

∑

j ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. œœ œ . œ œ œœ # œœ . œ. œ # œœ œ . œ œ œ œ J œ. J . J J Œ

∑ Stilicone

T

Bc

3 V b [ c4 ] œ

œ

˙.

non m’ac - cre

? b [c43]

j œ œ

œ.

œ -

-

-

œ œ œ œ œ

œ -

scer

œ.

œ

œ

più il

j œ œ

j œ œ

œ. do

-

lor,

#œ

j œœ J œ

non m’ac -

œ œ œ œ œ

j œ

œ.

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ j œ œ œ œ œœ . œ œ œœ œœ œ œœ . œ œ œœ œœ œ œœ . œ œ œœ œœ œ œ œ . œ .œ œ œ œ œ &b Œ œ œ J J œ J &b Vb ?b

œ

Œ

˙. cre

-

œ

?b C Ó

-

-

-

œ œ œ œ œ

Œ

∑

œ

 . Bc

Ó.

Œ

b˙ -

scer

œ.

œ j œ œ

˙.

#˙

più il

do

œ œ œ œ œ

˙. -

lor.

j œ. œ œ

Bass of aria ‘Non ti voglio, no, no, no’ (Alarico, I/)

nœ #œ œ œ œœœœ œ Œ

œœœ œ œœœ œœœœœ # œ n œ œœœœ œ œ œ œœœ

œ œœœœœœœ U ?b œ œ œœ œœ œ œ œ œœœœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

every stage of Steffani’s career but especially in his Hanover and Düsseldorf works; they recall Dent’s observation that Scarlatti seems to have discarded the ground bass as soon as he acquired a greater fluency of inspiration.18 In addition to furnishing a method of composition for arias, ostinato and quasiostinato basses largely determined their texture. Steffani’s use of such basses represents an aspect of his interest in counterpoint. Even in continuo arias this interest is evident in other ways, too. In some arias (or sections) every phrase of the vocal part





  is imitated or anticipated in the bass; more commonly, however, the bass imitates the voice at the beginning of a movement (or section) and then proceeds independently (Example .). The interlocking of the rhythms of the voice and bass in such arias is a further sign of Steffani’s penchant for counterpoint and is highly characteristic of his style. Even in a bravura aria the bass may imitate the vocal material when the singer has a held note or a rest (Example .). The texture may not be imitative, but it is, in a sense, contrapuntal. His predilection for counterpoint did not prevent him from using homophony, of course. Chordal or homorhythmic writing naturally occurs in movements of all kinds, with or without obbligato or orchestral instruments, but its most extreme manifestation is in arias based on dance. The metres most frequently encountered are those of the gavotte, bourrée, sarabande, and the particularly fashionable minuet; the movements are occasionally labelled in the score and almost invariably in binary form. The form of an aria is less dependent on that of its text than might be supposed. The texts of the arias in Steffani’s operas generally comprise a mere four, five, or six lines of verse. Unlike recitative, which employs lines of seven or eleven syllables (settenari or endecasillabi), arias may be based on a variety of metres—normally ottonari, senari, quaternari, and quinari (lines of eight, six, four, and five syllables)—and display a coherent rhyme scheme. When counting syllables in Italian verse one must allow for the elision or coalescence (synaloepha) of adjacent vowels and have regard to the stress at the end of each line. Most lines have a piano ending, the last two syllables being stressed and unstressed, respectively. The ending is called tronco when the final unstressed syllable is dropped, and sdrucciolo when it is followed by a further unstressed syllable (so that the stress falls on the antipenultimate syllable); in both cases, however, the syllables in the line are counted as if the ending were piano. Thus the central lines of ‘Nume implacabile’(Le rivali concordi, II/) are all quinari—one sdrucciolo, one piano, and one tronco:19 Nume implacabile, arcier terribile, tu mi perseguiti con tropp’asprezza. Tosco è de l’anime la tenerezza. Misero cor, lascia l’amor, se brami vivere senz’amarezza.

quinario sdrucciolo quinario piano quinario tronco

[ Implacable god, formidable archer, you persecute me with too much roughness. Tenderness is the poison of the soul. Miserable heart, abandon love if you want to live free from bitterness.]

The aria texts normally fall into two brief sections with a matching rhyme at the end of each, yielding such rhyme schemes as abab, abaab, abcbb, or aabccb. There are three main ways in which the stanza may be set to music: as it stands, with a repeat

 , :    . Bar.

Aria ‘Un tiranno insuperabile’ (Alarico, III/)

Pisone ˙ # œ . œn œ ? b 43 Œ œ . œ œ . œ œ œ J J J Un ti -ran - no in - su- pe - ra - bi-le

Bc

? b 3 ˙. 4

Œ

˙ j j œ. œ œ. œ œ œ

Œ

œ œ ˙

œ

œ ˙ œ

n

è l’ar -cier che im - pia-ga i cor

# œ . œj œ œ . Jœ œ

œ ˙ œ

(or recomposition) of the second section, or with a repeat of the first section after the second. The resulting arias will be in binary, abb⬘, or da capo form. The expectation of a da capo (‘from the top’) repeat is generally indicated in the wordbook by an instruction at the end of the stanza, but Steffani often supplies a da capo setting for a text that lacks such a cue; it is hard to say in these cases whether he overrode the intention of the librettist or whether the wordbook omits a da capo instruction in error (the printing of the Hanover librettos, in particular, often appears very careless). Be that as it may, it is clear that the shape of an aria text could suggest, but never dictate, the form of its musical setting. Even the binary dances display considerable musical variety. Although the two sections are separated by a double barline and repeated by the voice or by instruments, the first may end with an imperfect cadence in the tonic or a modulation to a related key and is often somewhat shorter than the second. The two halves of the ‘menüet’ ‘Ama infido col mio core’ (Le rivali concordi, II/), for example, consist respectively of eight and ten bars of 43 (barred by the composer in 64 ); the proportions reflect the shape of the two five-line stanzas, of which the rhyme scheme is abccb. The ‘sarabande’ ‘Nume implacabile’ is unusual in that its text is longer than most dance-based arias and features quinari sdruccioli, a metre associated in Seicento Italian opera both with comic numbers (e.g., drinking songs) and with invocations, the Underworld, and the expression of strong emotion. Given its structure and rhyme scheme (aabcdceefc), the stanza could have been divided, for setting to music, after line four or line six, both of which rhyme with the last. As one might guess, Steffani chose the earlier opportunity, producing an aria of eight-plus-twelve bars of 32, again barred (as usual) in six. Similar features are found in binary arias that are not based on a dance metre, although these normally dispense with the double barline halfway and employ a less homophonic texture.20 The same could be said of his arias in abb⬘ form. One of the commonest designs in seventeenth-century Italian vocal music, whether for theatre or chamber, abb⬘ form is found in Steffani’s operas more frequently than binary but less often than da capo form. The texts of such arias are virtually indistinguishable from those of binary arias: it is difficult to see any formal reason why the second portion should have been restated. Repeating the b section of a setting, however, enabled the composer to enrich the tonal structure and extend the span of an aria without recourse to da capo form. So as far as tonality is concerned, the critical moments occur at the end of sections a and b (b⬘ always closes in the home key). In the eleven abb⬘ arias in the three versions of Le rivali concordi there are only two cadences in the tonic before the final bar: in most of the major-key arias the a section ends in the dominant, while in all but one of the minor-key arias it cadences in the relative major; in both kinds of aria





  the b section invariably closes in a related key before the repeat (b⬘) finally establishes the tonic. The so-called repeat is rarely literal. It is exact in two of the arias, in the sense that the b and b⬘ sections are equal in length, but when it is even partially transposed the melody is normally modified, as in ‘Ira eterna’ (III/), so as to occupy the best parts of the vocal range. In four of the arias the opening of the b section (corresponding to one line of text) is omitted from b⬘, while in another four cases the repeat is extended toward the end of the movement: both procedures suggest that the composer wanted to dwell on the sentiments expressed in the last lines of these texts and that this is why he set them in abb⬘ (rather than binary or da capo) form. Arias in da capo form constitute the largest group of movements in the operas. In an average Steffani opera approximately  percent of the arias would be in da capo form.21 The actual proportion fluctuates very widely—from around one-third in the case of Marco Aurelio, I trionfi del fato, and the two one-act operas, to between  and  percent in the other Munich operas and Tassilone. It is hard to find a reason for such diversity. By a happy chance Le rivali concordi is closer to the average than any opera other than the pasticcio Arminio and therefore provides a suitable basis for discussion. From the three versions of Le rivali concordi a total of twenty-six da capo arias survive. In the musical sources the need for the repeat is normally indicated by a verbal incipit such as ‘Vive stelle &c.’, but sometimes a custos (direct), a note in the bass, or the non-tonic cadence at the end of section b is the only sign that a repeat of a is required.22 In the wordbooks there is often no hint at all: exactly half of these twentysix aria texts lack an instruction to repeat. As a result, the texts of such da capo arias as ‘Sol un cor degno del mio’ (I/) and ‘Serpi e faci in me vibrate’ (III/) seem virtually identical to those of ‘Ama infido col mio core’ (II/) and ‘Fra ’l timor di cielo irato’ (I/), which were set in binary and abb⬘ form, respectively. On the other hand, Steffani composed an abb⬘ setting of ‘Questa machina d’inganni’ (I/), the text of which carries a repeat instruction in the wordbook. It is impossible to say whether the setting or the wordbook represents the intention of the librettist. The music of Steffani’s da capo arias displays a number of standard features. The a section is normally longer and more elaborately structured than b; only in Tassilone, however, do we frequently encounter the kind of bipartite a section, based on a twofold setting of the first half of the text, that became characteristic of the largescale da capo aria in the early eighteenth century. The b section of a minor-key aria normally ends in the dominant minor or relative major, while that of a major-key aria usually closes in the dominant or relative minor. This, also, contrasts with the practice of the next generation: the relative minor was increasingly avoided as a destination for an aria’s b section, possibly because the close proximity of the leading note in the relative minor to the dominant note in the home key involves a ‘clash’ of a semitone (in C major: G sharp and G natural). Despite its seeming predictability, da capo form provided countless opportunities for variety, which Steffani exploited to the full. The aria might, or might not, begin with a motto, which might range in length from a few notes (and syllables) to an entire phrase of music (and words). Whether accompanied by instruments or continuo alone, it might also begin with a ritornello, the presence of which would afford further possibilities for structural variety, depending on the frequency, extent, and

 , :   tonality of its later appearances. The start of the b section might resemble that of the first, but the need for modulation, at least, would occasion development of the musical material and exploration of the dramatic significance of its text. The material of the b section may, however, contrast extremely vividly with that of section a. Such contrasts may involve two or more parameters of the music simultaneously, as examples from Le rivali concordi will show. The a section of ‘Chi mi diede gelosia’ (II/), for instance, is in common time and has a quaver bass marked ‘Presto’; the b section, on the other hand, is in 32 time and begins with imitation between voice and bass (Example .). These radical changes, which reinforce a standard contrast in tonality, spring directly from the words. The singer, Medea, whose first appearance in the opera this aria concludes, is hoping to find her husband Giasone (Jason), who has fallen in love with Atalanta. The a section of the aria expresses her jealousy of Atalanta, whom she vows to kill, while the b section anticipates the pleasure of being reunited with her beloved: Chi mi diede gelosia lacerata, trucidata caderà. Il mio ben l’anima mia nel mio seno goderà. Chi mi diede &c. [She who made me jealous will fall, lacerated and butchered. My heart in my breast will enjoy my beloved.]

The da capo instruction reminds us that the contrast also is repeated—in reverse order and perhaps to more powerful effect. The b section of ‘Che misero stato’ (III/) is exceptional in being set as recitative. Here again the contrast derives from the text: Che misero stato è quello d’un re! S’uniro a’ danni miei l’ambition, l’amore, e con perfidi amici ingiusti dei. Per privarmi del regno ogn’un congiura. Senza pietà, senza giustitia il cielo, il mondo è senza fe’. Che misero stato &c. [What a miserable state is that of a king! To my detriment, ambition with love and unjust gods with faithless friends have united. Everyone conspires to deprive me of my kingdom. Heaven lacks mercy and justice, and the world is not to be trusted.]

The a section of the aria is based on the first two lines of text, which are senari intended for setting in aria style; the b section embraces lines – , which comprise settenari and endecasillabi. By rhyming with line , the settenario tronco of line  marks the end





   .

œ r œ œ œ œ j rU j r r r & [c] R Rœ J Jœ Jœ Jœ œ œr œr œr œ œ œ Rœ œ Rœ Rœ Rœ Rœ R R J Jœ œ . œ œ Œ #

S

Aria ‘Chi mi diede gelosia’ (Le rivali concordi, II/)

Medea

tru-ci - da-ta ca-de-rà, la-ce-ra-ta, tru-ci - da-ta, la-ce-ra-ta, tru-ci-da-ta ca - de - rà.

Bc

? # [c] œj

œ

# 3 & 2 Ó ˙. Il

? # 23 [U] w ˙

œ œ œ œ œ

œ

œ œ œ

œ w.

˙.

œ ˙ w

mio ben,

l’a - ni-ma mi

Ó ˙. œ ˙ #˙

œ

œ

˙ -

œ œ œ œœ

œ

œœœœœ

Ó

23

œ œ œ œ œ 23 œ

∑

a

˙ ˙ ˙. œ m

of the recitative, prompts the da capo repeat, and prescribes its extent: in short, it defines the shape of the movement as that of an aria. If the form of the setting reflects that of the text, the structure of the stanza derives from the message conveyed. In lines –  Meleagro (Meleager) laments his plight; in lines –  he analyses why he feels so desperate. Section a is an expression of emotion, section b an exercise in reason. No wonder the former was set in aria style and the latter in recitative. The foregoing examples illustrate the contrasts of metre, tempo, texture, and style, as well as tonality, to be found in the b sections of da capo arias. Powerful contrasts occur also in the dimension of scoring, both in the nature of the accompanying forces and in the ways in which they are used. But before such matters can be explored, the question of instrumentation must be addressed.

Instruments and Accompaniments Steffani’s use of instruments has long been recognized as an important contribution to the history of orchestration. Riemann drew attention to this feature of his operas,23 and Carse compared him, in this respect, to Purcell and Scarlatti. Carse considered his orchestral string writing ‘as vigorous as that of Scarlatti, if a little less brilliant’ and mentioned his use of accompanimental patterns, reiterated chords in quavers or semiquavers, and alternation of solo and tutti passages.24 Steffani’s writing for orchestral strings is normally in four parts. In Munich he used the clef combination that is standard for this purpose today, but at Hanover, where the orchestra was predominantly French, he notated the two violin parts in the G and C clefs, respectively. In Hanoverian scores the upper three staves are frequently labelled ‘violons’ and ‘viole’, though the middle two of the four parts are occasionally called ‘hautecontre’ and ‘taille’; the bottom line is given to the ‘basse de viole’, while the continuo was realized, in both Munich and Hanover, by harpsichords (‘cembali’), theorboes (‘teorbe’), and occasionally a lute. Of two Düsseldorf operas, Arminio and Tassilone, there survive incomplete sets of parts.25 The preservation of one set of string parts for each work suggests a maxi-

 , :   mum of two players per line. The ‘violone’ part of Arminio is the only evidence that a ⬘ instrument was used in a Steffani opera; it appears to have played in all tutti passages except those with fast runs. Evidence on the use of a string instrument in simple recitative is contradictory: ‘Sento il sonno, che getta’ (La superbia d’Alessandro, II/), at which Rosane falls asleep, is marked ‘Cembalo solo’,26 suggesting that recitative was normally accompanied by more than harpsichord alone; the Arminio ‘basso continuo’ book includes the bass of the recitatives, but the ‘violoncello’ part of Tassilone omits it. The existence of a ‘cembalo’ part for Tassilone, consisting of vocal line and bass, suggests that at Düsseldorf, as at Munich and Hanover, more than one harpsichord was used, for another player must have had a full score. The principal woodwind instruments were the oboe and bassoon. In the scores of the Munich operas these are given Italian names (‘piffero’ and ‘fagotto’), but in Hanover they were referred to in French (‘hautbois’ and ‘basson’). In the final scene of Baccanali (Hanover, ) on-stage oboes are called both ‘piferi’ and ‘haub:’, removing any doubt that only one kind of instrument was involved.27 The oboe had been developed in France during the period of Lully and become known in Germany in the s. By the time of its début in an opera in Venice, in Carlo Francesco Pollarolo’s Onorio in Roma (), Steffani was an experienced and regular composer for the instrument: indeed, he was one of the first Italians to exploit its potential in opera. That he also gave it solo parts suggests that he had good players at hand whose abilities he was sufficiently imaginative to use for dramatic or expressive purposes. When a woodwind instrument has an obbligato or extended solo part, he writes it on a separate stave; but when it has a smaller solo role in a more fully scored movement, he generally uses the standard four-stave system, adding solo and tutti markings (e.g., ‘hautbois seul’, ‘tous’), as required. Solos of the latter kind for oboes were notated, at Hanover, in the G clef on the upper two staves, involving frequent alternation between C and G clefs on the violin II line. During such solos the third stave usually has rests, while the fourth is marked for bassoon. The re-entry of orchestral strings is indicated by the word ‘tous’, which, as the Arminio and Tassilone parts confirm, normally implies oboes and bassoon, both oboes doubling violin I. When the woodwind are not required, Steffani may supply a verbal instruction28 or, in the case of accompanied recitative, notate both violin parts in the C clef (see Fig. .). The only other wind instruments encountered frequently in his operas are a pair of ‘flauti’ (Munich) or ‘fleustes’ (Hanover), presumably meaning recorders; their parts are notated in the same ways as those for oboes. Trumpets and timpani are heard in occasional martial arias, ritornellos, or brief symphonies, and chalumeaux are required in Amor vien dal destino to characterise a faun (Fauno). The recitative ‘O mia progenie e di gran gente eletto’ (III/) is accompanied by a family of chalumeaux on stage, two bassoons in the wings, and two theorboes in the orchestra playing selected notes or chords;29 of chalumeaux there were presumably four, corresponding to the clefs (G, C, C, and F). The theorboes and bassoons continue throughout the ensuing aria, where the chalumeaux play ‘secondo i loro Intervalli’, omitting impossible notes and those that lie outside their range. This use of a family of chalumeaux is apparently unique.30 The scores of Steffani’s operas, both autographs and copies, are full of instruc-





  tions for performance. Like the words ‘hautbois seul’ and ‘tous’, some of these markings indicate the instruments to be used; others are concerned with performing technique. His range of tempo indications includes prestissimo, presto, allegro, andante, adagio, and grave. Dynamic markings abound, especially in arias with orchestral accompaniment, where the instruments are generally marked ‘p’ when they sound with the voice and ‘f ’ elsewhere. The normal dynamic range extends from ‘ff ’ to ‘pp’, but ‘ppp’ and even ‘pppp’ are used in Niobe (Example .). Markings in string parts are extremely detailed. The wavy lines in Example ., denoting slurred tremolo,31 reappear in other operas in conjunction with repeated crotchets. Slurs are common in violin parts, both over paired notes and over longer phrases; in Niobe the violins, at least, have to play fifteen semiquavers to a bow.32 Mutes are often required: in Niobe, again, eight solo strings (two per part) are asked to play with ‘sordine’ and ‘conciso’ (see Example .); in Amor vien dal destino (III/) the orchestral strings are marked ‘con il piombo sopra il ponte’. Quietness is implied also by the occasional use of the word ‘doux’ (see Example .),6while for exceptional effect the harpsichord is sometimes omitted.33 In all these respects the scores of the operas give the impression that Steffani possessed a very acute ear and a store of practical experience, both of which led him to notate his intentions unusually fully and clearly. They make one want to hear his music in a theatre. The orchestral accompaniments to arias are of two main kinds—either for fourpart tutti or for tutti with one or more solo parts. The latter may not require more instruments than the former, and may also be notated on four staves, but they are distinguished by the use of an instrument in a solo capacity. The difference is illustrated by arias in Le rivali concordi. The ritornello to ‘Chi mi diede gelosia’, for example, is in four parts throughout and clearly intended for tutti (strings doubled by oboes and bassoon); let us call this texture ‘Bc + ’, meaning continuo with three higher parts. The ritornello to ‘A che serve la bellezza’ (II/), on the other hand, though written on four staves, includes solo passages for two oboes and bassoon, which engage in antiphonal exchanges with the orchestra (‘tous’); similarly, the accompaniment to ‘Sol a me risponder tocca’ (III/) alternates tutti with solos for paired recorders and violins. Since both of these textures involve at least one more part than ‘Bc + ’, they may be termed ‘Bc + +’. An overwhelming majority of the arias with instruments are scored in one or other of these ways: the figures are given in Appendix C, Table A.. In every opera ex . Vn I Vn II Va

S

Bc

Aria ‘Dal mio petto, o pianti, uscite’ (Niobe, regina di Tebe, II/)

# 3 soli per part & c Ó

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ p π ∏Ø

∑

# cAnfione j œ œ œ œ J # œ œ n œ œ # œ œ œ n Jœ Jœ & œ œ œœ œ Dal mio pet - to, o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pian - - - - - ti, u 3 soli ?# c œ œœœœœœœœ œ œ œ œ œ Œ

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ œœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œ œ

œ

- te ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ œœœœœœœœ œ

- sci

 , :   cept Henrico Leone, ‘Bc + ’ is the commonest accompaniment texture; the first two operas, Marco Aurelio and Servio Tullio, have abnormally high numbers of such arias, but thereafter the figures are relatively stable. In the case of ‘Bc + +’ arias, the picture is rather more complex. Marco Aurelio and Servio Tullio, as one might expect, have very few of these, but the next three operas (Alarico, Niobe, and Henrico Leone) each have a consistently high number; it is interesting that this group of operas straddles the composer’s move from Munich to Hanover. Only the Düsseldorf operas Arminio and Tassilone display as many arias of this kind. Table A. reveals also that a minority of Steffani’s arias are accompanied by one or two obbligato instruments (‘Bc + ’ or ‘Bc + ’). Obbligatos for one solo instrument appear only in his Hanover operas: the two examples in Arminio occur in arias borrowed from Henrico Leone and Le rivali concordi, and Amor vien dal destino was composed at Hanover in the s. The obbligatos—for such instruments as oboe, bassoon, violin, bass viol, cello, and lute—may share material with the voice or contribute independent lines. Those in Le rivali concordi clearly serve an expressive purpose: the bass viol reflects both the fury (section a) and the tenderness (b) in the words of ‘Che folgori il cielo’ (I/), while the bassoon represents ‘serpents of jealousy’ in ‘Serpi di gelosia’ (II/). Such parts are extremely unusual for Italian opera of this period: they must have been written for particular players and confirm that at Hanover Steffani could count on exceptionally high standards of performance. Accompaniments for two instruments and bass occur with remarkable frequency in his operas and are highly characteristic of his style. Like his chamber duets, they reflect his partiality for the trio-sonata texture of two melody lines with continuo. Considerable variety is displayed in his choice of instruments and in the ways in which they are used. Some accompaniments are scored for two violins or two recorders, others for instruments contrasting in pitch as well as timbre (e.g., violin with bassoon, oboe with bass viol). Five of the arias in Le rivali concordi—an average number—have ‘trio’ accompaniments. In three of them the writing for instruments is relatively modest; indeed, it is unclear whether the violin parts in an aria like ‘Io comincio, o gelosia’ (I/), labelled simply ‘violons’, were intended for soloists or tutti. Oboe and violin depict the waves of the deep in ‘Il pelago ondoso’ (I/), but most ambitious is ‘Serpi e faci’ (III/), with parts for bassoon and bass viol. In view of the earlier obbligatos for these instruments, the bassoon surely represents ‘serpents’ again and the bass viol presumably ‘firebrands’; in the a section of the aria the instrumental material is related to that of the voice and continuo, but in section b it is independent of both (Example .). The contrast stems from one in the text and indicates ways in which instruments assist in the expression of emotion and in the creation of dramatic effect. The four patterns of scoring for instruments (Bc + , , , and +) are matched by the four ways in which, in arias, the forces are employed: (a) throughout, (b) in the a section (only) of a da capo movement, (c) in the ritornello but not the vocal sections, (d) in alternation with the voice in arias based on dance metre.34 Given the increasing use of instruments in Italian opera during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, arias accompanied by instruments throughout (type ‘a’) must be accorded special significance. In Steffani’s operas they frequently reflect the importance of the character, dramatic situation, or emotion involved. ‘Continuous’





          .   Extracts from aria ‘Serpi e faci in me vibrate’ (Le rivali concordi, III/): (a) section a; (b) section b [a]

Meleagro

S

& b [ c] ≈

Bsn

? b [ c] œ

B. Viol

? b [ c]

œ

Bc

? b [ c]

˙

≈ œ œ œ Jœ œj Ó

œ œœœ j Ó Jœ

Ser

-

pi,

œ œœœ œ ‰ œœ œ œ Œ

fa

-

Œ

ci

Œ

Ó

Ó

Ó

Œ

œœ ‰ œœœœœ œ m

œ. œ œ

˙

œ. œ œ

m

[b]

œ #˙

& b 23 Ó ˙ . ? 3 w b 2

˙ Ó

Ces - sa, ces - sa,

˙

∑. œœ œœ

Ó

Ó

Ó

? 3 b 2 w

Ó

Ó

˙ œœ œ ˙ œœ œ

? b 23 w

˙

˙

w

˙

˙

˙.

œ

m

˙ œœ œœ œœ m œ œ Œ ˙ œœ œ ˙ œœ œ ∑ Ó Ó in - de -

œ œ˙

-

- gno

.

w

w.

m

accompaniments are found both in da capo arias and in other sectional forms. The instrumentation may remain constant throughout, as in ‘Che folgori il cielo’ and ‘Il pelago ondoso’, or it may vary from section to section. The a section of ‘Atalanta, dove sei?’ (II/), for example, is accompanied by recorder, violin, and continuo, while the b section is supported by orchestra in four parts (‘tous’); if the lighter scoring reflects Meleagro’s wish that his beloved Atalanta might return, the heavier texture underscores his resolve to punish the person who stole her. A contrasting approach is displayed in the bipartite ‘Deh tornate, occhi stellanti’ (II/), where the virtuoso vocal line is accompanied by violin and continuo (Example .) but the ensuing ritornello is scored for orchestra. The use of instruments in the a section only (type ‘b’) is confined to movements in da capo form and must have contributed to the development of aria structure in the decades around . Arias of this kind normally begin with a brief instrumental introduction before the first entry of the voice. The accompaniment is reduced to continuo only at the beginning of the b section, and the re-entry of the instruments heralds the da capo repeat. Only one type ‘b’ aria in Le rivali concordi does not conform to this pattern, but even in ‘Sol a me risponder tocca’ (III/), which begins with the voice, the nature of the accompaniment inevitably alters twice. Such changes of scoring in arias of types ‘a’ and ‘b’ add an extra dimension to the dramatic and expressive potential of da capo form and reinforce the kinds of contrast that have already been seen in such parameters as tempo, metre, texture, and tonality.

 , :   In arias of type ‘c’ the instruments do not accompany the voice but supply a ritornello. Such ritornellos are normally brief (not more than eight bars), selfcontained, and scored in four parts. Though used mainly in conjunction with da capo form, they also preface arias in abb⬘ and aba⬘ form (e.g., ‘Ira eterna’ and ‘De l’angustie d’un regnante’ in Le rivali concordi, III/ and ). When employed with a da capo aria, the ritornello may make its first appearance either at the beginning or at the end of the a section, or after the repeat, depending on the dramatic requirements (it frequently covers an entry or exit, or other stage business); it may also return as part of the da capo. It would be misleading to describe type ‘c’ arias as ‘accompanied’, but they must be regarded as ‘arias with instruments’: the ritornello is invariably integrated with the aria by being based on its principal material, and if the ritornello precedes the first vocal entry, as often it does, it is impossible to tell, before the singer begins, that the movement is not an aria of type ‘a’ or ‘b’. Type ‘d’ arias are all based on dance metres. Mentioned above for their simple homophony and binary form, these arias also represent a distinctive group in terms of orchestral involvement. Here the instruments are used to echo discrete vocal movements or phrases. There are two main variables—the amount of music to be echoed and the nature of the ensemble employed. The dance-based arias in Le rivali concordi display the principal features of the genre. The sarabande ‘Nume implacabile’ (II/), for example, is first sung right through with continuo accompaniment then played by four-part orchestra; labelled ‘Premier Air pour les Satyrs’, this instrumental statement is both an echo of the aria and the first dance in the ballet that rounds off the act. The same pattern is used in ‘Dea triforme’, the gavotte at the end of Act I, and ‘Placidissimi momenti’, the minuet that concludes the third version of the opera, except that in these cases the orchestral statement is followed by a second verse for voice and continuo (most dance-based arias are strophic). In ‘Dea triforme’ this appears to be followed in turn by the next (orchestral) dance in the ballet; nothing survives in the score after the second verse of ‘Placidissimi momenti’, but a further orchestral movement—either a second statement of the minuet or some other dance, now lost—was presumably required to bring the opera to an end. A more diversified scheme is displayed in the remaining minuet, ‘Ama infido al mio core’ (II/), where each half of verse one is echoed immediately by a trio consisting of two oboes and bassoon; the second verse, however, is sung straight through with continuo accompaniment and repeated in its entirety by a four-part orchestra including, presumably, the woodwind. The proportion of arias with instruments in Steffani’s operas remains fairly constant throughout most of his career. In his Munich and Hanover works between a half and two-thirds of the arias are instrumental. That the limits are represented by two Munich operas, Marco Aurelio and Alarico, suggests that, for him, the s were a period of experiment. The s, by contrast, appear to have been one of consolidation, for the proportion of instrumental arias in his Hanover operas varies only from . to . percent.35 Against this background the Düsseldorf operas look anomalous. The exceptionally high figure for Arminio (. percent) may be due to the fact that the work is a pasticcio; the high percentage for Tassilone (. percent) doubtless





  reflects the growing popularity of instrumental arias in the early eighteenth century, but this could hardly be true of Amor vien dal destino (. percent), which was composed in the s. The incidence of the various aria types is also relatively stable, though with sizable variations here and there. These discrepancies probably have less to do with any overall trend than with the character of individual operas. Servio Tullio and Niobe, for example, have abnormally low proportions of type ‘a’ arias, with instrument(s) throughout, but correspondingly high ratios of types ‘b’ or ‘c’.36 The two one-act operas, La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo and Baccanali, are both exceptional, in totally different ways. Arminio, surprisingly, is relatively normal, but Tassilone’s emphasis on type ‘a’ arias, to the detriment of the three other types, is out of keeping with Steffani’s earlier works.

Duets Steffani’s operas also include a considerable number and variety of ensembles.37 Duets, trios, and larger ensembles of principals are particularly characteristic of his Hanover operas, while brief homophonic choruses of groups of undifferentiated people (e.g., soldiers) are found mainly in those written for Munich or Düsseldorf. The incidence of all kinds of ensemble and chorus must depend on the nature and structure of the libretto, but the latter in turn may be influenced by external factors: the choruses in the Munich and Düsseldorf operas may reflect the existence of choirs in the chapels of these Catholic courts, while the ensembles in the Hanover operas suggest a close collaboration between composer and librettist, propelled by Steffani’s flair for duets. Whereas trios, quartets, and larger ensembles are exceptional responses to particular situations, demanding individual attention, duets are sufficiently numerous to warrant a general introduction. The term is used here to denote independent movements for two voices, with or without instruments: cavate a due, though displaying the textural and stylistic features of duets, may be viewed as arioso extensions of recitative, while arias of which the two verses are performed by different singers in turn may be regarded as arie in duetto.38 An exceptionally high number of duets are to be found in Le rivali concordi, which thus provides ample material for discussion. A distinction must be drawn between duets in which the two characters sing the same words, those in which they express the same or similar sentiments in different words (in at least part of the movement), and those in which they express contrasting sentiments. Of the eleven duets in Le rivali concordi, six are of the first type and two of the second; differing emotions are conveyed in only three. These textual differences have implications for the musical setting. When the characters are given the same words, they can sing the same music simultaneously or successively. This is much more difficult when contrasting sentiments are involved—a situation that challenges the concept of unity of affection and thus is extremely rare in Baroque opera. The duets in which the singers deliver the same words are somewhat madrigalian in technique. Each line or two of text is set to an imitative point which is treated more or less contrapuntally until the approach to a cadence, when the texture tends to gel into homophony; the continuo generally plays a supportive role, though it may refer

 , :   briefly to vocal material. After a cadence, either the previous point is repeated, usually with the voice-parts exchanged, or the next point is introduced. The final cadence is normally marked by a brief restatement of the end of the last point. The overall structure of such movements is largely determined by the tonal plan, the repetition and inversion scheme, and the contribution of any non-continuo instruments. A good example is provided by ‘In mezzo ai terrori’ (I/), in which Atalanta and Meleagro express hope and love: In mezzo ai terrori d’un ciel minacciante speranza costante quest’alma sostien. Se m’ami, cor mio, non bramo altro ben. [Amid the terrors of a threatening sky, constant hope sustains my spirit. If you love me, my [dear] heart, I desire no other beloved.]

The six lines of text are treated in pairs, set to three points. The first point is heard once and ends with an imperfect cadence in the tonic (G major). The second and third are both repeated, with voice-exchange, ending with perfect cadences in D, G, E minor, and G. The movement is completed by an orchestral ritornello on the final point, in which two solo violins, impersonating singers, are pitted against tutti. The tempo, not marked, is lively and the counterpoint spirited (Example .). Such duets, though not easy to perform, especially from memory, make a stunning effect when they are done well. Mattheson was probably thinking of these when he noted Steffani’s unusual love of contrapuntal duets in the theatre;39 they are highly characteristic of his operas, particularly those written at Hanover.  .

Duet ‘In mezzo ai terrori’ (Le rivali concordi, I/)

S

# & c 43

S

# 3 Meleagro & c4 Œ Œ œ œ

Bc

? # c 43 ˙ .

&

# œ.

Atalanta

∑

∑

∑

Œ Œ

œ. œ œ œ œ œ œœœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. J

In mez-zo ai ter - ro

˙

-

œ œ ˙

œœœœœœœ

-

-

œ.

œœ J

œ œ œ œ œ œ . Jœ œ

-

˙.

-

-

-

-

ri d’un ciel mi-nac - cian

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- te, d’un ciel mi-nac - cian

-

-

-

-

? # ˙.

˙.

˙

œ œ ˙

-

-

˙.

-

-

œœœœœœœœœ œœœœœœœœœœœœ œ œ

œ.

- ro

# j œœœœœ œ œ œ œ. œ œ & œ œœœœœœ

In mez-zo ai ter -

œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

ri d’un ciel mi-nac - cian

œ . œj œ œ ˙

œ œ

œ œ

-

-

-

-

te

-

-

-

-

te

œœœœœœ œ œ œ œœœœœœœœœ œœœœœ œ œ œ w.

˙.

˙.

w.





  Variations on the procedures outlined above are to be found in other ‘same-text’ duets. In ‘Respiri la terra’ (I/), which is in da capo form, the opening point of the a section is used as a countersubject to that of the b section, and a ritornello appears at the end of both statements of a. ‘Finisce in contento’ (II/) and ‘Ne l’anime amanti’ (III/), two minor-key duets in abb⬘ form with the same tonal plan (i–III– i), make contrasting use of instruments. In ‘Finisce in contento’ the three main sections are rounded off by tutti, while the phrases within them are punctuated briefly by two oboes and bassoon. ‘Ne l’anime amanti’, with its three-part accompaniment for oboe and violin I, oboe and violin II, and bassoon with bass viol, is unusual in having an instrumental introduction as well as a brief peroration. Duets in which characters express similar sentiments in different words may be illustrated by ‘Vil canaglia’ (II/): Atalanta Giasone a due

Vil canaglia, empi ladroni, a me queste indignità? Cessin l’ire e si perdoni a desir che fren non hà. Cor tiranno, acerba sorte, dammi morte o libertà.

[Atalanta: Despicable rabble, impious brigand, [do you intend] these indignities for me? Giasone: Let anger cease and pardon go out to desire that knows no bounds. Both: Tyrannical heart, bitter fate, grant me liberty or death.]

At this point in the opera Atalanta and Giasone are, in a sense, prisoners of each other: she has been captured by him, and he is shackled by unrequited love of her. She reviles him for his action, he implores her to relent, and they beg each other for freedom or death. The first four lines are sung solo and entirely syllabically, but the characters sing together in the last two lines, the only ones to be repeated. Comprising just seventeen bars and accompanied by continuo only, the movement is a perfect musical response to the tension and anger of the dramatic situation. Emotion and situation are entirely different in ‘Arianna è di Teseo’ (III/), a tender duet of love and reconciliation in which the musical themes are more sensuous, the proportions more generous, and the characters accompanied by separate ensembles—Arianna by two violins and bass viol, Teseo (Theseus) by two oboes and bassoon; but apart from differences in tonality and scoring, the underlying plan is identical to that of ‘Vil canaglia’, including the combination of all the forces in the final two lines. Instruments are used again for characterisation in the duets that convey contrasting emotions, but here the voices are never combined. In ‘Cieli, voi siete senza pietà’ (I/) the earth-goddess Cibele (Cybele), accompanied by orchestra, rebukes Diana for cruelty; the latter, supported by continuo only, twice dismisses the charge by claiming that her action is justified. Their musical styles are distinct, and the orchestral passage on Diana’s material at the end of the movement means that her point of view must prevail. Contrasting metres (
and 43) are used to distinguish between Teseo and Atalanta in ‘Bellezza tiranna’ (I/), while contrasting tempos and scoring

 , :    .

From duet ‘Che feci, ahi misero’ (Le rivali concordi, III/)

Ÿ ˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ ˙ . œ ˙ #˙. œ ˙ Ó

Rec I/II Strings

S

# Adagio & c 23

∑

# 3 Niso ˙ ˙ # ˙ . œ ˙ & c2 ˙

∑

Che fe-ci, ahi mi-se-ro,

Bc

? # c3 w 2

˙

Presto

&

# ˙˙ # ˙˙ . ˙œ

&

# œ œ ˙. œ œ w.

?#

ch’ho

˙

˙˙

Tous

œ˙˙œ œ˙˙

da mo - rir?

w

w.

˙˙ . œœ ˙˙ .

˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙

˙ ˙ ˙ #˙. œ ˙

˙˙ ˙˙ . œœ w . #w. ˙ ˙

˙. œ w.

che fe-ci, ahi mi-se-ro, ch’ho da

˙ ˙ ˙ w.

w

w.

˙

œ œœ˙ œ œ˙ œ œ˙ œ œ˙˙œ œ˙ œ ˙ œ ˙ ˙˙ Ó Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Medea ˙. œ ˙ ∑. ∑. Ger - me d’un

˙ œœœœœœœœœœ œœœœœœ ˙ ˙

˙.

˙

∑.

œ˙

w.

w.

œ œ œ˙ œ œ˙ œ m Ó ˙ ˙ m m

˙. œ ˙ ∑. per - fi - do

mo- rir,

˙

∑ œœœœ m

characterise Niso and Medea in ‘Che feci, ahi misero’ (III/). This duet occurs at the climax of the opera, when, to bring her husband to heel, Medea threatens to kill their young son. The latter begins the duet by asking in all innocence why he must die; his music is marked ‘Adagio’ and accompanied by recorders and continuo. Medea replies, ‘Presto’ and with orchestra, that his father is a traitor (Example .). The movement comprises several such exchanges. The duet paints the characters and their emotional states in vivid colours and contributes powerfully to the drama of the situation.

Overtures and Dances The instrumental movements in the operas are of three kinds—overtures; dances; and brief fanfares, marches, or symphonies accompanying stage action. Steffani invariably used the Italian word ‘sinfonia’ for his overtures. The designation ‘sonata’ in Arminio, which is not in his hand, was supplied by the arranger or copyist of the pasticcio; the overture itself is based on those to Amor vien dal destino and I trionfi del fato. Hanoverian copyists regularly employed the French word ‘ouverture’. They presumably recognised that these movements are not Italian, but French overtures based on the pattern established by Lully in his ballets and tragédies lyriques. The overall structure of the French overture is already apparent in the ‘sinfonia’ to Marco Aurelio, which is exceptional for Steffani—but reminiscent of both Cavalli and Lully—in being scored for five parts (clefs G, G, C, C, and F).40 The opening movement comprises two sections, a stately introduction in  time ending in the dominant key, and a faster, longer sequel in 43 [ 64 ] beginning fugally and returning to the tonic. Although the first section contains none of the stylistic features characteristic of the French overture, its imitative textures, extended central phrase (bars  –





  ), suspensions, and sequence betray the hand of an accomplished composer. The sequence leads to the climax of the section, a sustained –  –  chord just before the double barline (Example .); similar held chords are found near the end of the fast sections in Alarico and Le rivali concordi. The second section of the Marco Aurelio overture begins with a fugal exposition in which the parts enter in descending order; the answers are tonal. After the exposition, the subject—a typical repeated-note figure— appears complete only in violin I, while the other instruments accompany in appropriate style; the harmony and texture are largely determined by the outer parts, which often move in parallel compound thirds or sixths (Example .). The overture is also exceptional for Steffani in having an additional movement—a ‘Menüet’; but the harmonic rhythm at the end of the first phrase (Example .) conflicts with that at comparable points and mars what is otherwise a polished example of the genre. The remainder of Steffani’s overtures may be summarized more briefly. The opening sections display two main ways of beginning. The overtures to Servio Tullio, La superbia d’Alessandro, Le rivali concordi (Example .), Baccanali, I trionfi del fato, Amor vien dal destino, and Tassilone begin with imitation at a bar’s distance between violin I and bass. The overture to Alarico, on the other hand, starts with a move to a  –  chord, a standard opening gambit found in Steffani’s sacred works and chamber duets, as well as in the overtures to Niobe, La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo, Orlando generoso, and La libertà contenta. Imitation between the outer parts is a prominent feature of all these sections, however they begin, and it frequently involves the inner parts as well. There are more dotted rhythms in the later overtures than in Marco Aurelio, and Le rivali concordi employs tirades and written-out trills in both violin I and bass (Example .). In most of the overtures, as in Marco Aurelio, the opening section ends in the dominant key, but in La libertà contenta it concludes with an imperfect cadence in the tonic. Of the fugal second sections, six are in common time. The subjects tend to be short and to use dotted rhythm, and once all the parts have entered, the texture can look dense. Rhythms, also, can be adventurous: Henrico Leone uses demisemiquaver scales in contrary motion, Le rivali concordi mixes triplets with dotted crotchets and quavers, and Amor vien dal destino combines quavers, semiquavers, and demisemiquavers in a way that anticipates the D major fugue in the first book of Bach’s ‘’ (Example .). Whether the overture is in a major or a minor key, there are normally two internal cadences, the first in the relative, the other in the dominant; the exception to this is the overture to Niobe, in which the harmonic palette is restricted by the addition, in the second section only, of four trumpets and two timpani. Unusual also are the overtures to Henrico Leone and Amor vien dal destino, in which the repeat of the second section is augmented by the addition of a chorus; in both, the curtain rises just after the voices have started to sing, and the overture leads straight into the action (Example .). With one exception the other fugal sections of the overtures are in 43 or 64; Alarico is unique in employing 98, though it often appears that 68 would be more appropriate. The sections in 43 or 64 generally resemble that in Marco Aurelio, but being in four parts, rather than five, the textures seem more airy and dance-like. This impression is often enhanced, though the tempo be fast, by a slow harmonic rhythm (one chord per dotted minim), dictated by the outer parts. But the major innovation in these triple-time

 , :    .

Vn I Vn II Va I Va II

Bc

Marco Aurelio, opening Sinfonia, bars  – 

Ÿ j œ ˙ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ # œ # œ # œ œ œ œ œ. œ #œ . J ˙ . œ . œ # œœ œœ œœ .# œ .œœ # œœ œ .# œ # œœ .. œ J J & [C] œ œ . Jœ # œ J j & [C] œ œœ . œ œ œœ œœ œ œœ # œœ œœ œœ œ ˙˙ .. # œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ . Jœ œ J j ? [C ] ˙ œ w œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ . œj œ œ œ . œ

 . Vn I Vn II Va I Va II

Bc

Bc

& [43] œ œ œœ œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ # œœ # œ œœ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ? [43] œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

Va Bc

œœ œ œœ œ œ œœ œœ œ œ # œœ œ œ # œœ œœœœœ œœœœ œ œ œ œœœ œ

Marco Aurelio, opening Sinfonia, Minuet

& 3 œœ

Ÿ œœ .. Ÿ

& 3 œœ ?3 œ

˙˙ ˙

 .

Vn I Vn II

œ.

œ 3 œ œ œœ œœ œ œœœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œ œœ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œœ # œœ œœ œœ # œœ œœ œ & [ 4] œ œ #œ #œ

Menuet

Va I Va II

#w w

Marco Aurelio, opening Sinfonia, bars – 

 . Vn I Vn II

w

œœ œœ œœ .. œœ . ˙.

j œœ œœ œœ # œœ œœ J j œ œ œ œ J œ œ œœ œ œ œ œ

œœ œ œœ œ œœ # œ˙

œ

œ

œ

œœ œ

From the opening Sinfonia to Le rivali concordi

jŸ j # . .œ & # C œ˙ œ œœ . œ J j ˙ œ. œ ? ## C w

Ÿ jŸ j j œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ. œ œ w œ. œ œ. œ J J j ˙ œ . œ ˙ œ . œj œ . œ œ . Jœ œ . Jœ œ . Jœ J

j ## . j œ . œ # ˙ œ œ œ . œ œ œ & ˙. œ œ . Jœ œ . Jœ j j ˙˙ œ . œ œj œ . œ œ . œ . ? ## œ. œ œ œ J . J

j œ œ . œj œœ .. œœ œ ˙≈ œ œ œ w œœœœœ œ. œ J J œ œœ œ œ œ ˙˙ .. œ. œ œ. œ œ J œ

˙˙ ˙ œ

œœœ

Œ≈ œ œ œ œ. œ J j œœ .. œœ œ œ œ œ J œœœœœ

Ÿ j œœ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ ˙˙ . œ œ. œ. . œ œ œœ #œ J ˙. j j œ . œ # œœ . œ w ˙ œ œ œ. œ ˙ œ œ œ.œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ. œœ ˙ w œ œ Ÿ j œ .n œ œ œ

Ÿ œ. œ.





   .

From the ‘Introduzione’ to Amor vien dal destino

S

# & [C]

∑

∑

∑

A

# & [C]

∑

∑

∑

T

# V [C]

∑

∑

B

? # [C]

∑

∑

Va Bc

&

# #

œ

∑ œ.

œ œ

# œ.

l’on -

?# Ó

œ œ

œ J

pla - chi

V

Au

-

l’on -

œ J

Au - stro

œ J œ -

Œ

- da,

‰

œ œ œ J J J

œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ . œ œœ .. ?# Ó ‰ œ œ. œ  .

œœ & [43] œœ .. œœ J œ ?[ 3 ] œ œ œ 4 Ÿ ˙ & ˙˙ ?˙

œ J

œ J

Au

ra

lie - ve

œ œ

œ œ J J Jœ

rab - bio - so tur - bi

œ

- da, œ œ œ œ Jœ œ J J J J

-

œ J

œ J œe J

Au - stro rab - bio-so tur - bi

Bc

-

∑

Œ

‰

œ J

œ.

œ œ.

e

œ œ œJ J J

œ J

ri -

-

ra

lie - ve

œ œ

pla - chi

∑

j œœ œœ . . J

j œ J Jœ Jœ Jœ œ œ

l’on-da, tur - bi l’on-da e fre-ma il mar

œ. œœ.

œ

œ

-

ri

-

l’on-da e fre - ma il

j œ œ. œœ. # œ . œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ . œ . œ œ . œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œœ .. & œ. œ.

Vn I Vn II Va

œ.

Ó

j œ œ œ

œ.

j # ˙œ . œ œ . œ œ . œ œœ .. œ œœ. œ œœ .. œœ œœ .œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œœ .œ œ œœ œ œœ .. œœ œœ .œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ . œœ œœ .œ œ œœ œ œœ .. œœ œ . œœ C œ. œ œ .œ œ œ œ œœœ œ. & [ ] J ‰œ œ.œ j œ œ.œ œ.œ ˙ œ œ. Ó ‰œ œ. ? # [C] ˙ Ó ∑ ∑ ∑

Vn I Vn II

&

∑

œ mar,

-

œ œ J

œ œ

-

- de il

-

œ

œ -

œ œ

Œ

mar,

œ mar,

œ.

pla[chi]

œ œ œ œ œ J J J J Jœ

tur - bi l’on-da e fre-ma il mar

j œ œœ œ. œ œ œ œ œœ œ œœ .. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ. œ œ. œ œ.

de il

œ. œœ. œ. œœ.

œ œœ . œ .

j œœ œ . œ œœ œ. J œ œ. œ j œ œ œ. œ œ. J

From the opening Sinfonia to La libertà contenta Hautb. j Ÿ œœ œœ .. œœ ˙˙ œ J

jŸ œœ Œ œœ .. œœ ˙˙ J

œ

˙ . œ Œ œ Jœ

Basson

j œ. œ ˙

j jŸ œœ Œ œœœ ... œœœ ˙˙˙ œœœ Œ œœœ ... œœ œœ œ œ J J œ Œ œ . œ ˙ œ Œ œ . Jœ œ œ J

j Tous j œœ Œ œœ .. œœ œ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ . œj œ œœ .. œœ œ . J J Œ œ . Jœ Œ Tous œ œ œ œ j œ œ . œj œ œ . Œ œ J œ. œ

Ÿ Hb. j Tous j œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ . œj œ œœ .. œœ œœ œœœ .. œœœ œ œ œ œ .. œ œ . J J J Bsn Tous œ œ œ . j œ œ . œj œ . j œ œ œ œ

Hb. j œœ œœ .. œœ œœ œ J Bsn

œ œ. œ œ J

 , :   sections is the concertato use, in Orlando generoso and La libertà contenta, of two oboes and bassoon to provide extended trios and alternate rapidly with tutti (Example .); the only previous example of this texture in an instrumental movement in a Steffani opera occurs in the final scene of Servio Tullio. Such woodwind writing is indebted more to Lully than to the Italian concerto grosso.41 The dances in the operas are also heavily indebted to French models. Every act of Steffani’s Munich operas ends with a ballet, except for the final act of the lost opera Solone, where none is mentioned in the wordbook (librettos are a major source of information on the ballets). Dancing is required also after the prologue to Servio Tullio and during Anfione’s (Amphion’s) prayer in Niobe (II/). The ballets for Marco Aurelio were devised by Oliviero Vigasio, dancing master at the University of Ingolstadt, presumably because there was no choreographer in Munich at the time; the remainder were created by the electoral dancing master François Rodier, who must have been appointed between  and the end of . The music for the ballets in Servio Tullio, Alarico, and Niobe was composed by Melchior d’Ardespin, a cornettist at Munich from at least  until his death in , and the dances for Marco Aurelio and Solone may also have been written by a local ballet composer, rather than Steffani himself. The four ballets in Servio Tullio each comprise a pair of dances in the same key, mostly in binary form. The dances are not named in the score, but every pair begins with a movement in  time and dotted rhythm which may be called an ‘entrée’. The first three ballets end with a minuet or canarie, but the last concludes with a second dance in , which seems closer to a rigaudon than to a bourrée or gavotte. The minuet at the end of the prologue is unique in being laid out on six staves (G, G, C, C, F, and F) and including trios like those shown in Example .; though the score gives no indication of the forces required, these trios may have been intended for two oboes and bassoon. Dance music survives, in varying amounts, for Steffani’s Hanover operas, and some of it, at least, was composed by him. He clearly wrote the many dances that consist of an instrumental repeat of an aria, and presumably composed the ballets that appear in the autograph score of Le rivali concordi. The ballet at the end of Act I, for the Priests of Diana, comprises a gavotte based on the aria ‘Dea triforme’, followed by an ‘entrée’.42 Act II concludes with a ballet of Nymphs and Fauns (libretto) or Satyrs (autograph), composed of a sarabande on the aria ‘Nume implacabile’ and an independent gigue. The first version of the opera ended with a sextet, with no indication in the libretto or score that this should be followed by a dance. The second version ended with a duet (‘Coronati omai’) in G major, presumably followed by the ‘Balletto del Atto .o ’—a chaconne and gigue in that key to be found in one of the copies.43 The third version finished with the A minor aria ‘Placidissimi momenti’ which, as we have seen, appears in the autograph, along with a version for instruments. The questions raised by Le rivali concordi resurface in the other Hanover operas. Dance music survives for the end of each act in Henrico Leone, La libertà contenta, and I trionfi del fato, for some acts of La superbia d’Alessandro and Orlando generoso, and for the numerous ballets in the two one-act operas La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo and Baccanali. Since most of this music is not in Steffani’s hand, we cannot be certain how much of it he composed; he probably wrote the ballets in La lotta and Baccanali, however, for





  these occur during the course of the works and appear in their rightful places in the scores. In addition to the gavotte, entrée, sarabande, gigue, and chaconne, the scores give the names of the minuet, bourrée, passepied, rigaudon, and ‘canaris’; the words allemande and courante are absent. Some ballets appear to have comprised three rather than two dances, but it is difficult to link each movement to a particular version of an opera. When I trionfi del fato was revised, the ballet of Spirits at the end of Act I was replaced by an ‘Entreé pour les Ombres’; the evidence on the other works is not always so helpful. The librettos and scores of the Düsseldorf operas suggest that dance was less important there than at Munich or Hanover. The wordbook of Amor vien dal destino, written by Mauro for Hanover, calls for a ballet at the end of each act, but the only dances at these points in the score are the final dance-like arias of Acts I and II. Similar arias occur at the end of Acts I and II of Arminio, where a ‘ballo’ is required by the score; but Act III ends with a hunt (‘caccia’) of which the music is lost, Act IV with a march, and Act V with a chorus. The libretto of Tassilone calls for a ‘ballo’ in Act II, scenes  and , and at the end of Acts III and V; since no independent music survives for these dances, the orchestra presumably repeated the preceding choruses—a minuet, gavotte, bourrée, and gigue, respectively. Overtures, ballets, and dance-based arias provide the clearest indication of French influence in Steffani’s operas. This influence is part of a larger picture. While he was writing his operas in Munich and Hanover, German composers were going to Paris, studying Lully’s ballets and tragédies, and publishing collections that reflected his influence. Georg Muffat studied in Paris from  to  and eventually published two important collections of orchestral suites—his Florilegium primum and secundum (Augsburg, ; Passau, ). Johann Sigismund Kusser studied with Lully between  and , when he published his Composition de musique suivant la methode françoise, contenant  ouvertures de théâtre accompagnées de plusieurs airs (Stuttgart, )—that is, airs de danse. A similar collection, Johann Caspar Ferdinand Fischer’s Journal de printems, was published at Augsburg in . French-style orchestral suites were evidently very fashionable in Germany and Austria toward the end of the seventeenth century. The elector of Bavaria was up with the pack. In , with d’Ardespin already long on his books, he sent Steffani to Paris for a short period of study ( –). The effects of this visit were immediate and permanent. Steffani was surely one of the first composers regularly to preface an Italian opera with a French overture. Marco Aurelio () was perhaps not the earliest work of this kind,44 but it must be one of the first in which a bipartite overture is followed by an independent dance movement. The influence of the French style is more pervasive and powerful in his later Munich operas (– ), by which time Rodier had been engaged, and even more so in his Hanover works, in which the sinfonias anticipate the overtures of Keiser and Handel. Steffani’s methods of scoring, including his use of two harpsichords and such markings as ‘tous’ and ‘violons seuls’, recall Lully’s division of the orchestra into grand and petit choeur, while his airs de danse at the ends of acts mingle opera and ballet in the manner of a divertissement.45 His use of French dances, as of the oboe, anticipates by several years their appearance in opera in Venice.46

 , :  

Reception Steffani’s Munich and Düsseldorf operas do not appear to have been well known or staged elsewhere.47 Some of them circulated privately in manuscript. In  Violanta Beatrice, writing from Pratolino, asked him to send her a copy of the arias from Marco Aurelio. In  Ruggiero Fedeli informed Steffani that his Düsseldorf operas were available in Kassel, and three years later Georg Caspar Schürmann had access in Brunswick to extracts, at least, from Arminio and Tassilone. There must have been a score of Tassilone in London in , but the projected staging was abandoned because the opera required more singers than the Royal Academy could afford. Steffani’s Hanover operas, however, became comparatively well known and influential. His six full-length works (– ) were revived between  and , in German translation, at the Gänsemarkt theatre in Hamburg. They were probably introduced there first by Kusser, who must have met Steffani in Paris, then by Reinhard Keiser. The texts of the operas as given in Hamburg combine elements from most of the Hanover versions; a score of a German version of I trionfi del fato even includes an aria cancelled in Steffani’s autograph and never performed in Hanover. The translations were by Gottlieb Fiedler who, in Der in seiner Freyheit vergnügte Alcibiades (his version of La libertà contenta), at least, accommodated his German words as closely as he could to the music for the original Italian because of ‘the excellent composition of Mr Steffani’.48 Despite his respectful attitude, scenes in the operas were moved or omitted, and musical numbers of all kinds, instrumental as well as vocal, were added, recomposed, or subtracted; many, also, were transposed, especially when there was a change of voice in a role. Four of Fiedler’s versions were staged in Brunswick in – under the direction of Schürmann, who had been a singer in Hamburg in – . Kusser, meanwhile, had formed a travelling company that performed in Kiel, Nuremberg, Augsburg, and Stuttgart: the four Steffani operas produced at Stuttgart in – were probably put on by him. There were further Steffani productions at Hamburg in , , , , possibly , and , and at Brunswick in  (two works), , and . Steffani’s Hanover operas, or extracts from them, also circulated in manuscript. Madame Kielmansegg had a score of Orlando generoso that was with Sophie Charlotte in Berlin in . Ten arias from La libertà contenta were copied in Rome by Flavio Lanciani soon after the opera’s première in . In  or  Steffani gave Rinaldo III of Modena a volume of arias from Le rivali concordi. Transcriptions or arrangements soon followed. The sarabande in I trionfi del fato (Act II) was transcribed for lute by ; on  October of that year, probably in Hamburg, ‘C. G[rimm]’ finished writing out a substantial manuscript of over one hundred pieces of music in organ tablature, of which the second half consists almost entirely of arrangements of items from Steffani’s Hanover operas;49 seven arias from Amor vien dal destino were copied for recorder in the early eighteenth century by the Hanoverian scribe B,50 and in the s two duets from I trionfi del fato were published in Paris for transverse flutes and continuo.51 Some of Steffani’s Hanover operas were known at Kassel; seven arias from them were written out by Kusser, probably in London in about ,52 and twenty-





  four movements were copied very early in the century into instrumental partbooks, now in Magdalene College, Cambridge, by Charles Babel, who had probably been a bassoonist in Steffani’s orchestra at Hanover.53 By the early eighteenth century substantial extracts from Steffani’s Hanover operas had also appeared in print. The publication in  of twenty-four arias and two duets from the Hamburg version of Orlando generoso (Der grossmüthige Roland ) suggests that the opera had been a success on the public stage. Two further editions of Steffani—‘Les Airs à joüer de l’opera de Roland à quatre parties’ (lost) and ‘Sonate da camera à Tre’—were advertised in about  –  by Roger in Amsterdam. The Sonate da camera, comprising partbooks for two violins, viola, and (unfigured) bass, contain eighty-three items from his six full-length Hanover operas, including the overture to each work followed by a selection of dances, dance-based arias (without words), detachable ritornellos, marches, and other incidental music. The selected pieces are grouped into suites of movements related by key but varied as to metre and tempo. Roger had already published similar sets of movements by Lully and called them ‘Ouverture[s] avec tous les air[s]’, thereby initiating the genre of the orchestral ‘overturesuite’, the French equivalent of the Italian concerto.54 These had been followed by the compositions of Kusser and Fischer. Steffani’s contributions to the repertory fall between these early examples and the later orchestral suites of Telemann and Bach. By advertising his suites as both ‘sonate da camera’ and ‘Les Ouvertures, Chacconnes et les autres airs à joüer des opera d’Orlando, Henricus Leo, Alexander, Gli rivali concordi, Alcibiades, Gli Trionfi del Fato’, Roger acknowledged Steffani’s distinctive combination of French and Italian styles and attempted to capitalize on it by appealing to devotees of either. Roger’s publication symbolizes Steffani’s position as an Italian composer who assimilated the French style and exerted his greatest influence in north Germany. As a result of their performance in Hamburg and subsequent publication, his Hanover operas became known outside their place of birth and encouraged the development of opera and ensemble music in northern Europe. Handel’s Alessandro () was modelled on La superbia d’Alessandro,55 while his oratorio Theodora () borrowed liberally from La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo.56 One version of the overture to La superbia d’Alessandro—not that published by Roger—was copied out in parts by J. S. Bach, probably in the s, as an appendix to a suite by his cousin, Johann Bernhard Bach.57 Kusser, Keiser, Schürmann, Mattheson, and Telemann are among the many musicians, other than Handel and Bach, who were influenced by Steffani’s Hanover operas.


T O, II: C S

Music and Drama in Alarico il Baltha Alaric I (ca. – ), king of the Visigoths, was the subject of at least three Italian opera librettos in the s. His popularity may have been related to the publication of Emmanuele Tesauro’s Del regno d’Italia sotto i barbari Epitome, cited by Luigi Orlandi as a source of his version for Steffani. This historical account of the ‘barbarian’ kings in Italy first appeared at Turin in ; that the British Library also has editions of  and , and a German translation (Nuremberg, ), suggests that it was well known. The earliest libretto about Alaric was Bartolomeo Groppi’s Alarico in Roma (Padua, ; composer unknown), but the most familiar version is the anonymous Alarico, re de’ Goti of which Bassani’s setting was performed in  (Ferrara) and  (Ferrara, Bologna, and Dresden).1 Orlandi’s libretto could conceivably be based on Groppi’s, which is dedicated to an ‘abbate Alessandro De Lazara de conti del Palù Maggiore’,2 but not on the other one. Orlandi supplies the following historical background. Alaric laid siege to Rome in the th year of its foundation, forcing the empress, after two years of resistance, to surrender. The captain of the Roman army, Stilicho, had defeated Alaric in the ‘campagna’ of Ravenna and in the Alps, but had spared his life because he had aspirations to the throne. Rome eventually fell more by deception than force. According to Procopius, Alaric pretended to lift the siege, then marched unimpeded on the Capitol, subjugating the empress and enslaving Placidia, the sister of the young emperor Honorius; Placidia later married Alaric’s brother, Ataulf. When Alaric departed, he left Rome in freedom and the empire in its former unified state. In addition to Tesauro, and Procopius’s Wars, v–vii, Orlandi acknowledged debts to Orosius, Historiarum adversos paganos, vii; Paul the Deacon, ‘Life of Honorius’ in Historia Langobardorum; Jordanes (or Jornandes), De origine actibusque Getarum; and St Augustine, The City of God, i, vii. Orlandi’s account requires correction and amplification. Having first encountered Stilicho in the Peloponnese in – , Alaric was defeated by him at Pollentia (Pollenzo) in  and at Verona in . In  Stilicho proposed an alliance with Alaric that was regarded as treacherous: he therefore fled to Ravenna, where he was murdered on  August. Three months later Alaric imposed the first of three annual sieges on Rome, which surrendered to him on  August . The empress mentioned by Orlandi was presumably Eudocia, ruler of the east. Honorius was emperor of the 



  west; he had married Stilicho’s daughter in , and his sister was to marry Alaric’s brother-in-law (not brother) in . Alaric, meanwhile, had died soon after withdrawing from Rome in . Steffani’s Alarico il Baltha, cioè L’audace re de’ Gothi (Munich, ) diverges from history in a number of ways. The action takes place in Rome, presumably in , but Stilicho is still alive, Honorio is unmarried, and additional characters fill out a modest cast (from which gods are conspicuously absent): Alarico, king of the Goths Semiamira, queen of Thrace Honorio, emperor of Rome Placidia, his sister Stilicone, captain of the imperial army Sabina, noblewoman of Rome, daughter of . . . Pisone, [Roman noble] Lidoro, confidant to Honorio

Soprano Alto Soprano Soprano Tenor Soprano Bass Bass

Extras include Goths with Alarico, Thracians with Semiamira, Romans with Stilicone, ladies with Placidia, and pages with Honorio and Sabina. Dances at the end of each act, composed by d’Ardespin and choreographed by Rodier, were performed by eight Munich courtiers (no women), including Count Felice von Preysing. The Roman baths and the Campus Martius were among the more unusual sets, but the wordbook lists neither scenes nor machines—a sign that the emphasis is not on the spectacular or supernatural. An assessment of the opera was included by Riemann in his edition ().3 He regarded it as essentially a lyrical work in which interest was concentrated in the music. Although he provided a synopsis of the libretto, he did not attempt to ‘justify’ the poet. A more critical stance was adopted in  by Andrea Della Corte, who considered the libretto typical of ‘the base mentality of Italian opera at the end of the seventeenth century’ and regarded the opera as something ‘without ideal, without poetry, without even a moral artistic conscience’.4 So as far as poetic quality is concerned, one must respect the judgement of a native Italian speaker, but when it comes to plot and characterization there is room for difference of opinion. The following synopsis suggests that the action and motivation of Alarico, though complex, are clear and comprehensible. A I. Outside the palace a chorus of soldiers and people salute Stilicone, the ‘Hercules of Rome’. Pisone offers him his daughter Sabina in marriage. She is aghast but feigns acceptance; her father does not understand why the proposal upsets her (scenes – ). Honorio learns of the betrothal from Lidoro; Sabina swears she still loves him, and he pledges himself to her (– ). Inside the palace Placidia entertains Semiamira; her departure is prevented by the arrival of Alarico, who declares his love for her. Left alone, Semiamira, who is in love with him, vows to avenge his rejection of her (–). As Honorio escorts Sabina to Placidia’s apartments, the latter appears, pursued by Alarico.

 , :   Honorio engages him in combat, whereupon Stilicone arrives with guards. Sabina tries to escape, but Stilicone makes her stay; she then tells him that she loves Honorio, and he is shattered by the news (–). Lidoro informs Placidia that Alarico has left Rome, and playfully observes that women are always the victims of love (–). In the Roman ‘campagna’ Semiamira languishes with love. Alarico woos her, but she puts him off and he apologizes. She is touched by this but unsure whether to trust him. Left alone, he looks forward to his next assault on the city (– ). A II. In a bedroom in the palace Honorio and Sabina express their mutual love. At the approach of Pisone, they hide. Honorio intercepts and overpowers him. Sabina asks Honorio to spare her father, who is forced to recognize her love for the emperor (– ). When Lidoro announces that Alarico is attacking the city, they all decide to flee. Pisone takes care of Sabina, who laments her fate (– ). By the walls of the city Placidia bewails its fall. As the defences give way, Alarico and Semiamira enter in triumph. They are met by Placidia and Lidoro, bearing gifts. Placidia’s tears win Alarico’s heart; he orders Semiamira to continue with the procession while he takes Placidia to the palace. When Semiamira protests, he has her arrested. Stilicone visits her in prison and pledges support ( –). In the imperial baths Honorio laments his separation from Sabina. She is brought in by Pisone, seeking refuge from Alarico. As her father goes off to join battle, she muses on her fate. Honorio recognizes her voice, the lovers are reunited, and fall asleep (–). Alarico now brings Placidia to the baths, where he hopes to seduce her. Discovering the others asleep, he has Honorio drugged and removed to the palace, and starts wooing Sabina instead. When she resists, he reacts with incomprehension. Placidia is outraged by his behaviour, but Lidoro observes that such fickleness is ‘il vero diletto / nel ciel di tante stelle’ (–). A III. In the Thracian camp Stilicone finds Semiamira asleep and falls for her. Pisone tries to tear him away from her, but Stilicone resists. Pisone opines that all Rome has become a mere plaything of love. Semiamira responds that, once he has been smitten, he too will understand love’s attraction, and Pisone concludes that Cupid is supreme (– ). In a banqueting hall in the Capitol Alarico prepares to celebrate his victory. Under orders from Placidia, Lidoro has made him a poisoned cup. Alarico leads in Placidia and Sabina, declaring love for them both; they profess love for him. Honorio is brought on in chains, and Alarico raises his cup to him ( –). Just at that moment Pisone arrives with news that Stilicone ‘in sen di Semiamira’ has challenged Alarico for control of the city. Releasing Honorio, Alarico promises death to the traitors. Pisone urges Honorio to join battle, while Placidia and Sabina hope that good will prevail (–). In the Campus Martius, Stilicone and Semiamira are arrested by Pisone. Stilicone begs for mercy, but Pisone





  reminds him of his earlier rejection of his advice [III/] and chides him for being so ambitious. As Alarico and Honorio enter in triumph, Pisone makes his captives bow down before them. Placidia and Sabina appear, praising Alarico’s ‘great merit’. Pleased with the outcome, Alarico forgives Stilicone and Semiamira and takes her as his bride. Honorio offers his sister to Stilicone in return for Sabina, to which all agree, and the latter observes that no pleasure is won without pain (–ult.). The character of Alarico is crucial to the drama. On one hand he is a cruel barbarian—impetuous, fickle, greedy, unscrupulous, and vain (he attempts to woo all three women in turn, attacks Rome and Stilicone, and arrests Semiamira and Honorio). On the other hand he wishes to please the Romans and reach an understanding with the emperor. This he achieves by releasing him from captivity (III/), whereupon they unite in resisting Stilicone’s attempt to wrest the throne. So far as love is concerned, Honorio and Sabina are constant; she rejects Stilicone and resists Alarico, from whom Honorio defends Placidia. Semiamira loves Alarico, who presumably captured her during an earlier campaign, and is justifiably outraged when he spurns her for Placidia; it is understandable that she should fall for Stilicone when he comes to her aid, and return to Alarico when the latter forgives them. Placidia is distressed at the fate of the city and plans to kill Alarico, while the faithful old Roman Pisone is concerned mainly with honour and duty. Apart from the overture, the music of Alarico consists of sixty-six arias, three duets, a coro of eight bars, three brief sinfonias, and recitative. Riemann discussed the arias’ scoring, mottoes, ostinatos, and ‘walking’ basses, while Della Corte praised their ‘virtuoso sobriety’ (‘sobrietà virtuosistica’), but both had difficulty in coming to terms with an operatic medium so heavily dependant on solo song.5 Alarico has a higher proportion of continuo arias—exactly  percent—than any other opera by Steffani;6 this may be related to the comparative modesty or intimacy of the drama, mentioned above. Nevertheless, the scoring of the arias with instruments is noticeably richer than in the earlier Marco Aurelio or Servio Tullio; in this respect Alarico marks an advance in the composer’s output—one that sets a benchmark for Niobe and Henrico Leone. It also displays a very high proportion of da capo or dal segno arias, a large number of ostinatos, and an abnormal approach to tonality at the end of recitative.7 Notwithstanding the emphasis on aria, Orlandi and Steffani tried to facilitate dramatic development. Recitative is seldom extensive, while arias may be brief and begin without ritornello or introduction. The opening coro is launched by only four bars of trumpets. The sequence in the ‘campagna’ in which Alarico woos Semiamira (I/–) comprises four contrasting arias with only nine and a half bars of recitative. In the first of the arias, ‘Placidette belle aurette’ (
time, A minor), Semiamira compares herself, ‘nel mio tormento’, to the gentle breeze. This is followed by Alarico’s ‘Su, su, begli occhi alteri’ ( 23, E minor), in which he boldly announces his amorous intention. Neither of these arias has an introduction. Placidia reacts to him with astonishment in three and a half bars of recitative, to which Alarico responds by begging her pardon (‘Perdonatemi, luci belle’:
time, C major). This is the only

 , :   aria in the scene to have instruments, yet it is begun by the singer, who thus keeps the dialogue flowing; his plea is echoed by pastoral recorders in amorous parallel thirds (Example .). Semiamira is moved by Alarico’s expression of humility and affection (recitative, six bars) but uncertain whether to believe him (‘Ti vorrei credere’: 83, D minor). As she exits, he vows to pursue her and anticipates his conquest of Rome (I/); his bravura aria ‘Le saette del Tonante’ (
time, F major), with tutti accompaniment and full ritornello, is a major set piece that brings the act to a fitting conclusion. Equally deft is the bedroom scene at the beginning of Act II. It opens on Honorio making love to Sabina with a mellifluous aria, ‘Luci belle’ 43, F major), in which he seductively imitates the quaver pattern of the decorated ‘ciacona’ bass (Example .). Sabina responds, after only ten bars of recitative, with ‘Molto alletti questo petto’ (
time, G minor); the aria is accompanied throughout by tutti and two solo instruments (presumably violins), whose intertwined parts are the bonds of love around her heart (Example .). This is immediately followed by a brief duet (twelve bars of 23 [ 62], G minor), in which close imitation and parallel motion represent their amorous embrace.  . Rec I/II

Aria ‘Perdonatemi, luci belle!’ (Alarico, I/)

&c Ó

œ œœœ . œ ‰ œœ œœ œ œ œ œœ . œœ œœ œœ‰ œœ œœ œ œœ ‰ œœ œœ œ œœ œœ œœ .. œ œ Œ

Œ

Alarico

S

Bc

œ. & c Œ‰ Rœ Rœ J Rœ œ ?c ˙

∑

Per-do-na-te-mi,

œ.

 .

œ J œ

Honorio

œ œ

hai si

 .

per-do-na-te-mi, per-do - na-te-mi, lu-cì bel-le!

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰J œ ‰J œ œ œ œ . J

œ œ œ. j œ ˙

dol-ce un bel di-sprez

S

Bc

œ -

zo

Œœ œ

? c b w

œ J

œœ œ œ

œœ

œ œ œ bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

che può i nu - mi in - a

œ œœœœœ ˙ œ

‰ œj œ œ œ œ œ

Tutti

œ bœ œ bœ œ œ & b c Œ Œœ œ œ œ œ œ œœ œœ b œœœ œœ # œœ œœœ œœœ. .. œœœ œ Œ œ œ &b c

œ.

-

mo - rar, che può i nu-mi

‰ œjœ œ œ œ œ . œj

˙

Aria ‘Molto alletti questo petto’ (Alarico, II/)

Vn Soli

Vn I Vn II Va

‰ œœ œœ

Œ

œœ œ . Œ ‰ œ Rœ Jœ . Rœ Jœ Rœ Rœ J R R Jœ Rœ Jœ Jœ R

∑

? b[c43] ‰ jœ œ œ . œjœ œ œ œ œ ˙

Bc

œœ œœ

From aria ‘Luci belle’ (Alarico, II/)

3 & b[c4] Œ œ œ

S

œœ

œ. ‰œœ œœ œ .

∑

∑

Sabina

Œ œ J

Vn Soli

œ œ œœ b œœ Œ œ œ bœ œ œ J J J J J

Mol -to al - let - ti que - sto

œ œ œ œœœ

w

Tutti

œ b œœ œœ œœ œœ b œœ œœ œœ œ œ œ #œ œ œj Œ J

Ó

pet -to,

œ

œœœ œœ œ





  The scenes discussed above illustrate another feature of the opera that contributes to dramatic propulsion: the use of an aria at the beginning of a scene immediately after a change of set. Three sets are used in each act (see Table .). The first change in each is followed by recitative, and so is the second toward the end of Act III. Act I begins with the coro, but the remaining four changes of scene are followed immediately by arias. The placing of arias in such positions might be thought to hold up the action, not promote it. If the arias were large, eighteenth-century da capo structures, with twofold a section and orchestral accompaniment, this might be the case, but they are not: they are relatively brief and mostly without instruments. Like ‘Placidette belle aurette’, ‘Vo scherzando col tormento’ (III/) launches a scene without introduction. ‘Luci belle’ (II/) begins with a single continuo statement of its ostinato bass. ‘Dove sei, cara mia speme?’ (II/) is preceded by an eight-bar ritornello for strings, but this serves a dramatic purpose, giving Honorio time in which to look for Sabina. With twelve arias each, two-thirds of them with instruments, Alarico and Sabina have the largest roles. He is portrayed as a lover and a courtier, as well as a warrior. When he takes Placidia to the baths, he tries to woo her with a minuet (‘Qui ti voglio, o mio tesoro’, II/; see Example .); when he escorts her and Sabina into the banqueting hall (III/), he does so to a graceful dance-like aria which they repeat as a duet (Example .). Sabina’s five arias in Act II are all marvellous and strongly contrasted in mood. After the pleasure of her love scene with Honorio (‘Molto alletti’), her despair on finding herself again in the care of her father finds expression in the poignant ‘Già cominci a farmi piangere’ (II/), in which an atmosphere of unrelieved gloom is created by a relentless tread in the bass, combined with suspensions and chromaticism (Example .). When her father leaves her in the supposed safety of the baths, she is torn by fear and hope; her torment is conveyed by a ‘battle’ aria (‘Han battaglia nel mio petto’, II/; Example .)—a genre piece, admittedly, but one that aptly portrays her attempting to keep up her spirits. After her reunion with Honorio she falls asleep to ‘Palpitanti sfere belle’ (II/), of which the opening words are reflected in paired quavers on voice and recorders (supported by detached chords on strings); the aria is twice interrupted by recitative, as she nods off, and gradually dwindles away (Example .). Compared with this, her spirited resistance to Alari .

Scene changes in Alarico il Baltha

Act/Scene

Set

Music

I/ I/ I/ II/ II/ II/ III/ III/ III/

A broad street outside the royal palace Rooms in the palace The Roman ‘campagna’ A bedroom in the palace Inside the walls of Rome The imperial baths A hilly terrain with the Thracian camp A banqueting hall in the Capitol The Campus Martius

Coro Recitative Aria Aria Recitative Aria Aria Recitative Recitative

 , :    .

(a) Aria ‘Deh, care belle’ and (b) duet ‘Si, si, mio caro’ (Alarico, III/)

[a] Vn/Ob I Vn/Ob II Va

& b c 46 Alarico

S

j œœ œ . œœj œœ .. œœ œ Ó . œœ .. œ œœ œ . œ œ

Tutti

Ó.

∑

6 & b c 4 œ œ . Jœ ˙

œ Ó.

œ œ œ œ œ œ . œj œ œ œ . Jœ

Ó.

Deh, ca - re bel - le, Bsn Bc

? c6 ˙. b 4 [b]

∑

&b Sabina

Si, si,

? b ˙.  .

œ Ó.

˙

˙.

œ Ó.

mio ca - ro,

˙.

˙.

∑

vo - glio a - mar!

si, si,

mio ca - ro,

ti

vo - glio a - mar!

˙

œ

˙.

œ ˙

˙.

˙.

ti

œ œ œ œ . œj œ œ œ œ . Jœ œ

Ó.

˙.

mio ca - ro,

˙. ˙.

From aria ‘Già cominci a farmi piangere’ (Alarico, II/)

œœ œ œœ œ œœ #œ

œ˙ œ

œ œ nœ bœ œ œœœ

Va

B b [c] ˙

œ œ

w

œ

œ

S

& b [c] œ .

Bc

œ

˙. cor.

si, si,

œœ œœ

Sabina

da - te mi’l

∑

& b [c] œ œœ #œ

Vn I Vn II

le,

œ œ œj œ œ œ œ œ œ œj . . œ

Ó.

mio ca - ro,

Placidia j & b œ œ. œ ˙ Si, si,

œ ˙

˙.

-

j œ œ . œœ œœ .. œœj œœ Ó . œ œœ .. œ œ œ. œ œ

Ó.

& b œ œ . Jœ ˙

deh, ca - re bel

˙.

˙.

∑

∑

jœ œ Ó œ o ti - ran - no, œ œ #œ ? b [c] œ œ

œ.

. j ˙ œ

o

ti - ran -

œ œ œ

œ

Œ

œ

˙œ œ ˙

bœ œ #œ œ J J œ

-

- no in - fan - te,

#œ nœ

œ œ

co’s amorous advance in the following scene is strikingly courageous and proud (Example .). The portraits of the other principals are equally appropriate and convincing. Semiamira is the most rounded, followed by Stilicone, whose ‘Gelosia, lasciami in pace’ (I/: Example .) is the highlight of his role. Honorio is the only figure, apart from Alarico, with all four types of aria; this variety is not prompted by dramatic considerations, however, for he is preoccupied throughout with thoughts of Sabina. His sister Placidia, distressed by the fall of Rome, has seven continuo arias but none with instruments—an unusual state of affairs reflecting, presumably, the stature of the singer who created the role. Pisone’s arias are not without interest, although they reflect his essential correctness, while Lidoro’s are full of gently comic observations on the topics of women and love.





   .

From aria ‘Palpitanti sfere belle’ (Alarico, II/)

Rec I

&[c]

∑

∑

∑

Rec II

&[c]

∑

∑

∑

Vn I

&[c]

∑

∑

∑

Vn II

&[c]

∑

∑

∑

Va

B [c]

∑

∑

∑

Bc

& #œ

œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ

& œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ j j & œ ‰ Jœ ‰ œ ‰ Jœ ‰ j j j & œ ‰ œ ‰ # œj ‰ œ ‰ B Jœ ‰ Jœ ‰ Jœ ‰ Jœ ‰ . & ˙

œ# œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ j ‰ j ‰ j‰ J œ #œ œ

j j‰ œ ‰ ‰ j ‰ j ‰ j ‰ œ ‰ œ J œ œ œ œ J j j j œ ‰ Jœ ‰ Jœ ‰ Jœ ‰ # Jœ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰

-

œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ

∑

∑

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ Ó œ

∑

∑

œ j j j j j œ œ œ œ œ J ‰ # œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰ Jœ ‰ J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ J ‰ j ‰ œ ‰ œj œ ‰ j‰ J œ

j‰ œ j œ‰

œ J Rœ Rœ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ -

-

 .

∑

œ ‰ j‰ j ‰ j‰ j ‰ œ ‰ Œ J œ œ œ œ J

∑

˙

(s’addormenta)

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ.

Œ

Ó

Ó

hor v’ad - dor - men

œ Ó œ

-

j j j j j j j œ ‰ Jœ ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ Jœ ‰ j ‰ œ

From aria ‘Non sperar da me pietade’ (Alarico, II/)

Sabina

r & [c] Œ Jœ . œ œ Œ Non spe - rar,

? [c] ˙

∑

j j ‰ j ‰ j j‰ j j‰ Œ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œj œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ

- to, hor v’ad - dor - men

? # œ ‰ Jœ ‰ œ ‰ Jœ ‰ J J

Bc

U ∑ j‰ œ U j ∑ œ‰

œ œ œ# œ œ œ #œ œ

Sabina U j j j j r j j rr œ œ˙ &[c] ‰ Jœ Jœ Jœ œ Jœ œ œ œ Œ œ . œ œ ‰ œ # œ œ œ œj œj Œ ∑ œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ I-ne-bri-a-ti i sen-si ce - do-no a dol-ce o - bli-o. Del mio sol hor v’ad - dor - men U j ?[c] ∑ œ ‰ œ ‰ œj‰ j ‰ œj ‰ œj ‰ œ ‰ Jœ ‰ w w w J J #œ

S

S

U œ œœœœ ∑ œ# œ œ U œ ∑ œ œ œ œ œ œ# œ U j j j j ∑ œ ‰#œ ‰ œ ‰ œ ‰

Ó

œ Œ Jœ . œr Jœ Jœ œ œ œ Jœ œ œ œ non spe-rar da me pie - ta-de,

œœ œ œ œ œ œ Œ ≈ œ œ œ œ œ œ .œ œ

œ

Ó

j j Œ œj . r œj œ œ œ œ œ œ j œ œ non spe-rar da me pie - ta-de

≈ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ œ .œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ. œ

 , :   The scores in Vienna and Schwerin (A-Wn, MS ; D-SWl, MS ) generally agree with each other and with the printed libretto.8 The scores differ from the libretto in I/ and in omitting the second verse of the last aria. The wind parts in Honorio’s ‘Care soglie, a voi mi porto’ (I/) are assigned to recorders in Vienna but to oboes in Schwerin: their parallel thirds are uncharacteristic of Steffani’s writing for oboes but resemble that for recorders in ‘Perdonatemi’ and ‘Dove sei’. Alarico does not appear to have been revived or revised, but the existence of a printed edition makes performance a practical possibility.

Niobe, Amphion, and Max Emanuel That Niobe, regina di Tebe (Munich, ) is a remarkable work is signalled in the overture by the exceptional appearance of trumpets and drums. The scoring is more finely conceived and carefully executed than in Steffani’s earlier operas, and new heights of intensity are attained in melody and harmony. For the first time in his career, the number of arias falls below sixty and that of ostinatos below five—levels that he never exceeded again.9 In these respects, Niobe represents a watershed in his output. The subject of the opera was inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses, book VI. As Orlandi explains in his libretto, Niobe and Amphion (It. Anfione), queen and king of Thebes, were celebrated figures. A daughter of Tantalus, she was endowed with courage and manliness; a son of Zeus, he was an enlightened ruler and an expert musician. Both were regarded as more divine than human. But Niobe grew proud, despised the gods, and prevented Manto, daughter of Tiresias, from offering a sacrifice to Leto (Latona). For this the Fates slew her seven sons. Amphion, in despair, took his own life; Niobe died of grief; Manto went to Italy and married Tiberino, king of Alba. As Orlandi also explains, the legend was embroidered by later hands. The erection of the walls of Thebes was attributed by some to Amphion’s singing and by others to his lyre playing; Leto and her children, Apollo and Diana, were credited with punishing Niobe and turning her to stone. According to Ovid, however, Leto incited her children to exact revenge, which they did by descending to earth and killing Niobe’s sons. In spite of this, and Amphion’s suicide, Niobe rashly boasted that she still had more children than Leto. At this second affront to the goddess, Niobe’s seven daughters were slain and she was turned to stone by grief.10 If the libretto focuses ultimately on the terrible consequences of Niobe’s arrogance, the score is concerned also with the mysterious and magical power of music, personified in the figure of Amphion. The role of the king is one of the greatest that Steffani composed. Eight of his nine and a half arias (the half is a strophe of an aria in duetto; he also has a duet) call for instruments in addition to continuo. The scoring is never in less than four parts and often in more. In five of his arias—an exceptionally high number for one character—the instruments play throughout. He may have slightly fewer arias than Niobe, but only four of hers call for instruments. The presence of only one other type ‘a’ aria elsewhere in the opera throws the role of Amphion into even sharper relief.





  His opening arias are modest affairs that establish his relationship with Niobe. ‘Sollievo del mio seno’ (I/) is an ostinato aria in aba form (the repeat is written out) with continuo only; she responds with a second stanza, ‘Mia gioia, mio diletto’. In ‘Miratemi, begl’occhi’ (I/) he beseeches her to favour him with a glance; the mood is captured by a mixture of imploring Neapolitan harmony and playful dotted rhythms, and the singer can loosen up in the movement’s comfortable semiquaver scales. This is Amphion’s only type ‘c’ aria. His first major scene occurs in the middle of Act I, when, alone in the Palace of Harmony, he seeks comfort in music from the affairs of the world.11 The scoring of this scene (I/) is unusually rich. Amphion is accompanied on stage (‘in scena nascosti’) by an unseen ensemble of ‘viole’ and ‘bassi’ (C, C, C, and F clefs) and in the orchestra by two recorders and two solo string players per part; harpsichords and theorboes are silent.12 The scene begins with an accompanied recitative of over forty bars. An introduction is supplied by the on-stage instruments; these being hidden, the music sounds ethereal, disembodied, and soothing (the tempo is slow; the mode major; the texture contrapuntal and rich, like consort music). The orchestra comes in with the singer, whose part includes an upward leap of a tenth (on ‘cari asili di pace’) and demisemiquaver scales covering intervals of an eleventh (on ‘egri pensieri’ and ‘sciogler del cor’). As Amphion tries to clear his mind of tiresome cares, the orchestra breaks into repeated quaver chords, but the ‘viole’ continue to provide a sustained background, suggesting the eternal impassivity of the universe. The aria ‘Sfere amiche, or date al labro’ ( 64; F major), which is accompanied by the same forces, invokes the music of the spheres. The relentless circling of the planets is marvellously captured in a one-bar ostinato of six crotchets that begins on the subdominant note and is drawn down to the tonic as if by gravity. The falling scales of the bass are complemented by rising motion in the upper instruments; furthermore, when the violin parts move, the ‘viole’ are generally stationary, and vice versa. The effect of continual rotation created by contrary-motion scales is thus reinforced by constant oscillation between stage and pit (Example .). The aria is a da capo structure with approximately thirty statements of the ostinato in each section. While those in section a are all in F and C major, section b has examples in the minor keys of D, C, and G, and in B-flat and E-flat major; those in D minor fall from tonic to dominant and are therefore harmonized differently from the rest. In order to lead smoothly into the repeat, the b section ends, unusually, in the subdominant key. Thus tonality, too, comes full circle. Amphion’s next aria, ‘È di sasso chi non t’ama’ (I/),13 is an exuberant number in which he rejoices in his love for Niobe. Although the mood of this da capo continuo aria is entirely different from that of ‘Sfere amiche’, the a section is based on exactly the same figure in the bass, this time treated more freely in quasi-ostinato fashion (Example .). Assuming that this was not a coincidence, the composition of two such contrasted arias over the same figure compels admiration and suggests that Steffani was trying to say something about Amphion’s two loves—of music and Niobe— and the relationship between them. The king’s power as a musician is displayed in ‘Come padre e come dio’ (I/),14 in which he asks Jove to protect Thebes against the Thessalian army. As he sings this intense prayer (in 23 and C minor), with suspensions

 , :    .

From aria ‘Sfere amiche, or date al labro’ (Niobe, I/)

Viols

& b 46 w . w .

Viols

?b

Rec I/II Vn I Vn II Va

S

&b

˙ . w . ˙ œ œw .œ œ ˙ . ˙ . w . ˙ œ œw . œ œ ˙ . œœœ œ œœœ œ . w. ˙. ˙ ˙. ˙. ˙ ˙. 46 w œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ ∑ 46 w . ˙. ˙ œ œ œ ˙. ˙. ˙ œ œ œ ˙. w. w.

6 & b 4 w. w. 6 &b 4

œœœ œ w. ˙ ˙.

˙. w.

Anfione

∑

∑

I cembali e le teorbe tacciano tutta la scena.

Bc

Bc

-

-

-

˙

w -

-

-

∑

˙. œ ˙

˙.

- re a - mi - che,

? b 46 Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ Ó.

 . S

w.

w.

Sfe

œœœ œ w .˙

˙. w.

Aria ‘È di sasso chi non t’ama’ (Niobe, I/)

# Anfione ˙. & # 43 Œ œ . Jœ ? # # 43 ˙.

È

di sas

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œj Ó . œ œ

˙. -

-

-

-

-

-

‰ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ.

-

- so chi

j œœ œ œ

non

œ

t’a - ma

˙.

‰ œ #œ œ œ œ

in the bass, accompanied piano by two solo strings per part, defensive walls rise up; when he sees them (just after the start of the da capo repeat), he abandons the aria and breaks into recitative as joyful as it is incredulous (Example .). If his first two arias in Act II are notable mainly for their orchestration, the third is remarkable for its coloratura. ‘Ascendo a le stelle’ (II/), his modest reaction to his deification by Niobe, is accompanied by tutti with a concertino of two oboes and bassoon, while ‘Dal mio petto, o pianti, uscite’ (II/) is supported by semiquaver chords on strings and continuo.15 Poliferno has called up the Underworld, and Amphion is terrified: the repeated chords, with precisely notated diminuendos, show him trembling with fear; his tears fall to a slow, chromatic scale (Example .). Later in the act he learns from Tiresias that Creon has made off with Niobe; beside himself with fury, he rouses himself to vengeance. The result is one of the most tempestuous bravura arias that Steffani ever wrote. A foretaste is provided toward the end of the preceding recitative, where the words ‘corran le Furie’ elicit a piece of semiquaver coloratura that leaps a minor seventh and spans a minor thirteenth.16 Agitation is conveyed in the aria, ‘Tra bellici carmi’ (II/; Table .), by coloratura and constant changes of metre. The a section twice changes to 83 and back. This signature is used only for the word ‘armi’, set to semiquaver passages of six and seven bars (of 68 ), respectively. With its wide range and jagged leaps, the coloratura demands exceptional agility, as well as large lungs (Example .). The b section also includes four changes of time, for the last two lines are repeated. The signatures imply changes of speed and clearly were prompted by the words. The lines that are set





   . Vn I

Vn II

Va

S

From aria ‘Come padre e come dio’ and following recitative (Niobe, I/)

b 2 soli ˙ & b [c23 ] ˙ ˙ p bb c 3 2 soli Ó & [ 2] w p 2 soli B b b [c23 ] n w ˙ p bb c 3 Anfione & [ 2] w . Di

Bc

˙

˙

˙ n˙ ˙ w

˙

Ó b˙ nœ œ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ b˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

Ó ˙ ˙ n˙ ˙ ˙

w

w ›

Ó ˙ ˙ n˙ ˙ ˙ bw.

o,

som - mo

Gio-ve,

›. U ∑

w b˙ ˙

Ó ˙ ˙ n˙ w

w.

-

? b b [c23 ] w. b &b ˙

n˙ ˙ ˙ w

w.

Ó

˙ ˙

˙. œb˙ w.

w

w

Ó ˙ ˙ w

˙ w

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ w

˙ ∑.

›.

˙ ˙ ˙ b˙. œ ˙ w.

∑

∑

∑

b &b w

˙

U ˙

c

∑

∑

∑

B bb w

b˙

U ˙

c

∑

∑

∑

b &b Ó

˙ b˙

? bb ›

˙

som - mo Gio-

c

j j œ œ ‰ Jœ œ œ ‰ J

Ma,

c w

˙

som-mo Gio-ve, or mi pro - teg - gi!

c

segue subito

˙ b˙

œ œ ‰ j j j ‰ j œ œ ‰ œ œ œ Jœ J J œ œ œ œ JJ R R

che mi-ro? che scor -go?

w

i mar- mi,

i

sas-si

˙

a - ni - ma - ti

˙

in 23 and
23 are relatively slow, contrasting both with ‘a guerra furente’ and with the surrounding a sections. Amphion’s first aria in Act III follows Niobe’s decision to defend Thebes against Creon. Having invested her with authority, he now feels a mere plaything of fortune, with no hope of happiness. ‘Ho perduta la speranza’ (III/), a D-minor minuet in ‘rondeau’ form, combines pleasure and despair, and it differs from most other dance arias in denying its oboes and bassoon a solo trio. In his final aria, ‘Spira già nel proprio sangue’ (III/),17 which he begins after plunging his sword into his breast, Amphion dies before reaching the end. The a section is slow and in the unusual key of F minor, which Steffani reserved for the expression of extreme emotion and exceptional events. Amphion’s pain is felt in the tortured shape of his first phrase, while gasps for breath are heard in the rests and staccato semiquavers of subsequent lines. The accompaniment is mainly for two string instruments per part—playing ‘conciso’ and with mutes18—punctuated by occasional chords on tutti; the texture is imitative, chromatic, and, like Amphion himself, broken. He rouses himself to fury against the gods in the b section, which is consequently faster, bravura in style, and accompanied by repeated semiquaver chords (fifteen to a bow19) marked ‘incitato’. At the repeat,

 , :    .

Structure of ‘Tra bellici carmi’ (Niobe)

Section

Text

{ {

a

b a

Signature

Tempo




Tra bellici carmi risvegliati all’armi, invitto mio cor! Quest’alma dolente a guerra furente già desta il valor! Tra bellici carmi &c.

Fast Fast Fast Slow Fast Slow

3 8




3 2 6 12 [sic]
23

however, of which the start is written out, the vocal line is further fragmented, and syllables are omitted as his strength ebbs away (Example .). As he expires, Niobe surveys in horror the demise of her offspring and husband; as she feels herself turning to stone, she sings a short continuo aria (‘Funeste immagini’), terrifying in its intensity (Example .), which she is unable to complete. Notwithstanding her earlier love songs to Amphion and Creon, and her bellicose ‘In mezzo a l’armi’ (III/), this final utterance is the climax of her role. There follows only a brief scena ultima in which Creon is crowned king. The role of Amphion was doubtless composed for the distinguished soprano castrato Clementin Hader: some of his arias bear striking ‘family’ resemblances to those for Alcibiades in La libertà contenta (Hanover, ), which also was taken by Hader.20 The figure of Amphion, king and musician, was evidently intended as a tribute to (and symbol of ) Maximilian II Emanuel, elector, singer, and viol player, and joint dedicatee of Niobe. The ‘Palace of Harmony’ scene was later incorporated or transformed into Pietro Torri’s cantata La reggia dell’armonia (August ):21 that Max Emanuel was entertained by this piece when he returned to Munich after exile in Brussels suggests that he recognized Steffani’s compliment and admired this portion, at least, of his greatest Munich opera.

 . S

Bc

From aria ‘Tra bellici carmi’ (Niobe, II/)

# Anfione j r r j rœ œ j & c ‰ œj œ œ œ œ œr Rœ Jœ œ R J œ Œ ?# c

&

œœœœœ œœœ ‰ j œj œr œr 38 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœœ

Ris-ve-glia-ti all’ ar-mi, all’ ar-mi, all’ ar-mi!

œ.

œ

œ œ

œ.

œ œ œ

Ris-ve-glia-ti all’

œœ œ œ œ

œ

ar

-

3 œ 8œ

œ.

-

‰ œ

-

-

‰ œ

-

-

‰ œ

‰

# œœœœœœœœœœ œ j œ œ œœœœœœ œœœ œ œœœ œ œœœœœœœœœœ œ œœœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ c œ œj -

?# œ

-

‰ œ

-

-

‰ œ

-

-

‰

œ

-

‰ œ

-

-

‰ œ

-

‰ œ

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

‰ œ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ œ œ ‰ cœ

mi!





   .

Vn I Vn II

From aria ‘Spira già nel proprio sangue’ (Niobe, III/)

Gli 8 instr[omen]ti che concertano mettino le sordine e suonino conciso soli 2 soli tutti 2 soli

Ó b & b b [c] ‰ Jœ n œ b œ n œ b œ œ

Va

B b b b [ c]

∑

S

b & b b [ c]

∑

Bc

2 soli

‰ œnœbœnœbœ œ J Anfione

Œ Ó œ œœ Œ œ ‰J Œ Ó

Spi 2 viol.

-

-

w

tutti

ra già

nel pro…

‰ Jœ n œ b œ

- ma

Œ ? bb œ b w  .

Niobe

pal

Ó

Anfione

‰ œj ‰ œ Jœ œ œ

œ -

li

œ ‰ Jœ œ

bœ

soli

Œ ‰œ J

Œ

œœ Œ ‰J Œ

soli

soli Œ œ

Œ

Œ œ

L’al-ma pal-li…

l’al -

j ‰œ b œ n œ œ n œ

œ

Œ tuttij soli ‰ ‰ œ œ œ j œ n œ ‰ ‰ J nœ ‰

‰bœ

tutti

Œ b Jœ ‰

soli

j œ

œ ‰ Œ J

Niobe

Anfione

Em-pio Fa-to!

an

3 Œ b Jœ . œr j j ‰ œ œ œ n œ œ . . œ.

œ nœ bœ nœ bœ œ ‰J

œ

‰ œj

˙

n

n

b ˙. œ ˙ b˙ b˙ n˙ ˙ œ œ œ n œ . Jœ ˙ . œ w . & b 23 ˙ b ˙ n ˙ #˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ #˙. Fu - nes-te im-ma-gi-ni,

Bc

Œ ‰ solij œ Ó

Aria ‘Funeste immagini’ (Niobe, III/)

Niobe

S

san-gue

3 ‰ œ. œ. œ. ˙

œ

Œ Œ

tutti

soli

œ b œ œ ‰ Jœ n œ b œ œ b œ œ

Cru-do ciel! tre - man

˙

œœ

œ œ bœ. œ . ‰ œ œ ‰ J J Rœ Œ

‰ Jœ

Œ ‰ j Œ œj ‰ tutti Œ b œœ & b b n œ b œ b œ n œœ n œ b œ n œ b œœ œ œ ‰ Œ ‰ œ Œ Œ Œ ‰ J tutti œ Œ ‰ J ‰ Jœ Œ œ Œ B bbb b œ n œ œ n œ œ Œ b &bb Œ œ

tutti

Œ œ Œ œ Ó

Ó

‰ Jœ b œ

Œ

˙

? b b [ c] ˙ b

Œ

‰ j œ n œbœ nœ bœ œ Ó Ó

? b b 23 ˙ ˙ ˙ w .

già mi tor - men - ta-no,

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ n˙

˙

già mi tor - men -

˙ ˙ ˙ w.

-

w

-

- ta- no

˙

w

˙

Problems in the Revision of Alessandro La superbia d’Alessandro () is the earliest of Steffani’s Hanover operas to have been revived in the year after its first performance, a pattern that was repeated in subsequent years. Revival inevitably entailed revision. In the case of Orlando generoso and Le rivali concordi the various versions are relatively clear, but this is not entirely true of Alessandro. The revision of this opera was more extensive than that of these subsequent works—though not as radical as the overhaul of I trionfi del fato during its opening season—and resulted in the title being changed to Il zelo di Leonato (). The sources of Alessandro and Leonato leave loose ends, which are investigated here.

 , :   The life of the Macedonian leader Alexander the Great ( –  BC) was repeatedly quarried by opera librettists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Cicognini’s Gl’amori di Alessandro Magno e di Rossane (with music by Francesco Lucio) and Sbarra’s Alessandro vincitor di se stesso (Cesti) both date from the early s. Sbarra’s La magnanimità d’Alessandro (also Cesti) followed in , and Aureli’s Alessandro Magno in Sidonia (Marc’Antonio Ziani) in . Sbarra’s and Aureli’s librettos continued to be heard in Italy in the s. Zeno’s Alessandro Severo, the basis of Handel’s eponymous opera (), was set by Lotti for Venice in , while Metastasio’s Alessandro nell’Indie, the source of Handel’s Poro (), was first heard in Rome, with music by Vinci, in . Mauro’s libretto for Steffani is unique among these in starting, after a prologue, with Alessandro’s daring assault on the Mallian city of Oxydraca, a feature that was borrowed by Rolli and Handel in Alessandro ().22 The prologue to La superbia d’Alessandro is not a blatant eulogy of its patron but a preparation for the drama that follows. Glory (soprano) returns with Mars (bass) from a military campaign to relax among the Muses. Pallas (soprano) welcomes them back and asks Poetry (alto), Music, and Painting (both soprano) to portray some exploit of Alexander the Great. The Arts accept the challenge; the opera is the result. In addition to Alessandro (soprano), the cast includes the following: Tassile, king of India Lisaura, daughter of the king of Scythia, in love with Alessandro, loved by Tassile Rosane, daughter of a prince of Persia, in love with, and loved by, Alessandro Clito, a captain in the army Leonato, a captain in the army Cleone, a Sicilian, a favourite of Alessandro Ermolao, a noble youth in Alessandro’s guard Giove

Soprano Soprano Soprano Bass/baritone Alto To be discussed Soprano Bass/baritone

Alessandro is the central character right from the start. In I/ he leaps into Oxydraca and into the teeth of the enemy. His army brings down the city walls and saves him.23 He attributes his delivery to his valour and to Jove, whom he claims as his father. Rosane, Lisaura, and Tassile are introduced in scenes  – . The princesses are rivals for Alessandro’s love. In I/ he reveals that he loves Rosane more than any empire and that he pretends to love Lisaura in order to curry favour with Scythia. Because of this, Tassile believes that Alessandro is his rival for Lisaura. Rosane is loved also by Cleone and Clito, who first appear in scenes  –. Cleone hopes to win her with support from Alessandro, whom he serves as an obsequious henchman. Rosane occasionally pretends to love Clito, who despises Cleone’s sycophancy. It is with the feelings and relationships of these six characters that the opera is largely concerned. There are three main strands to Alessandro’s character—his love of Rosane; his political and military ambition; and his arrogance, intransigence, and impetuosity. The flaw in his character is seen first in I/, when he returns in triumph to his people. After a congratulatory ensemble he inadvertently offends both Rosane and Lisaura,





  makes Tassile and Clito jealous, and becomes disconcerted as events slip from his grasp. When Ermolao asks him unwisely for the most beautiful slave, Alessandro loses his temper and condemns him to be whipped; he defuses the situation by ordering Cleone to prepare sacrifices to Jove in thanksgiving for his victory. His weakness emerges again in the temple (I/ – ): Leonato refuses to bow down before Alessandro, who therefore throws him to the ground. Leonato flees, followed by Ermolao, with whom he forms an alliance against their leader. Jove descends to support the worship of Alessandro, and the act ends with a ballet of gods. In Act II Leonato and Ermolao hatch a plot to kill Alessandro by causing his house to fall down around him. The plan is triggered at the end of the act but completely misfires. Alessandro becomes angry when Clito rejects a token of his favour (II/) and eventually tries to kill Clito. Clito escapes, and the noise is mistaken by Leonato’s accomplices as the signal for the house to come down. Alessandro, however, survives unscathed, attributes his salvation to Jove, and orders Cleone to arrest Clito. Act III begins with Clito in prison. Leonato forces Cleone to release him, locks up the jailer instead, and persuades Clito to join his alliance against Alessandro (scenes – ). Rosane is astonished to find Cleone in prison and warns Alessandro of danger (). Tassile advises Alessandro to seek refuge in his camp on the other side of the river and gives him his ring as a sign of authority. Rosane offers to take him to the bridge by a secret route, while Tassile organizes military support. Alessandro eventually accepts their advice (). At this juncture Tassile seems to side with the conspirators (). Alessandro has just crossed the bridge () when Lisaura warns him of Tassile’s ‘betrayal’ (). Rosane and Cleone (released from prison in III/) explain that the ‘betrayal’ is merely a pretence (). Concealing soldiers at both ends of the bridge (), Tassile encourages the conspirators to follow Alessandro across. When the party reaches halfway, his soldiers cut the bridge: Ermolao and Clito fall into the river and drown; Tassile prevents Leonato from throwing himself in (). Alessandro now appears, disarms Leonato, and rewards Tassile with a gift of land. Lisaura is reconciled with Tassile, and Rosane with Alessandro, who orders Cleone to prepare for a double wedding. Tassile invites Alessandro to forgive Leonato, which he does (while comparing himself with Jove). Praising hope, constancy, and perseverance, the two pairs of lovers bring the opera to an end. Alessandro’s lack of self-moderation is the mainspring of the drama. Apart from repeatedly claiming descent from Jove, he orders Ermolao to be flogged, throws Leonato to the ground, and has Clito imprisoned. His behaviour is reinforced by Cleone, whose sycophancy is fuelled by the hope of winning Rosane. Alessandro’s ambition makes him pretend to love Lisaura and create misunderstanding. The rivalry between the two princesses is almost resolved prematurely when Lisaura encourages Tassile to believe that she will finally love him (III/), but her decision is overturned by his ‘betrayal’ of Alessandro (III/) and the outcome remains in doubt until the end. Tassile’s rivalry with Alessandro is more apparent than real. Having defeated the king, Alessandro gives him back his dominions (I/); by heeding Tassile’s advice and forgiving Leonato, he shows further magnanimity, albeit heavily tinged with pride. The opera was apparently intended to explore the question of leadership. The wordbook’s ‘Explanation of the Subject of the Drama for the Ladies’ begins as follows:

 , :   Of all the enemies that Alexander had to combat, the most dangerous was his own continued success. That indomitable spirit, unbeaten in the most terrible conflicts, allowed him to be corrupted by the flattering charms of fortune, and, though he carried his arms victorious to the ends of the world, failed to achieve the most difficult and important condition for human happiness—the capacity for self-moderation.24 It is doubtful whether this comes across. Despite his faults, cruelty, and misdemeanours, Alessandro triumphs, eluding his enemies and winning the woman he loves: his arrogance does not prevent his success. If this is not the message that the opera was meant to convey, there must be a different interpretation. A clue is provided at the end of the ‘Explanation’, which states that ‘the virtue and beauty of a pretty woman can easily conquer and enchain those spirits who at all other times pass as quite invincible’;25 this point is underlined in the French version (only) by the following poem: L’Amour ne trouve point de Vainqueur invincible: Les Guerriers par ses mains se laissent desarmer; Pour estre un Grand Heros l’on n’est pas moins sensible, Et l’ombre des Lauriers n’empeche pas d’aymer. [Cupid finds no conqueror invincible: warriors allow themselves to be disarmed by his hands; one is no less sensitive for being a great hero, and the cover of laurels does not preclude love.]

At the end of the opera it is hope, constancy, and perseverance that are praised, not bravery, justice, magnanimity, or any other military or political virtue: ultimately, the opera is about love. The discrepancy between intention and achievement in La superbia d’Alessandro may help to explain why the opera was thoroughly revised. The most important alterations are the omission of the prologue and the expansion of the role of Leonato, which accounts for the new title. The omission of the prologue entails the loss of four ensembles, four arias, and a quantity of recitative, but this is offset by additions. Leonato has only four arias in Alessandro; of these, two are retained in Leonato, while the others are replaced. In addition, Leonato gains at least five arias and more than fifty lines of recitative. The differences between his roles in Leonato and Alessandro, based on the librettos, are summarized in Table .. Other alterations are relatively modest. Alessandro acquires extra lines of recitative in the first scene (before ‘Tra le stragi e tra le morti’) and the last; Cleone gains a new solo scene (I/), including the aria ‘È la corte un mar crudele’; Ermolao has additional lines of recitative in I/ (formerly ) and an extra aria in III/ (‘Disprezza la morte’). As a result of the insertion of Cleone’s new scene in Act I, scenes  – are renumbered as –; scenes  –  are not renumbered, however, so the wordbook of Leonato has two scenes bearing the number . Lisaura loses verse  of the aria ‘Gelosia, lasciami in pace’ (II/) but acquires the whole of verse  of the finale (verse  is given to Rosane). Leonato contains seven arias and nearly eighty lines of recitative that are not in Alessandro,26 but because of omissions the operas are similar in size. The amendments result in a change of dramatic emphasis. This is made clear at





   . a

The role of Leonato as revised for Il zelo di Leonato

Act/Scene

Content

I/ I/ () I/ () II/ II/ II/ II/ III/ III/ult.

Extra recitative and aria (‘Deh, tempra l’ardor’) Extra recitative; aria ‘Pravi tempi, empi costumi’ replaced by ‘A qual idolo dispensi’ Extra aria (‘Non è sempre lieto e felice’) Extra aria (‘Armono il braccio mio’) Aria ‘Ogn’astro ti fugga’ retained Extra aria (‘Il tiranno caderà’) Aria ‘Son vicini i precipizi’ replaced by recitative and aria (‘Al fin lasciatemi’) Aria ‘Chi crede esser felice’ retained Extra recitative and aria (‘Morirò, ma nel morire’)

a Scene

numbers in parentheses refer to Alessandro.

the beginning of the new ‘argomento’, which concentrates more on Leonato than on Alessandro: ‘The generous zeal with which Leonato, a general in the army of Alessandro, exposed himself to every danger for the glory and safety of his king could not lower itself to the servile submission and profane adoration that Alessandro, corrupted by success and the adulatory Cleone, required of his followers’.27 This change of emphasis is signalled also in the opening scene. As Alessandro prepares to attack Oxydraca, his captain advises caution (‘Deh, tempra l’ardor’). Leonato still displays caution in I/–: although outraged by Alessandro’s behaviour, and keen to be rid of him, he is reluctant to do anything he might later regret. This changes by II/, when he sings that his cause is just and Fate will assist him (‘Pungono il petto mio’28). By II/ he is certain that ‘Il tiranno caderà’, and in II/ the trap is sprung (‘Al fin lasciatemi’). In the scena ultima he bitterly regrets the failure of his attempts to kill Alessandro; he regards this as a sin for which he must die and death as a way out of an ‘unworthy servitude’. He is sure that his virtue will survive him. The characters of Cleone and Ermolao, too, are strengthened by the additions to their roles. Cleone’s new scene (I/) establishes that his sycophancy stems from a desire to avoid incurring Alessandro’s displeasure, not from a hope of being rewarded with Rosane, whom he continues to love from afar. Ermolao’s new aria, ‘Disprezza la morte’ (III/), justifies his involvement in the conspiracy against Alessandro. Indignation and honour lead him to disdain death: whether or not the plot succeeds, he feels he is doing right. As a result of the revisions, the love ‘element’ is reduced in importance. The roles of the two pairs of lovers are substantially the same as in Alessandro, but the expansion of the other parts alters the balance. The emphasis now is on the relationship of Leonato to his leader. At the start he is a loyal commander, zealous in his service, but as Alessandro ignores his advice and becomes increasingly arrogant, Leonato grows equally zealous in his condemnation. Leonato is more concerned than Alessandro with the arrogance of the hero and its effect on those around him. Because Leonato and, to a lesser extent, Ermolao are more prominent, the depth of feeling against Alessandro is greater and the failure of the attempts on his life is more serious. Yet although the revised version focuses more on Leonato’s opposition to Alessandro, it still por-

 , :   trays this as ultimately futile: at the end of the day, Leonato must die. Since it also depicts Alessandro’s triumph over the conspirators, Leonato is no more persuasive than Alessandro as an exhortation to modesty or self-control. Questions arise when one looks at the scores, of which there are two—the autograph and a Hanoverian copy by scribe B.29 The title page of the latter (GB-Lbl, RM . h. ) claims that the score represents the version of Alessandro that was performed in , and this is broadly the case: the prologue is present, and the text corresponds by and large with the libretto. At the back of the volume, however, there is an appendix containing much, but not all, of the music required for Leonato—additional and substitute arias and recitative, cued to appropriate places in the body of the score. The volume as a whole therefore presents both Alessandro and an incomplete version of Leonato. The autograph score (RM . f. –) is also entitled ‘La superbia d’Alessandro’ but dated ‘MDCXCI’, though the ‘I’ is obviously a later addition. The score does not offer a complete or trouble-free reading of either version of the opera. It preserves some arias that belong only in the earlier version (e.g., ‘Pravi tempi’), but lacks the prologue and includes some items that were inserted in revision (e.g., ‘È la corte un mar crudele’). When Steffani overhauled I trionfi del fato, he virtually dismembered the autograph (especially Act I), discarding unwanted music, moving fascicles around, and inserting new material, as appropriate.30 The autograph of Alessandro appears to have suffered a similar fate on a more modest scale. It is clear that these volumes originally presented the earlier version and that Steffani worked on them when revising the opera. Some of the changes were entered, but not all. The date ‘MDCXC’ on the title page was amended by the addition of the ‘I’, to reflect the year of the revival, but the title was not touched. The librettos and scores of Alessandro/Leonato pose problems that cannot easily be solved. One of these concerns the content of Act I, scenes  –, which is doubtful in both versions of the opera. The arias in these scenes, in the sources surveyed, are listed in Table .. The autograph contains two arias not in the libretto of Alessandro ()—Cleone’s ‘È la corte’ and Leonato’ s ‘All’or fulmina’: the insertion of these arias was the first stage in the revision of the scene. The next stage, to judge from RM . h. , was the replacement of Leonato’s ‘Pravi tempi’ by ‘A qual idolo dispensi’ and the addition of ‘Non è lieto’ (the latter was written into the back of the autograph, with no cue to its proper position). Both of these changes are reflected in the libretto of Leonato (), by which time, also, the beginning of ‘Non è lieto, non è felice’ had  .

Arias in Alessandro/Leonato, I/ –

Libretto: Alessandro L: Pravi tempi E: Non prendo

Score: RM . f.  (autograph)

Score: RM . h.  (appendix)

C: È la corte L: Pravi tempi L: All’or fulmina E: Non prendo

C: È la corte L: A qual idolo L: Non è lieto L: All’or fulmina E: Non prendo

   : C ⫽ Cleone; E ⫽ Ermolao; L ⫽ Leonato

Libretto: Leonato C: È la corte L: A qual idolo L: Non è sempre E: Non prendo





  been polished to ‘Non è sempre lieto e felice’ and ‘All’or fulmina’, the last of three consecutive arias for Leonato, had been dropped. Since ‘All’or fulmina’ appears in neither of the librettos (though in both scores), it is not certain whether it was performed; it seems to have been ousted by ‘Non è lieto/sempre’, which is in the same time and key. Be that as it may, the autograph appears to stand midway between the two librettos, while RM . h.  is closer to that of Leonato. The role of Cleone was not sung by the same voice-type in both versions of the opera. In the autograph score his part is notated in the soprano clef (Cl) in Act I, and in the alto clef (C) in Acts II and III; in RM . h. , however, his music appears in the tenor clef (C) in the body of the manuscript and in the soprano in the appendix. Furthermore, the scores present his arias in different keys to suit the voice in question (see Table .). It is hard to unravel this confused state of affairs. The only aria on which the two scores agree is ‘È la corte’, which was added in revision, so perhaps we should begin by assuming that in Leonato the role was sung by a soprano. Since the body of RM . h.  corresponds with the libretto of Alessandro, one might suggest that the part was first sung by a tenor, but this would not account for the soprano and alto clefs in the autograph. This source suggests, more plausibly, that Cleone was originally an alto and that when Steffani worked his way through the opera, revising it as Leonato, he transposed the role for soprano and added the new scene (I/) in that clef; that Cleone’s line in the ensemble ‘Tra le guerre’ (I/) is notated for soprano accords with this interpretation. Steffani would appear to have halted at the end of Act I, leaving the role in Acts II and III in the original alto clef. If this is what happened, one must ask why he stopped. The reason may be that the part was eventually to be sung by a tenor. A tenor was needed in Orlando generoso, the new opera for , and the role of Cleone was the only one in Leonato that could easily be given to him. If the composer transcribed the part for a tenor, the manuscript is lost; if he did not, the singer may have been taught it from a copy in the soprano or alto clef. When RM . h.  was prepared, possibly several years later, the scribe included the music for both versions of the opera, notating Cleone’s movements from Alessandro for the voice (tenor) by which they had most recently been performed but writing the new scene in the clef (soprano) in which Steffani had composed it when revising the work. If this analysis is correct, the part of Cleone was not sung by a soprano in either production, and the agreement of the scores on the pitch of ‘È la corte’ is misleading.31  .

Cleone’s arias in Alessandro/Leonato RM . f.  –

RM . h. 

Act/Scene

Title

Clef

Key

Clef

Key

I/ I/ II/ II/ III/

Quanto forza È la corte Son felice Tra perigli Se si tratta

C C C C C

D g C E B

C C C C C

D g G B F

 , :   There are further discrepancies between the scores. Rosane’s ‘Aure, fonti, ombre gradite’ (II/) is a tone higher in the autograph than in the copy, and the two versions of her ‘Solo ad anima tiranna’ (III/) are a fourth apart. Furthermore, two of the duets in which she sings—‘Convien farsi un altro amante’ (I/) and ‘Solo a te piacer desio’ (II/)—were completely recomposed. Such discrepancies probably derive from changes of cast and make little difference to the effect of the work as a whole, but the scores and librettos lack information that would enable us to answer the questions they raise. Because the sources pose unsolved, perhaps insoluble, problems, Alessandro and Leonato must be regarded, for the moment, as imperfect works. Steffani evidently warmed to his subject, exploring the dramatic potential of ensembles and strophic form; indeed, his variety and subtlety of approach to such texts, not to mention his strophic setting of non-strophic verse, implies that he made suggestions to Mauro about the form that the opera should take. But it is not entirely clear what this was or whether it was achieved in either version of this potential masterpiece.

Ariosto, Mauro, and Steffani: Orlando generoso Orlando generoso (Hanover, ) is the only three-act opera by Mauro and Steffani based on a ‘modern’ literary source—Ariosto’s romantic epic, Orlando furioso ()— and it is the first Italian opera in which Orlando’s love, madness, and recovery are the principal concern. It is a psychological drama, set in a quasi-fairy-tale world that allows librettist and composer to concentrate on the emotions, relationships, and development of the characters involved. This intention is suggested in the wordbook by the absence of lists of scenes or machinery—despite exotic settings and magical events—and by the presence in the score of an even higher number of duets than in La superbia d’Alessandro.32 Orlando furioso was well known in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries;33 Steffani possessed a quarto edition, published in Venice in .34 The poem was reprinted nearly every year between  and  and at least once a decade between  and . There was a gap of over thirty years before the next new edition, but from  the work was reprinted every few years until the end of the century. Although it furnished material for an opera as early as  (Gagliano and Peri’s Lo sposalizio di Medoro e Angelica, to a libretto by Andrea Salvadori), it appears to have sired only four seventeenth-century Venetian librettos. Of these, only one, Pietro Paolo Bissari’s Bradamante (), actually draws on the epic: the others treat it as a point of departure. Ariosto invited later writers to do this when he left the story of Angelica incomplete. This daughter of Galafron, emperor of Cathay, who was sent to Charlemagne’s court to destroy it and who healed and fell in love with the young African soldier Medor, considered returning to her native land (Orlando furioso, xi.) but was not taken there by Ariosto: the poet challenged a later voice to sing the rest of her tale (xxx.). The gauntlet was taken up by Bissari in Angelica in India () and Aurelio Aureli in Medoro (); the latter, with music by Francesco Lucio, was dedicated to Georg Wilhelm and Ernst August of Brunswick-Lüneburg and may have been available in Hanover. Aureli’s Olimpia vendicata () is much less indebted to Ariosto: as





  the librettist explained in his preface, the story of Olimpia’s revenge after her abandonment by her lover Bireno was merely ‘a caprice of my weak pen’. It was in the eighteenth century that ‘Orlando’ operas became common. The first was Carlo Sigismondo Capece’s L’Orlando, overo La gelosa pazzia (Rome, ), with music by Domenico Scarlatti, but far more successful was Grazio Braccioli’s Orlando furioso, first set by Ristori (Venice, ); Vivaldi’s versions (Orlando finto pazzo and Orlando furioso) appeared in the following year. Since Capece and Braccioli were foundermembers of the Arcadian Academy in, respectively, Rome and Ferrara (Ariosto’s base), it was arguably the Arcadians who put Orlando furioso on to the stage. The gap in the publication of Italian editions ( –), along with the hiatus between seventeenth-century Venetian operas and eighteenth-century opere serie based on the epic, is occupied by Mauro and Steffani’s Orlando generoso and Quinault and Lully’s Roland. If the latter is the first Ariostan opera in any language to turn the spotlight on Orlando himself, Orlando generoso is the first Italian opera in which the paladin occupies the title role. Given the strong interest in French culture at Hanover, it is probable that Mauro was acquainted with the tragédie lyrique, of which the score was printed in Paris in  (though the copy in the Royal Music Library was acquired only in the nineteenth century). Even if he was, his libretto is independent of Quinault and marks a distinctive addition to the repertory of Italian opera. Like Bissari’s Angelica in India and Aureli’s Medoro, Mauro’s Orlando generoso continues the story of Angelica; unlike them, however, it is not freely invented but composed overwhelmingly of material from Orlando furioso.35 It adheres far more closely than earlier librettos to its literary source and bears witness to its author’s detailed knowledge of this monumental work. Mauro also expected his audience to know their Ariosto. Instead of providing an ‘argomento’ or list of ‘verosimili’, the wordbook of Orlando generoso states that ‘the characters and events in this drama are so familiar that there is no need to make them better known by means of further explanation’.36 Nevertheless, a separate ‘Explanation of the Subject of the Opera’ was published in ,37 and the libretto for the revival () was furnished with sceneby-scene synopses in French and German. Unlike earlier librettists, Mauro restricted himself to characters who appear in Ariosto. In addition to Angelica, Medoro, and Orlando, he included Bradamante, Ruggiero, Atlante, and Brunello. The reason for the inclusion of Bradamante and Ruggiero was partly political. In Orlando furioso these characters are destined to marry and give birth to the house of Este. An ancient link between the Estensi and the dukes of Brunswick had been discovered by Leibniz, and Mauro refers to it, through Bradamante, in Act III, scene : Con fallaci speranze M’ingannò prima Amore, Con vana profetìe Tu m’ingannasti poi fida Melissa, Che di Guelfi, et Estensi Un’illustre avenir mi promettesti.

 , :   The same theme recurred in Giovanni Tamagni’s Il Ruggiero (Parma, ), of which Bernardo Sabadini’s setting was performed in honour of the Modenese duke Rinaldo III and his consort, the Hanoverian Charlotte Felicitas, whose marriage had reunited the houses four years earlier. This dynastic theme is combined by Mauro with episodes from various parts of Orlando furioso, including, crucially, that of Orlando’s madness. Nearly every point in his libretto can be sourced in the epic, starting with the title, which is foreshadowed in Ariosto’s ‘Di tanto core è il generoso Orlando / che non degna ferir gente che dorma’ (ix.). In Mauro’s first three scenes Bradamante is guided to Atlante’s palace in the Pyrenees by Brunello, whom she ties to a tree and robs of the magic ring; having descended the mountain she defeats Atlante, whose palace collapses in ruins, and recovers Ruggiero, who is promptly abducted by Atlante’s hippogriff. Bradamante’s battle with Atlante and Ruggiero’s abduction had launched Bissari’s Bradamante, but for the full sequence of events Mauro must have consulted Ariosto (ii.– ; iv.– ). The sorceress Melissa’s prophecy of Bradamante’s glorious progeny (I/), recalled by Bradamante (III/), is based on Orlando furioso, iii.– . In the poem Angelica is seized by the pirates of Ebuda and offered as a sacrifice to the orc (viii.– ); rescued by Ruggiero (x.–xi.), she suffers his unwelcome advances, escapes from him with the aid of the ring, disguises herself in rustic garments, and considers returning to the Orient (xi.–). All these adventures are woven into Mauro’s libretto, in which Angelica returns to Cathay and adopts the disguise of a shepherd (I/), is rescued from bandits by Ruggiero (I/), and is described by him (to Orlando) as ‘una pastorella / Che non lungi dal Porto / Da la man de’ Ladroni io liberai’ (I/). In Orlando furioso (xiii.– ) Melissa directs Bradamante to Ruggiero in Atlante’s palace; in Orlando generoso (I/) she conveys her to Cathay, where Ruggiero will later arrive on a cloud. In both works Orlando learns of Angelica’s love for Medoro and goes mad. Medoro’s escape from Orlando in the libretto (II/) is reminiscent of Angelica’s in the epic (xxix.– ). Angelica’s, Ruggiero’s, Medoro’s, and Bradamante’s searches for each other in Atlante’s enchanted palace (II/ to III/), including the hearing of voices, are based on similar episodes in Orlando furioso (xii.– ). In Ariosto, Orlando is eventually roped down and given back his wits (xxxix. – ); in Mauro he is chained to a rock in prison, sees the error of his ways, and cures himself (III/). Thus, in addition to continuing Ariosto’s account of Angelica, the libretto represents a creative adaptation of its chosen material. Most of the other themes, too, are derived from Orlando furioso. These include Bradamante’s anxiety about Ruggiero’s fidelity and her sense of being deceived, Atlante’s desire to prevent their marriage and the birth of the Estensi, Angelica’s attractiveness to men and Galafro’s failure to recognize his daughter. The libretto brings together characters kept apart by Ariosto, transports them to exotic or imaginary locations (most of the action takes place in Cathay and in the enchanted palace), and explores the situations thus created. Although it partakes of the tragic, comic, pastoral, and supernatural, however, it is not a formless or meaningless farrago, nor a cynical piece of hack-work, nor even a clever but hollow jeu d’esprit, but a skilful libretto on a serious subject, composed with a clear sense of purpose.





  The principal concern of the opera is the potentially corrosive influence of love and jealousy. The characters ruled by these passions are caught in a web of relationships from which they can hardly escape. Bradamante becomes suspicious about Ruggiero when she overhears his affectionate exchanges with Angelica after he has rescued her from bandits (I/ –); Ruggiero’s doubts about Bradamante are aroused when Orlando mistakes her for Angelica (II/–). Angelica inspires love in all men who see her, and Galafro is so blinded that he fails to recognize her as his own daughter (II/). Orlando is haunted by her beauty and becomes jealous when he discovers her love for Medoro (II/–). He repeatedly sees through her disguise and is driven mad partly by her denials as to her identity; when he imagines seeing her even in Medoro, his mistake elicits pity from Galafro (II/). Orlando’s madness is simply an extreme form of love’s blindness; to be cured, he must see his error. This he achieves in prison (III/). His recovery represents the triumph of reason over passion. In the finale he is able to state, honestly and generously, that so long as Angelica is happy (with Medoro) he wants nothing more, to which she replies that all he ever needed to do was to conquer himself and vanquish love. All the principals are blinded, to a greater or lesser degree, by love and jealousy. Ruggiero’s suspicions about Bradamante must serve as an example. He accuses her in II/ of flirting with Orlando during the previous scene (in which Orlando mistakes her for Angelica, and Bradamante, rather than disabuse him, plays along). Later on, in III/, Ruggiero confronts Orlando with the same charge. The latter assures him that he never loved Bradamante and that he could love only Angelica. Ruggiero does not know whether to believe his eyes or his ears: Crederò quel ch’io vidi, o quel ch’ei [Orlando] dice? Amor, e gelosia Sospendon la mia fede; Ma ciò che più si brama al fin si crede. When the opera was revived in  this recitative was recast as a short da capo aria followed by three lines of recitative, but the conclusion was the same: Se t’ho da credere ancor non so, Se l’Amor dice di sì, Gelosia dice di nò. Se t’ho da credere &c. Ma per esser tranquilla Ceda la mente ciò che il cor desia, E non s’ascolti più la Gelosia. Like most human beings, Ruggiero believes what he wants to believe: he is prepared to let his head (‘mente’) be ruled by his heart. His momentary uncertainty highlights a further theme of the opera—the contrast between illusion and reality. Illusion is the raison d’être of Atlante’s enchanted palace, of course, but an air of unreality also pervades the distant and exotic Cathay, an unusual setting for a seventeenth-century opera (Fig. .). The principal characters

 , :  

       .  Johann Oswald Harms, stage design for Hamburg () production of Orlando generoso as Der großmüthige Roland (Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museums Braunschweig, Museumsfoto Bernd-Peter Keiser; by permission)

seem not to be rooted in these surroundings but to exist in a vacuum in which all that matters is the network of emotions that binds them. The ‘other-worldly’ locations throw their passions into relief, allowing Mauro to concentrate on them and their consequences. Unlike the surroundings, the emotions are real—and powerful. Strength of feeling causes each of the principals at one time or another to succumb to self-deception: they think that what they see or hear is real, when often it is merely illusory. They are blinded to reality by the force of their passions. To issue a warning about the danger of unbridled passion was evidently one of the opera’s purposes. An indication of this is given in the note in the wordbook:38 In order to provide opportunities for [theatrical] machines, it has proved expedient to use magic spells, change countries, and invent stories; in these one should have regard less to the plausible (‘il verisimile’) than to the moral; and particularly with reference to Orlando, when he is restored to his senses and generously dissociates himself from his amorous weaknesses, one may reflect that: Se delira un Eroe per vani amori, le più brevi follie son le migliori. The libretto shows the depths to which Orlando was dragged by unbridled love and jealousy, and was intended to discourage the audience from allowing such passion to





  take hold of them. The warning was relevant to Hanover in , when Sophie Dorothea embarked on her ill-fated affair with Count Philipp von Königsmarck. By producing an opera on the subject of Orlando’s madness, Mauro and Steffani sent Hanover a coded (but unmistakable) message about the danger of love unchecked by reason. The relationships between the dramatis personae are underlined by the casting and the distribution of arias. The two pairs of lovers—Bradamante and Ruggiero, and Angelica and Medoro—are all sopranos; Orlando and Galafro, who stand outside these two couples, are both altos; the sorceress Melissa is a further soprano, while the other ancillary roles of Brunello and Atlante are sung by tenor and baritone. With fourteen arias, ten of them with instruments, the part of Orlando is by far the largest. The female lovers Bradamante and Angelica have eight or eight and a half arias each, the males Ruggiero and Medoro five or five and a half (the halves are strophes of arie in duetto); the majority of these arias, too, have orchestral or obbligato parts. The role of Atlante is appropriately large (six arias, four with instruments), but Galafro’s is surprisingly small (five continuo arias). Brunello has three arias, while Melissa has two, including a minuet. The most characteristic—and dramatic—moments in the opera are Orlando’s mad scene and his soliloquy in prison, both in Act III. The mad scene (III/) comprises four distinct but interrelated sections: (a) an appeal to the Eumenides; (b) an account of Angelica’s torture and his suffering; (c) a comparison between her and him; (d) an appeal to her. Most of the verse consists of standard recitative, but the episode begins with two settenari sdruccioli: Eumenidi, lasciatemi, Gettate a terra gli aspidi, Spegnete ogn’altro foco, Angelica mi crucia in vostro loco. The unusual metre prompted Steffani to compose this passage in aria style. His setting begins like a large-scale da capo aria, with substantial ritornello for orchestral strings, presumably doubled by oboes;39 the instruments continue in concitato manner alongside the voice, and the end of the second line is marked by a dominant cadence. At the end of line three, however, the music comes to an abrupt halt in the tonic, the time signature changes from 34 to
32, and the accompaniment is reduced to two solo violins (Example .); the brief setting of line four ends in the relative minor, arousing the expectation of a da capo repeat, but this is not required by the libretto or score and would have been out of place. Instead, Steffani proceeds immediately to the second section—five lines of recitative in which the ‘flaming torches’ of Angelica’s eyes and the ‘chains’ of her lips are recognized by Orlando as the source of his torment. The accompaniment is for continuo only, but his anguish is powerfully conveyed by syncopation and elaboration in the vocal line, and by Neapolitan and minor ninth chords (Example .). The third portion of text is a conventional aria, the meaning and structure of the first pair of lines being neatly inverted in the second:

 , :    . Vn I Vn II Va

A

Bc

From the first section of Orlando’s mad scene (Orlando generoso, III/)

j œœœœ œ œœ œ œ œœ œ 3 œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ & b [4] ≈ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ ‰ J f [ p] Orlando j j 3 œ œ Œ ∑ œ œ & b [4 ] œ Jœ J œ fo - co, o-gn’al-tro fo - co. œœ ? b [43] ≈ œ œ œ œ œ œ ≈œœœœœœœ œ œ j‰ œ œ [f ] [ p]

 .

j j j r r & b [c ] œ œ œ œ œ œ tan - te gra - zie d’a -mor

Bc

? b [c ] # ˙

˙˙ Ó Ó

Vn I solo

∑.

„

Vn II solo

c 23 Ó Ó ˙ ˙ . œ ˙

˙. œ œ œ ˙ ˙ ˙

An - ge - li - ca

c 23 Ó Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ # ˙

mi

˙w

cruc -cia in

w.

From the second section of Orlando’s mad scene (Orlando generoso, III/)

Orlando

A

c 23

œ

j œ # œj œ œ

fan

˙

la mia pe

˙

#œ

n

Œ ‰ œj œj œj ‰ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ. nœ œ œ #œ J 3

-

œ.

-

-

œ ˙

-

na,

˙

il suo ri - gor,

il

w

& b œ œ œ œ ˙ œ œ œ œj œj Œ œ . Jœ b œ œj œj b œ œ œ # œ œ # œ ‰ Jœ j j ‰ œj œj j Œ #œ œ œ mio do - lor e - ter -no, fa ch’io pro-vo il mar - tir d’un vi -vo in - fer-no. ˙ ?b ˙ ˙ œœ ˙ w ˙ ˙

U Ó U ˙

Bella al par de la mia dea su nel cielo idea non v’è: non ha Stige un’alma rea tormentata al par di me: The inversion is subtly reflected in the musical material, which is relatively placid and cantabile for the outer lines but faster and more furious in the middle. But the most striking feature of this binary continuo aria is the closely imitative texture: the bass line dogs Orlando’s steps so relentlessly that it becomes a symbol of the torture from which he is so desperate to escape.40 The colon at the end of the aria text looks ahead to the final portion of verse, which is marked by a change of metre and distinctive indentation in the wordbook: Perchè mi svisceri, perchè mi laceri[?] Perdon, pietà, soccorso: tu non sei donna, no, ma tigre et orso. The opening quinari sdruccioli prompt an arioso setting, linked to the preceding aria by a scale in the bass, and Orlando plunges in without ritornello (the orchestra enters at





  the end of his first phrase). The harmony is simple and strong—mostly root-position chords—and the tempo evidently fast. His desperation and fury are underlined by Steffani’s use of the instruments—repeated staccato quavers with frequent alternation between piano and forte markings—and by a hemiola on ‘soccorso’ (Example .). The same kind of rhythmic dislocation is employed for the last four words, which are accompanied, first time round, by continuo alone. The entire portion of text is sung twice, the first statement modulating to the dominant key, the second returning to the tonic: the setting is a cavata. The scene displays a remarkable balance between ‘content’ and ‘form’. At its heart are the recitative and aria with continuo only: the former makes its point by means of rhythm and harmony, the latter overwhelmingly by counterpoint; both are in 44 and both end in D minor. But it is in the outer sections—Orlando’s appeals to the Eumenides and Angelica—that his madness is most apparent. Each of these portions of text comprises two sdrucciolo lines followed by a settenario and an endecasillabo; each is set as arioso with orchestral accompaniment, and each is in 34 and F major. They both relate to each other and contrast with the central recitative and aria. The structure may seem too self-conscious or well-balanced for the dramatic context, yet the literary and musical material constantly strives to break out of the framework, like madness or powerful emotion challenging society’s conventions. Orlando’s soliloquy in prison (a subterranean grotto in which he is chained to a rock: III/) comprises a recitative framed by two arias.41 In the first aria he vows to escape and implores the ‘barbara beltà’ to release her grip on him (he already realizes that he is imprisoned by his infatuation with Angelica): Io dunque senz’armi e senza libertà? Spezzerò ferri e marmi, tutto diroccherà. Ma tu che mi disarmi, lascia d’incatenarmi, o barbara beltà. The setting, in A minor and
32, begins adagio with separate repeats of lines  and  that convey an impression of confusion and incomprehension. Lines –  are set presto in C major; the power of ‘spezzerò’ is illustrated by rising arpeggio-based shapes and  . Vn I Vn II Va

A

From the final section of Orlando’s mad scene (Orlando generoso, III/)

[sim.] f p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ & b [43] œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœ œœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ p f ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [sim.] Orlando j j j Œ œ Œ ‰ Jœ œ œ Jœ œ & b [43] Œ œ œ œ œ œ pie

Bc

-

tà,

soc - cor - so, soc-cor

-

so, soc-cor - so

œ œ œ œ œ œ ? [3] b 4œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [sim.]

 , :   rhythmic dislocation, while an image of demolition is created by long melismas over sequences and by four rapid, syllabic statements of the word ‘diroccherà’ to emphatic rising scales. The setting of lines  – is marked ‘placato’; ‘incatenarmi’ elicits chains of suspensions, ‘barbara’ awkward downward leaps, and the whole passage is sung twice, in related keys. The recitative begins with Orlando asking further questions, to which he then gives convincing answers: Ma chi sono? Che faccio? Ove mi trovo? Qual colpa m’imprigiona? . . . . . . I falli miei mi causar questi guai; troppo Angelica amai. Quest’è la furia ultrice che m’agita e flagella. His state of mind is conveyed generally by short phrases punctuated by rests, sudden changes of harmonic direction, and contrasts of speed. The recitative begins in E minor but ends in C minor, and some of it is marked ‘presto’. ‘Troppo Angelica amai’ provokes a striking lurch from F major to C minor, while ‘quest’è la furia ultrice’ unleashes a furious descending arpeggio. Since it is suffering that has opened his eyes, Orlando is moved in the second aria to ask, paradoxically, for his misery to continue: Miserie fortunate, beate avversità; se voi m’illuminate ne la mia cecità, deh mai non più cessate. Miserie &c. This da capo structure is set in C minor and in
34 [ 64 ] time. Orlando enters immediately with ‘miserie’ on a plain falling fifth (g⬘ to c⬘), which becomes the aria’s motto; only after this does one learn that strings are involved. The interval encompasses all the notes used for the first line, in which the feeling of misery is reinforced by a low tessitura. The second line is set higher, around g⬘, and the music for ‘beate’ boasts a beatific melisma in the relative major, although the approach of ‘avversità’ prompts a return to the minor (Example .). The words ‘più non cessate’ at the end of the b section are symbolized by the absence of a perfect cadence: this short section without strings—seven bars against the twenty of a—ends on a dominant chord that leads seamlessly back to ‘miserie’. The strings in the a section do not accompany the singer but play quiet repeated chords between his phrases (‘Joüez doux tousiours’). The long orchestral peroration (six bars) at the end of the section comes into its own in the da capo, where it rounds off the scene as a whole. The differences between the two arias reflect Orlando’s transformation, during this soliloquy, from madness to health. In ‘Io dunque senz’armi’ there are changes of speed, the form is through-composed, and the accompaniment is for continuo only;





   . Vn I Vn II Va

A

Bc

Aria ‘Miserie fortunate’ (Orlando generoso, III/)

b & b c43

∑

b 3 Orlando & b c4 Œ Œ œ . ˙ Mi-se -

? b c3 w . b 4

∑

˙

jj œ œ ˙.

-

- ri-e,

w.

Joüez doux tousiours

&b

b

∑

œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ Ó. Œ Œ

œ

œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ

∑

œœ œ

Œ Œ Œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ

˙

mi - se - rie for - tu - na-te,

Œ bœ œ œ œ

œ œ œ œ œ œ

œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ œœœ

Ó.

∑ n

œ

be -

œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ œ œ n œœ œœ œœ

j j b Œ & b œ. bœ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ œ bœ. œ #œ œ œ œ. œ œ. œ œ ˙ -a - te, be - a - te av - ver - si - tà, œ œ œ œ ? b Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ ˙. œ b bœ ˙ œ œ œ

‘Miserie fortunate’, on the other hand, adheres to a single tempo, employs da capo form, and is accompanied by strings. These contrasts are reinforced by ‘progressive’ tonality, A minor being superseded by C minor. Taken together, these features represent a musical development that mirrors the psychological process taking place in Orlando himself. This musical progression also differs from the more static, but equally appropriate, treatment of the earlier mad scene. Both scenes offer remarkable examples of Steffani’s sensitivity to dramatic situations and his ability to articulate them through music of extraordinary invention and power. Over  percent of the arias in Orlando generoso have instrumental accompaniment, and in roughly two-thirds of these the scoring is in four parts.42 Of the remainder, several are more richly scored. In ‘S’ho perduto ogni mio bene’ (I/), ‘Se non vi bacio’ (II/), and ‘Core amante, che farai?’ (III/)—arias sung by different characters— recorders are associated with despair or uncertainty. Atlante seems to be characterized by the two oboes and bassoon employed in his ‘A le corti s’assomiglia’ (II/) and ‘Ombre del cieco abisso’ (III/); with solo violins in addition, the latter is the most elaborately scored aria in the opera. A small but significant proportion of arias employ two obbligato instruments and bass. The instruments may belong to the same or to different families, and in strophic arias they may be interchanged to delightful effect. Verse  of ‘Se t’ecclissi, o bella face’ (II/), for example, is sung by Angelica, with violin, bassoon, and continuo; the violin shares the vocal material, including rapid tirate, while the bassoon decorates the bass. Verse , ‘Vive stelle, a me splendete’, is sung by Ruggiero, accompanied in similar fashion by oboe and ‘basse de violon’. His da capo repeat is enriched, however, by the re-entry of Angelica and her instruments, who convert the section into a duet with four obbligato parts; the singers now monopolize the vocal material, while the instruments accompany in the style of the original bassoon part (Example .).

 , :    .

Duet ‘Vive stelle, a me splendete’ (Orlando generoso, II/)

S

∑ œ # œŒ œ œ ŒŒ Ó Ó ∑.œ œ œ 3 œ œœœœœ œ œ œœœ c œ œœ œ œ œ & [ 2] Œ œ œ œ Œ Œ Œ Ó Ó ∑. œ œ ŒŒ Œ . ∑œ œ œ ŒŒ Ó Œ œ œ Ó Ó ∑ ? [c 3 ] œ 2 Ó Œ œ œ œ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ Ó œ Ó œ œ∑ . œ œ œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ ŒŒ Ó Angelica w. w w. 3 ∑ ˙ ∑. & [c 2 ]

S

& [c 23 ] w .

Bc

? [c 3 ] 2 ›.

Vn Ob Bsn Basse de Violon

Vi -

Ruggiero Vi -

w. -

stel

vi

?

stel

˙

-

le,

-

˙ w

a

˙.

-

-

œ˙

me splen - de - te

˙ ˙ œœ˙ ˙

˙ ˙.

-

ve

-

w.

-

stel

-

le,

a

-

ve

˙ ˙

˙

ŒŒ Œ œ œ œ œœ œ œœ m Œ Œ Œ Œœ œ Ó œ m œœ œ Œ Œ ˙. œ ˙ m

me splen - de - te

∑ w

-

w.

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

œœ

˙ ˙.

Œœœ œ Œœ Œ œ œ œœ œ „. ŒŒœ œ Œœ œ œœ œ œ œ „. w

le,

w. vi

˙

∑. ˙ ˙ œ ˙

stel

∑.

le,

Ó Œ œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ Œ Ó ∑. Œ œœœ œ Œœœœ œ œœœ œ Ó Ó ∑. w.

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

- ve

˙

w

∑

&w

w

- ve

œœ œ ∑ œ &Œ œ œŒ œœŒœ œ œ∑ ?œ œ œœ œœ ŒŒ Œ œ &

-

˙ œœ˙ ˙

w. non

˙.

m œ˙ m

One of the duets is given to Bradamante and Orlando (soprano and alto), but the majority are for various pairs of lovers (two sopranos). The sonorities and textures afforded by equal-voice scoring are explored early on by Bradamante and Ruggiero in ‘O mia vita’ (I/), a movement reminiscent of ‘Pur ti miro’ in Monteverdi’s Poppea (Example .). While most of the duets are accompanied by continuo, the two trios toward the end call for instruments. ‘È virtù di regio core’ (III/), in which Galafro bestows his blessing on the two pairs of lovers, is a minuet with a particularly intricate design. Both verses comprise four phrases—one for each of three characters in turn and one for all three together. The characters are entirely different, but in both verses the first singer is accompanied by oboes and bassoon, the second by two violins, and the third by a pair of recorders; the fourth phrase is accompanied by ‘tous’, and the pleas of the singers are plaintively echoed by the instruments (Example .). The strophic gavotte ‘Amanti fortunati, scordate ogni dolor’ is similarly scored for two trios, but the use of the instruments is less intricate (there are few indications in the scores), as befits a jubilant concluding ensemble.





   .

Duet ‘O mia vita’ (Orlando generoso, I/)

Bradamante

& [23 ] w .

S

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó

- ro,

Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó Ó Ó ˙ ˙ ˙. œ ˙ œ œ ˙ w ˙

o mia vi - ta,

o mia spe-me,

o

mio te - so -

-

w.

- ro.

Ruggiero

& [23 ] ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ Ó Ó ˙ ˙ # ˙ ˙ Ó Ó Ó ˙ ˙ ˙ . œ ˙ ˙ ˙

S

- [ro,] o mia vi - ta,

?[3 ] 2 w.

Bc

 . Vn I Vn II Va S S

Bar. Bc

w.

w.

o mia

spe-me,

w.

o

w.

˙ ˙. œ ˙ w

mio te- so - ro, o

w

˙ w

˙

mio

te - so

-

w. ro.

w.

˙ w.

w

From trio ‘È virtù di regio core’ (Orlando generoso, III/)

# 3 & # [ c4 ]

œ œ œ # œœ œ œœ œ Medoro # # c3 œ œ œœ # œœ .. œœ œ œ # œ . œj ˙ . & [ 4] œ œ J œ œ #œ œ. œ ˙. J Ruggiero ces - sin la ri - gi-da se - ve - ri - tà. j Atlante #œ j ? # # [c43] œ # œ œ ˙œ . œ œ œ ˙œ . œ œ˙ . œ ∑

Ó.

Tous

œœ Œ œ

œ. #œ œ Œ œ .. œ œ œ œœ J

j œœ .. # œœ œœ Ó . Pla - ca-ti,

œœ . œj œ œÓ .. œ œ œ J

Ó.

œ. #œ œ œ. œ œ œ. œ œ J

j œœ .. # œœ œœ Ó . pie - ga -ti

œ . œj œ œÓ .. œ œ ˙ J

Tous

Orlando generoso is the only Steffani opera to have been separately (though incompletely) printed during his lifetime. Twenty-four arias and two duets from the first Hamburg production () were published under the title Die ausserlesensten / Und vornehmsten / ARIEN / Aus der / OPERA / ROLAND / Mit unterschiedlichen Instrumenten. / Wie sie vorgestellet / Auff dem / Hamburgischen Schau-Platz (Lübeck, ).43 These arias and duets were also the first pieces of operatic music by Steffani to appear in print. The Hamburg performances ( – ) of his Hanover operas evidently created a demand for his music which this book attempted to meet. That Roland was particularly successful is implied by Roger’s advertisement (ca.  – ) for ‘Les Airs à joüer de l’opera de Roland à quatre parties’,44 an edition now lost (its contents were probably subsumed into his Sonate da camera a tre). The success of Roland must have been due also to the familiarity and appeal of its subject: irrespective of the quality of the music, the classic status of the opera’s literary source guarantees Orlando generoso a special place among Mauro and Steffani’s works.

Arminio: Apologia pro Pasticcio That Arminio (Düsseldorf, ) was not entirely new was noticed by W. G. Cusins: Though bearing no composer’s name, it is without doubt a composition of Steffani, entirely in his manner and one of his very finest; the instrumental colouring still more full and varied than in any other opera of his. And what further establishes its claim to be considered Steffani’s is the fact that the fine air, with fagotto obbligato from ‘Henrico Leone,’ is introduced with other words, and for a soprano instead of a tenor voice. 45

 , :   Riemann did not identify the aria from Henrico Leone (‘Deh cessate omai di piangere’, which may have been missing from the scores of the work that he knew); but he noticed that Arminio includes an adaptation of the duet ‘Combatton quest’alma’ from I trionfi del fato and that the aria ‘Più ridon l’erbe’ (Arminio) reappears in Enea in Italia, a version of I trionfi del fato that was performed at Brunswick in .46 He also made the following remarkable statement: To be sure, the five-act Arminio differs from all other operas by Steffani above all through the total absence of amorous intrigues, ridiculous magical apparitions, and every other operatic encumbrance, as indicated above. It may seem striking that Arminio, dramatically the most significant of Steffani’s operas, is not represented in the current volume of extracts [DTB, no. ]; suffice to say, by way of explanation, that the communication of isolated movements should not be allowed to create a barrier to the eventual publication of the complete work. 47 The five-act libretto was the work of Pallavicini, who was to use the same layout in Tassilone. The absence of intrigue and magic is not ‘total’, but these forces are less prominent in Arminio than in most of Steffani’s operas; whether this makes the work his ‘most significant’ drama is a matter of opinion. New light was shed on Arminio by Gerhard Croll, who showed that it was a pasticcio composed largely of music from Steffani’s Munich and Hanover operas.48 Of the forty-six vocal numbers that it contains, twenty-six arias, two duets, and a chorus were adapted from his previous works. Apart from Marco Aurelio () and La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo (), every surviving earlier opera by Steffani was treated as a source. The ‘grave’ section of the overture came from the ‘introduzione’ to Amor vien dal destino, composed at Hanover but still unperformed, and the ‘allegro’ from I trionfi del fato. The remaining movements, about one-third of the total, appear to have been newly composed. According to Croll, Steffani had little time for composition in : he may perhaps have written the new items, but the bulk of the pasticcio could have been compiled and adapted by Gregorio Piva, who presumably had access to his scores, or by the Düsseldorf Kapellmeister, Johann Hugo von Wilderer, who probably directed the performances. The evidence bears further scrutiny. The number of borrowed vocal movements, listed by Croll, rises during Acts I, II, and III and remains relatively high in Acts IV and V (see Table .). The figures suggest that Steffani intended Arminio to be a new work, began composing it, ran out of time, and resorted increasingly to borrowing. The selection of movements redeployed in Arminio presupposes a detailed knowledge of his earlier operas, including those written for Munich. In many cases the choice of aria appears to have been prompted by a phrase, word, or general idea in the opening line of text; in others, perhaps the poetical rhythm alone was enough to suggest a model—for example, ‘Arridano serene’ (Arminio)/ ‘Stringetevi, godete’ (Alarico il Baltha). It is difficult to believe that Gregorio Piva or any other Düsseldorf musician was sufficiently familiar with enough of Steffani’s operas to make such appropriate selections. It seems more likely that Steffani himself chose the movements, giving instructions to copyists on such matters as transposition and instrumentation. Transposition





   .

Borrowings in Arminio

Act

No. of vocal items

No. of vocal items borrowed

Percentage borrowed

I II III IV V

8 11 12 8 7

1 6 9 7 6

12.5 54.5 75.0 87.5 85.7

All acts

46

29

63.0

of an aria usually sprang from its allocation to a different voice type, but ‘Stringetevi, godete’ was transposed even though the voice remained the same, while two others— ‘Deh cessate omai di piangere’ (Henrico Leone) and ‘Un bel sen m’invita a l’armi’ (Le rivali concordi)—were reallocated without transposition. The rescoring of duets for soprano and alto, rather than two sopranos, necessitated shifts to lower keys or the transposition of phrases that went too high for the alto. The ensemble ‘Che si danzi’ (Baccanali) became an aria (‘Mentre cade’), and ritornellos were moved or omitted— for example, ‘De’ vostri contenti’ (I trionfi del fato) and ‘Se il mio cor dovratti credere’ (Alarico). One might assume that, under normal circumstances, a pasticcio libretto was written first and the music was then chosen to fit it, but the match between the aria texts in Arminio and those in its sources is often so close as to suggest that Steffani first selected the music, then asked Pallavicini to write appropriate new verse. This possibility is supported by the following examples, which are not abnormal: Nova furia, all’ire, a l’armi, gli altrui petti accenderò; e mie faci voi sarete, occhi vivaci, per cui lieto a morte io vo. (Arminio, II/)

Un bel sen m’invita a l’armi, per quel sen combatterò; e se moro, il bel sen che vivo adoro anco estinto adorerò. (Le rivali concordi, III/)

Colui che m’ha ferita serbate, o numi, in vita o morirò: Amor cortese aita chi solo in te sperò. (Arminio, V/)

Arcier, che m’hai ferita, se non mi porgi aita io morirò: che far di questa vita se amanti più non ho? (I trionfi/Le glorie, III/)

With reference to Riemann’s opinion of Arminio, Croll advised caution in the assessment of Steffani’s operas and implied that this work could not be a significant drama because it was a pasticcio. This does not follow. A successful musical drama, especially from the Baroque period, depends on the quality of its libretto as well as on that of its music. A satisfactory drama is not a likely outcome when the libretto is compiled from arias contributed by a number of people, including librettist, com-

 , :   poser, impresario, and singers, but the chances of success are greatly increased if the libretto is adapted by an experienced poet and if the music, old and new, is arranged by a composer not under pressure to accommodate baggage arias imposed on him by a diverse group of singers. Arminio belongs in the latter category. The ancient German warrior Hermann (Arminio) was the subject of many Italian operas in the early eighteenth century. As commander-in-chief of the Cheruscan army, he led a revolt in – AD against the Roman occupation force under (Publius Quinctilius) Varus. In this he was opposed by Segestes, chieftain of the Cherusci, who preferred to collaborate with the Romans. Relations between the German leaders were strained by the fact that Hermann was married to Segestes’s daughter, Thusnelda. The principal sources are Strabo, Geography, vii.., and Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome, i.-ii.. Strabo, who lived to at least  AD, wrote that Hermann ‘even to this day continues the war’.49 The first ‘Arminio’ libretto was written by Antonio Salvi for Pratolino in .50 The origins of the plot are found in Arminius, a tragédie in five acts by the French playwright Jean Galbert de Campistron (–). Salvi tried to distance himself from his source: in writing Astianatte [], he acknowledged, he had been ‘assisted’ by Racine, but in Arminio ‘I was alone’. Notwithstanding this statement, the paternity of his libretto is apparently confirmed by the following words from the preface to a later edition of Arminius: About three years ago a gentleman of Florence, a member of the Accademia della Crusca, translated this tragedy into Italian almost word for word and made of it an opera which was performed for three months before the grand-duke of Tuscany, in his palace at Pratolino, to universal applause. 51 Salvi’s libretto was first set by Alessandro Scarlatti, then by other composers. Discussing Caldara’s setting (Genoa, ), Ursula Kirkendale suggested that the plot reversed the circumstances of the Italian war (part of the War of the Spanish Succession) that had been fought in early : The Romans who invaded Arminio’s German country reflect the Imperial troops in Italy. Arminio, like the Duke [Ferdinando Carlo of Mantua], is frightened out of his native castle. Varus may well be Prince Eugene [of Savoy]. The German prince Segeste who collaborates with the Romans, although his daughter is married to Arminio, corresponds to the powerful Victor Amédée, Duke of Savoy . . . At the beginning of  he had left no more doubt that he was going to turn with his troops from the French to the Imperial party . . . Ferdinando Carlo was, of course, the first to be attracted by the glorification of Arminio, whose fate was his own except for the victorious end that he could only long for.52 Even if the parallel can be taken no further, the political and military situation in the early eighteenth century seems to have mirrored that in the first century and may have boosted the popularity of works based on Arminio. There were further such operas, presumably revivals of Scarlatti’s, in Rome (), Naples (), and Florence (),





  before Carlo Francesco Pollarolo composed the next major setting, for Venice (); Hasse (), Handel (), and Galuppi () are among the later composers who set or drew on Salvi’s work.53 Pallavicini’s libretto for Steffani, the second on the subject, differs markedly from Salvi’s. Salvi includes, in addition to Arminio, Tusnelda, Segeste, and Varo, another character from Campistron (Sigismondo, or Segimundus, Tusnelda’s brother), one more from Strabo (Ramise, or Rhamis, Segimundus’s wife), and Tullio, a captain in Varo’s army. Pallavicini’s cast is rather different: Servilio, a Roman, in love with Ermude Varo, Roman governor of Germany Arminio, prince of the Cherusci and commander-in-chief of their army Tusnelda, princess of the Cherusci, daughter of Segeste, betrothed to Arminio Inguiomero, uncle of Arminio, father of Ermude Segeste, prince of the Cherusci, father of Tusnelda Ermude, daughter of Inguiomero Libisso, a captain in Arminio’s army Erta, earth goddess

Soprano Tenor Soprano Alto Alto Bass Soprano Tenor Soprano

Pallavicini’s political purpose was also quite distinct: Arminio was to be identified with the librettist’s ‘Serenissime Maître’, the Palatine Elector Johann Wilhelm, whose ‘virtù’ as a German soldier and statesman, and whose loyalty to the empire, the opera extravagantly extols.54 The libretto displays exemplary unity of action, as Riemann was right to claim. The seven principal characters are closely interrelated, the gulf between Germans and Romans being bridged by political and amorous ties. Arminio’s constant love for Tusnelda, Germany, and political freedom is matched only by his implacable hatred of Roman dominion; though belligerent and uncivilized, he spares Segeste in return for Tusnelda’s hand. The latter is equally steadfast in her love for Arminio and her country, but she is also conscious of her filial duty and uses Arminio’s love for her as a means of securing her father’s release. As a German collaborating with Rome, Segeste is both compromised and impotent: he demands, but cannot command, compliance from his daughter, and he buys freedom by yielding to Arminio. Roman wisdom, justice, and political awareness are embodied in Varo, who realizes that he is more likely to win Tusnelda by word than by sword. The Roman Servilio and German Ermude are devoted to one another throughout, each being willing, in the end, to die for the other. Inguiomero is Arminio’s avuncular elder statesman, offering guidance at critical moments (though he also insults Servilio with a seemingly impetuous accusation). The closing earthquake and appearance of Erta are concessions to the supernatural, but she is not a deus ex machina: the drama has already been sewn up; she merely supplies an epilogue. The libretto is also well focused in time and place and well constructed. The action need not take longer than twenty-four hours and unfolds in Segeste’s castle and its environs. Nine or more sets are normal in Steffani’s three-act operas; here they are

 , :   spread over five. The Acts of Arminio also comprise a smaller number of longer scenes, many of which are defined by dramatic content rather than by the entry or exit of a character. Nearly one-third of the scenes contain two or more arias, and in a similar number of cases the exit convention is ignored. Act I introduces Roman characters in scenes –  and Germans in – ; both groups are brought together in  – . Ermude does not appear in Act I but opens Act II, where a similar pattern prevails. The structure of Acts III and IV is less schematic, reflecting dramatic development. Since the Romans are defeated toward the end of Act IV, Varo does not appear in Act V, which is shaped liked a crescendo: after scene , for Libisso and Ermude, each of the following scenes adds an extra character, culminating in the earthquake and the entrance of Erta. Since Arminio is Steffani’s only pasticcio, its musical profile inevitably differs from those of his other operas. This does not explain why there are parts for two altos and two tenors, however, or why there was once a second bass.55 The tables in Appendix C reveal that Arminio contains fewer arias than his other full-length operas but that many of these have instrumental accompaniment (as Cusins observed): arranging music takes less time than composing it. In over a quarter of these arias the instruments play throughout (type ‘a’); in a further two out of five—a very high proportion—they are active in the a section only (type ‘b’). Because of the low number of arias (and other movements) there is relatively little recitative, something that catches a contemporary eye. The quality of the music is consistently high—as one would expect, given the sources from which it came—and the movements are harnessed by the libretto to a convincing dramatic purpose. Steffani’s Arminio is a vindication of the pasticcio as a dramatic genre.

The Question of Tassilone Tassilone (Düsseldorf, ) was published in a modern edition, by Gerhard Croll, in .56 Reviewing this edition, and comparing the opera with the compositions of Steffani that he knew, Paul Henry Lang was ‘greatly disappointed’, finding the work ‘predominantly dull’ and the music ‘run-of-the-mill’.57 Criticizing its ‘insipid overture’, ‘perfunctory recitatives’, and ‘stereotyped arias’, its melody (for ‘a curious lack of melodic-ornamental invention and variety’ and ‘poor melodic design’), its bass lines (as ‘awkward’, ‘unimaginative, circumscribed, and stationary’), and its harmony (as ‘beggarly and often downright inept’), Lang felt ‘compelled to doubt Steffani’s authorship’ and suspected ‘an entirely different and inferior composer to be the clandestine author’ of the work. He suggested Gregorio Piva, and recommended that Piva’s life and ‘professional activity’ be examined to see whether they would shed light on the matter. Piva is the musician whose name Steffani had taken as a pseudonym, probably on becoming bishop of Spiga in  –.58 As Steffani’s copyist in Düsseldorf, he wrote out the principal musical sources of Tassilone—an anonymous score (E-Mn, M. /) and a set of instrumental parts (GB-Lbl, RM . i.  – ). The title page of the harpsichord part (RM . i. ) includes the inscription ‘Musica / di / Gregorio /





  Piva’, which could be regarded as ambiguous: does ‘musica’ refer to the composition or the copy? Steffani implicitly accepted responsibility for the work in his correspondence with Ruggiero Fedeli and Giuseppe Riva. In a letter to the composer dated  November , Fedeli referred to Steffani’s Düsseldorf operas (without naming them) and praised the duet ‘Già brama il mio core’ (which occurs in Tassilone).59 In his reply, Steffani disowned neither the duet nor its source: he hid behind his pseudonym.60 When the idea of staging Tassilone in London was abandoned, in , he insisted that George I be informed that this was not due to him (‘Piva’) or the librettist, both of whom had been willing to supply revisions or new material.61 He is unlikely to have been so concerned if he were not the composer. The question of Tassilone was revisited in  by Andrea Della Corte, who found ‘technical and dramaturgical’ differences between this opera and Alarico il Baltha.62 Although Tassilone reflected the earlier opera in many respects, Della Corte perceived an ‘increase in the intensity of expression’, a link between the musical language of Tassilone and that of Steffani’s chamber duets, the influence of French style, the importance of vocal virtuosity in arias and fioritura in recitative, and the incidence of brief pauses that created a ‘strange and monotonous’ effect. Having commended several movements that he admired, he turned to the doubts expressed by Lang. The lack of an autograph score was not remarkable for the period and did not constitute grounds for regarding Tassilone as unauthentic. Only cautious conclusions could be drawn from a comparison between two operas composed over twenty years apart, for they reflected different periods and styles. The absence of ‘belcantismo’ and counterpoint was not a matter of regret if these were no longer suitable means of expression; the forms of Tassilone were ‘rhetorically similar’ to those found elsewhere in Steffani. In conclusion, Della Corte considered the composer ‘a constructor of masterly and sometimes delightful pieces but not a creator of characters or a singer of their feelings’—not a compelling musical dramatist. Differences between Tassilone and Steffani’s earlier operas were noted also by Rodolfo Celletti. Though writing a history of singing and vocal style, not of opera, Celletti felt compelled to comment on matters of musical form and technique: Anyone listening after that [‘Deh, tornate, occhi stellanti’ from Le rivali concordi] to the aria with trumpet in Tassilone, sung by Sicardo (male alto), ‘A facile vittoria’, or Adalgiso’s tenor aria with oboe, ‘Piangerete, ben lo so’ [sic], will already have noticed an almost Handelian climate in the melodic invention, the behaviour of the concertante instrument, and the actual structure of the piece. 63 Like Della Corte, Celletti took acount of the fact that the composer’s career coincided with a period in which the musical style of opera underwent a process of radical development. Some of the ways in which Tassilone differs from Steffani’s previous operas are indicated by the tables in Appendix C. The opera is linked to both of its predecessors at Düsseldorf by a high proportion of arias with instruments as well as continuo (Table A.); there is, however, a slightly greater emphasis on ‘Bc + +’ scoring, at the expense mainly of ‘Bc + ’, and Tassilone is Steffani’s first full-length opera since Or-

 , :   lando generoso () without an aria accompanied only by an obbligato instrument and continuo. This hint of something different is confirmed by Table A., in which the profile of Tassilone appears quite unique in his output. Over  percent of the accompanied arias make use of the instruments throughout (type ‘a’); the next highest proportion in this category is  percent, in La libertà contenta (). The proportions of arias of types ‘b’, ‘c’, and ‘d’ are correspondingly reduced. Over four out of five arias in Tassilone are in da capo form (Table A.); Alarico () and Niobe () employ similar proportions, but the arias in these operas rarely achieve the length of those in Tassilone. Even the recitative is different, so far as modulation is concerned, from that in most of his works (Table A.). The orchestra for Tassilone is similar to that for Steffani’s other Düsseldorf operas, except in the absence of recorders, which had been used sparingly in Arminio (but not at all in Amor vien dal destino). In addition to oboes, bassoon, and strings, a trumpet is required at the end of Act IV to accompany ‘A facile vittoria’ and play duellists into the arena; there is no mention of timpani. Notwithstanding these facts and figures, the style of much of the music of Tassilone is characteristic of Steffani’s operas or compatible with them. This applies especially to such largo movements in 23 as ‘Di ritrovar ristoro’, ‘In faccia a queste pompe funeste’, and ‘Deh! non far’ (Example .) —presumably the arias in which Della Corte found ‘an eloquent expression, for the most part sweet, almost elegiac’;64 this is also true, however, of agitated common-time movements such as ‘Già mi pento’ and ‘Tu de’ mostri’ (Example .), the dance-like ‘Che un’altra ti piace’, and the duets. Although large-scale da capo arias with orchestral accompaniment can be found in Steffani’s earlier operas (most include an example or two), they are far more numer . Ob I Vn I

From aria ‘Di ritrovar ristoro’ (Tassilone, I/)

Ó b & b [ 23] n ˙˙ Ó ˙ Ó Rotrude

S

b & b [ 23] ˙ ˙ . œ w

 . Ob I/II

& b [c ] œ Œ Teodata

S

& b [c ] œ œ Già mi

Bsn Bc

ri - sto - ro

˙ w

? b b [ 23] ˙ ˙ ˙

˙Ó wÓ ˙

˙w ˙ ÓÓ

˙

˙. œ œ ˙ b ˙ . œ œ . Jœ

˙

di ri - tro - var

Bc

Ó Ó ˙ w

˙ nw ˙ Ó Ó

nel

˙ ˙

˙ #w ∑.

˙

˙ . œ œ . Jœ ˙ ˙

vol - to di chi a - do - ro, nel

˙

˙ ˙. Ó Ó

vol - to di chi a-do - ro

w.

w.

˙ w

Ó

‰

j œ œ m

œ. œ œ œ ‰ œ bœ œ œ œ ˙ J R J J œ J J

∑

w.

w

From aria ‘Già mi pento’ (Tassilone, V/)

j œ‰ œ œ # œ œœ œ Œ # œj œ J œ

œ

pen - to,

œ già

œ

Œ

Ó ∑

spa - ven-to sen -te il cor

∑

di

sua fie - rez -za

n Œ œ œ œ b œÓ œ œ œ œ b œ œ œ # œ m ? [c ] œ # œ œ œ b œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ





   .

Aria ‘Tutta tremo, e per le vene’ (Tassilone, III/) Largo

Vn I, Ob I/II Vn II Va

Bsn Bc

# & 43 Œ œœœ f œ œ œ ?# 3 4

œœ œ

# œ˙ œ œœœ œ œ

œœ œœ œœ œ œœœ œœœœœœ œœœœœœ #4

6

2

p senza Ob. j œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ . & œœ œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #

&

S

#

?#

Rotrude

∑ œ œ

œ œ

Œ

œ œ œ

#˙

Tut - ta

tre

Œ

6

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œœœœœœ œœœœœœ œœœœ œœ 2

6

4 2

#4

6

6

œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ

œ

œ

2

Œ œ œ œ œœ œœ œ

œœ ˙œ œ œ œ œ

œ -

œ

mo,

e

∑

Œ

œ per

œ

˙

le

ve

∑

œ -

ne

∑

ous in Tassilone. Furthermore, the ritornellos seem longer, instruments play a more prominent role in fleshing out structure, vocal passages are sometimes routine (though notes on paper can be transformed in performance by good singers), and texture is often more harmonically than contrapuntally based (Example .). That Steffani composed such arias in Munich and Hanover indicates that he could have written more of them in Tassilone; even if he supplied a mere handful, however, his approach to opera in  would have differed sharply from that in the s. Although much of the music of Tassilone falls within Steffani’s stylistic range, some of it is decidedly uncharacteristic of him. Into this category must be placed a pair of affecting arias with obbligato instrument—‘Piangerete, io ben lo so’ (oboe) and ‘Sinor foste il mio tormento’ (bassoon)—and the intensely emotional ‘Padre, s’è colpa in lui’, with violins and viola, of which the instrumental figuration in slow tempo, the desolate key of B minor, and the Neapolitan harmony evoke the atmosphere of Bach’s Passion settings (Example .). These arias display greater stylistic and technical maturity than those in Steffani’s Hanover operas—which is not to say that between  and –  he could not have become capable of composing them. Not all of the uncharacteristic movements are of such high quality as these, however:  . Vn I/II Va

S

Bsn Bc

From aria ‘Padre, s’è colpa in lui’ (Tassilone, V/)

j # & [c] œœ ‰ J # cRotrude œ. & [ ] #œ ? # [c ]

œœœ œ Œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ

Pa - dre,

œ

œ #œ

‰ Jœ Jœ œ J s’è col-pa in

œ œ œ œ

Œ Ó

#œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ œ œ

#œ Œ lui,

œ Œ

œ. œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œœ œœ . œœ m m

Ó #œ

∑ œœœœ

#œ.

œ J œ œ œ

m œ m

 , :   some arias, as Lang observed, display melodic, harmonic, or contrapuntal weaknesses which, if they are not mistakes, Steffani is likely to have written only in haste or on an ‘off ’ day. In view of the composer’s written reactions to Fedeli and Riva, and the preceding comments on the music, it seems safe for Croll to have regarded Tassilone as authentic and to have published a modern edition under Steffani’s name. It may be unwise, however, to rule out the possibility that others contributed in some way to its composition or revision. If Steffani composed it a year or two before its first performance, he could not have revised it after September , when he set off for Rome: any adjustments would have had to be made by somebody else. Revision, however, is unlikely to have led to a score that differs so extensively from his previous operas: the process would have had to be far more radical than mere revision. Tassilone is too uneven in quality to be considered a masterpiece, but it is, nevertheless, an important work that illustrates developments in the music of Italian opera in the years around , shows Steffani responding positively to change—or stoking innovation himself—and prompts regret that he abandoned the composition of opera so early in life.




T C M

In , the year of Steffani’s first opera, the theorist and composer Angelo Berardi divided music into three styles—da chiesa, da camera, and da teatro (for church, chamber, and theatre).1 In seventeenth-century Europe, chamber music was generally composed and performed by professional musicians who were employed by wealthy or educated patrons to provide entertainment, even if the patrons themselves occasionally took part as ‘dilettanti’. Although chamber music was also sold to the public and performed in churches and academies, it was intended primarily for rooms in princely palaces and courts. In the words of a biographer of Queen Christina of Sweden, one of the greatest patrons of the period in Rome, music at court was the ‘ornament of princes and delight of salons’.2 Berardi went on to identify three kinds of chamber music: The chamber style is divided into and considered under three different styles. First is [that] of so-called ‘little table’ [‘tavolino’] madrigals, without thorough bass, such as those of Luca Marenzio, [Pompeo] Nenna, and the most learned theorist, the late Antonio Maria Abbatini, &c. [Second is that] of concertato madrigals with thorough bass, such as those of Monteverdi, [Domenico] Mazzocchi, [Marco] Scacchi, [Mario] Savioni, &c. Third, of those cantatas which are scored for various instruments, as are those held by the harmonious pen of Carlo Caprioli, Carissimi, [Antonio Francesco] Tenaglia, Luigi Rossi, [Giuseppe Corsi, detto] Celani, [Giuseppe] Pacieri, &c. The most striking feature of Berardi’s classification is the absence of instrumental music, to which the term ‘chamber music’ nowadays normally refers. Not that there was any shortage in seventeenth-century Italy of music for instrumental ensemble: the presses of Venice, Bologna, and other cities issued sets of canzonas, solo and trio sonatas, and dances from the early s until well into the eighteenth century. Alongside this music flourished the sizable repertory of vocal works that Berardi defined. The unaccompanied madrigal, a child of the sixteenth century, all but died out during the seventeenth. Soon after  it was transformed into the ‘madrigale concertato’ for one or more voices and continuo, with or without obbligato instrument (s),



   in which form it survived into the s. Together with the concertato madrigal, the seventeenth century also cultivated the newer cantata ‘for various instruments’; Berardi’s formulation was presumably meant to include continuo, for cantatas with obbligato or orchestral instruments were far less common than those with continuo alone. His distinction between cantata and madrigal provides a useful starting point for a discussion of Steffani’s vocal chamber music. No seventeenth-century writer on music defined the cantata more precisely than Berardi: contemporary musicians had no need of a detailed definition. From the literary point of view, however, the cantata was an addition to the inherited forms of Italian poetry, and one that required explanation. The classic account from Steffani’s lifetime is that of Giovanni Mario Crescimbeni, chronicler of the Arcadian Academy in Rome: Apart from celebratory pieces (‘feste’), certain other styles of poetry were introduced for music which today are generally called cantatas. These are composed of [long] lines and short lines without rhyme scheme, interspersed with arias. Some are for one voice, others for more; some have been, and continue to be, written that incorporate an element of the dramatic or narrative. This sort of poetry is an invention of the seventeenth century, for in the preceding [century] music was set to madrigals and to the other regulated [poetical] compositions. 3 The ‘lines and short lines’ mentioned in this quotation are the endecasillabi and settenari (eleven- and seven-syllable lines) of the madrigal that were adopted in the seventeenth century as the poetical basis of recitative; they did not have to rhyme, but might do so unpredictably if the writer so wished.4 The aria had its roots in the strophic canzonetta and metrical experiments of Chiabrera; it is distinguished from recitative by a regular rhyme scheme and clearly perceptible rhythm in one or more of a variety of metres. Crescimbeni implies that a mixture of recitative and aria was a defining feature of cantata verse in his day. By stating that some cantatas include a dramatic or narrative element, he implies also that the majority do not—that they are, in other words, lyrical works in which sentiments are directly expressed by the poet/composer/singer. His observation that cantatas may be for one voice or more supplements the information given by Berardi, whom he joins, however, in contrasting the cantata with the madrigal ‘and the other regulated compositions’. What Crescimbeni stresses above all, however, is that the cantata was a setting of a poem. In Italy the words were invariably Italian: Latin was the province of the church. This did not rule out the possibility of cantatas on moral or devotional subjects, but these were far outweighed by settings on secular themes. The subject matter of the cantata was inherited from the madrigal, which had been dominated since the early sixteenth century by the pastoral. One occasionally finds a cantata on a historical, mythological, or humorous theme, but the bulk of the repertory comprises settings of amatory verse in which the principal concerns are the loves, fears, hopes, disappointments, jealousies, and, occasionally, joys of Arcadian nymphs and shepherds.





  The material was less important than the manner in which it was treated: since poetry in this period was a rhetorical art, designed to move the reader or listener, the emphasis was more on style and form than on content. Furthermore, the pastoral represented both a metaphor of the courtly society that created it and, paradoxically, an escape into an ideal world removed from harsh reality. Perhaps this explains why the subject matter of the cantata could satisfy the hearts and minds of educated people for two centuries or more. So as far as music is concerned, the most important conventions of the cantata were already in place when Steffani started composing. Chief among these is the distinction between recitative and aria. The long and short lines of blank verse (versi sciolti) are normally set as recitative, though the closing endecasillabo or rhyming couplet is often treated in arioso style and worked up into a cavata. Aria texts are invariably set in aria style; the principal forms are binary (ab), extended binary (abb or abb⬘), da capo (aba) and ternary (aba⬘). The distinction between recitative and aria facilitated their alternation, which became a standard feature around the time of the founding of the Arcadian Academy (). The scale of the solo cantata was limited partly by the stamina of singers: this is probably why most of them are restricted to two arias, usually in contrasting styles. In a standard cantata, each aria is preceded by recitative, which enables the poet to set the scene before launching into lyrical expression, the composer to pitch the first aria outside the tonic key, and the singer to settle down before tackling the first aria. The number of recitatives or arias was sometimes increased, especially in cantatas for more than one singer, but also, on occasion, in those for solo voice. Problems arose, however, if a cantata dispensed with the opening recitative or added another at the end: if it began and ended with arias, both of these had to be in the tonic key if the work was to be tonally unified (as it normally was), and this restricted the range of expression; if it finished with recitative, the last line or couplet was usually set arioso to avoid a weak musical ending. Like the subject matter of the verse, the musical material was perhaps less important than the manner in which it was treated. Italian music of the period makes use of a stock of conventional melodic formulae related to the principal affections. By means of extension, repetition, and ornamentation, coupled with modulation and transposition, a convincing movement could be assembled from a small amount of material. The use of imitative counterpoint, if only between voice and continuo, also entailed repetition (of a sort) and represented a further compositional resource— one in which there was renewed interest in Italy in the second half of the seventeenth century. All of these procedures were affected by the emergence of the classical system of key relationships, which ‘set up harmonic goals without which the extended forms of late baroque music would not have been possible’.5 The expansion of both vocal and instrumental movements in the years around  probably owed most to tonality and counterpoint, although the process was aided in vocal music by the addition of accompanying instruments. As the sonata and concerto came to comprise a smaller number of larger movements, of which the structures were more clearly defined, so the cantata became more stereotyped and the aria grew in scale. The standard sonata da chiesa (slow-fast-slow-fast) was paralleled by the standard solo cantata (recitative-aria-recitative-aria).

  

Cantatas for Solo Voice In this connection one should also mention Agostino Steffani, who likewise through his teacher, Ercole Bernabei, is to be counted with the Roman school and who, though his life, as is well known, extends far into the eighteenth century, nevertheless remains throughout a spiritual child of the seventeenth. Indeed, Steffani is perhaps the most distinguished name in the whole field of vocal chamber music. It must be admitted, however, that the master figures so prominently as the specialist of the chamber duet that, by comparison, his few surviving solo cantatas hardly come into the reckoning. At this point in our account, therefore, he can receive little but a general mention, for the notable refinement that he achieved in melodic expression overall, which indirectly—i.e., through its influence on his contemporaries—then bore fruit in the form of the solo cantata too. 6 Although it was first published as long ago as , Eugen Schmitz’s summary of Steffani’s achievement as a composer of vocal chamber music is still valid today. A child of the seventeenth century and a product of the Roman school, Steffani was the master of the chamber duet. Refinement is indeed the hallmark of his melodic style, yet he indulged this in only seven surviving cantatas for solo voice (although an eighth is probably his).7 His earliest datable secular work, and possibly his earliest extant work of any kind, is the cantata Occhi miei, lo miraste, for soprano and continuo, which survives in a Roman manuscript (D-HVs, Kestner vol. ) and must have been composed while he was a student there in the early s.8 The text, which comprises two arias, each framed by recitative (RARAR), is the lament of a nymph (Lucinda) on being abandoned by her lover. In the opening recitative and aria, by far the longest sections, she vents her desolation and anger; the central recitative reflects on the loss of her lover to another woman, while the closing movements convey her growing jealousy. Both of the arias are in the tonic key, D minor, but they are contrasted in metre and form and there is tonal variety in the recitatives. The initial recitative is a substantial movement of seventy-seven bars, composed of several smaller units (see Table .). The ends of its constituent sections are marked by cadences, some of them imperfect, and the beginnings by new chords that are often a third below the previous one. The opening phrase is repeated down a fourth, a rather mechanical gesture that implies greater concern with rhetoric than with Lucinda’s plight (Example .). Emotive or colourful words are nevertheless picked out for special treatment—‘crudo’ by an abrupt change of chord; ‘pianti’ and ‘sospiri’ by an affecting melisma and Neapolitan harmony (Example .) ; ‘costanza’ by a sustained monotone; and ‘venti’, ‘fulmini’, and ‘furia’ by semiquaver passages. The figure on ‘sospiri’ returns later as a standard cadential approach. The setting of lines  – is rounded off by a repeat that may have been suggested by the text. The harmony of these lines stands out in the context of D minor; indeed, the tonal hiatus between lines  and  would be astonishing if it were not softened in performance by a tierce de Picardie on the C. The last line is set as a cavata, but the effect of the spirited material is somewhat undermined by excessive sequential repetition.





   . miraste

Opening recitative of Occhi miei, lo

Line of text

Key or chord

1–3 4 –6 7–9 10–14 –15 16–17 18 19–20 – 21 22 – 23 24 24 (repeated)

d–a F–d B  –C c–E  –c A–d ⫺A F–C–E C–G G–a a–d

The first aria is a large-scale strophic structure with over forty bars of
34 [ 64 ] in each verse. The metre was suggested by the senari of the opening four lines (‘Ruggiada non cada / su ’l fertil terreno’), which are followed in each strophe by a settenario and an endecasillabo. The setting treats the lines in pairs, with modulations to the dominant and relative major, but the aria impresses by the range and agility of its vocal line and its energetic, contrapuntal bass. Taking material from the soprano, the continuo ascends over two octaves into the vocal range (Example .), while in the final phrase the soprano, who has already sung four high b⬙-flats in the preceding recitative, climbs a tenth in just over a bar (Example .). The following recitative reflects Lucinda’s more thoughtful and analytical mood at this point and ends with a question set to a rising interval, an appropriate gesture typical of the genre.9 The second aria is much shorter than the first. The text is a quatrain of tensyllable lines (an unusual metre), with two versi tronchi framing a pair of piani: Gelosia, va lungi da me. Non è albergo di mostri il mio core, che del cieco fanciullo l’ardore del tuo gelo compagno non è.

 tronco  piano  piano  tronco

The setting comprises just seventeen bars of 128. The time signature facilitates a rapid, syllabic delivery, which is abandoned only when the last word is reached. Here Steffani allows himself a modest melisma, propelled by syncopation (Example .), but ignores the possibility of a da capo repeat afforded by the rhyme. Of the two lines of verse in the final recitative, the second is set as a cavata in 23 ; the antithesis between love and jealousy, described in the text as ‘contrari’, is aptly conveyed by melodic inversion,10 a felicitous musical image that is typical of Steffani’s prodigious invention in this cantata. Indeed, if this work displays immaturity in its tonal plan, studied repetition, and unbalanced relationship between movements, it nevertheless exhibits a confident grasp of the language of the Italian cantata in the later seventeenth century and promises great things to come. Steffani’s remaining cantatas for solo voice call for instruments in addition to continuo and are styled as ‘scherzi’ in the only known source (I-MOe, Mus. F. ; for

    . S

Bc

Beginning of solo cantata Occhi miei, lo miraste

?c w

Oc - chi miei,

Bc

spar-ger pian

œ & [c43 ]

Bc

w

˙

-

-

-

-

-

˙

˙

˙

b b œ ≈ œ œ œ # œj œj ‰ Jœ œj œj

œ œ œ œ œ œ bœ œ -

- ti

e

˙

so -

? [c43 ] œ

a

Fil - li

˙

˙

6 4 2

6

œ œ œœœ ˙

w. -#

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

bia se - re

˙. -

no.

?œ

j œ

Bars –  from aria ‘Ruggiada non cada’ (Occhi miei, lo miraste)

œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ #œ œ œ œ œ œ & [c43 ] Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ b œ œ ? [c43 ] # œ

spi - ri

˙

# œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ B œœ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ ˙ œœœœœ

 . S

-

w.

er Bc

lo mi - ra - ste

Bars – from aria ‘Ruggiada non cada’ (Occhi miei, lo miraste)

 . S

œœœ œœœ ˙

#˙

non ab Bc

oc-chi miei,

From the opening recitative of Occhi miei, lo miraste

 . S

œ œ J œœœ˙

œ.

œ œ œ œ œ & [c ] Œ J J ? [c ] ˙

j Œ œj œ # œ Œ Œ Jœ Jœ œ œ

Ó

lo mi-ra - ste,

˙

 . S

œ Œ J Jœ œ œ

j œ & c Œ œ J #œ Œ

-

-

-

˙.

˙

-

˙.

-

-

˙.

-

œ ˙ ˙.

rin, er - rin gl’ar - men

˙.

œb œ œ

˙.

-

ti.

˙.

From aria ‘Gelosia, va lungi da me’ (Occhi miei, lo miraste)

bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ . ‰ œ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ . œ œ w . J & [12 8 ] ‰ Jœ J J J J J J J œ R J ? [12 8]œ

del tuo ge-lo com-pa-gno non è,

œ . J œ

œ.

œ. #œ. œ. œ.

œ. œ.

œ.

del tuo ge-lo com-pa-gno non è.

œ.

œ.

œ.

w.

titles and scoring, see Table .). He appears to have composed them for Munich in the s or s and to have given the manuscript to Francesco II D’Este, duke of Modena, between  and .11 The word ‘scherzo’ had entered the vocabulary of poetry and music via Chiabrera’s Scherzi e canzonette morali of .12 The poet had used it of madrigalian works in a single stanza, but composers applied it to strophic settings, adopting it as an alternative for such words as ‘aria’, ‘canzonetta’, or ‘villanella’. It also meant ‘aria’ when, in , the librettist Francesco Sbarra wrote that ‘if the





   .

Contents of MS I-MOe, Mus. F. 

Scherzi dell’ Abbate Steffani Title

Scoring

Spezza Amor l’arco e li strali Il più felice e sfortunato amante Guardati, o core, dal dio bambin! Fileno, idolo mio, / ove lungi da me ti stai, mio bene? Lagrime dolorose, / da gli occhi miei venite Hai finito di lusingarmi

‘Canto solo. i. Piffero [oboe]. i. Fagotto’ ‘Alto solo con . Violini’ ‘Canto solo con . Violini’ ‘Canto solo con . Violini’ ‘Basso solo con . Flauti’ [recorders] ‘Canto solo con . Pifferi’ [oboes]

recitative [of an opera] were not punctuated by similar scherzi, it would cause more boredom than pleasure’.13 Among the last musical publications to use the word in their title are the two books of Scherzi amorosi (, ) and the Scherzi musicali per fuggir 1’ozio () of Francesco Petrobelli, who was maestro di cappella at Padua in  and died there in . The words of one of Steffani’s ‘scherzi’, Fileno, idolo mio, were set also by Atto Melani (–).14 Comparison of the two settings reveals differences between composers a generation apart and underlines Steffani’s prowess in the sphere of the cantata. The poet depicts a nymph waking at dawn and beseeching her lover to come to her: she sees the sun but not her sun. The text of Melani’s setting comprises five sections—RARAR; Steffani’s text lacks the central recitative and the end of the preceding aria, and is thus RAAR, a most unusual design. But although nearly a third of the poem is lost, its meaning is not impaired. Both composers set the words for soprano—the commonest voice for cantatas, and in this case the most appropriate— but while Melani writes in the minor mode with accompaniment for continuo only, Steffani opts for the major and adds two violins. Although every movement begins and ends in the tonic key, there is greater harmonic variety in Steffani’s work; whereas Melani’s arias begin in common time and are bipartite in structure, Steffani’s are contrasted in metre and form, and one employs the violins while the other does not. The text of the first recitative comprises two questions and a statement: Fileno, idolo mio, ove lungi da me ti stai, mio bene? Che tu non riedi a questo seno, oh Dio? Già la vezzosa Aurora sorge dal Gange . . . [Philenus, my idol, where are you, my love, far from me? Why do you not smile on my breast, oh God? Now beautiful Dawn is rising over the Ganges . . . ]

Both composers divide their setting at the end of line , but Steffani’s perfect cadence is less appropriate to a question than is Melani’s half close; on the other hand, Steffani avoids beginning ‘la vezzosa Aurora’ on a strong beat. In general, Melani’s melodic rhythm is less idiomatic and varied than that of Steffani, who displays greater sensitivity to the rhythm of the words. Furthermore, although Melani ends the move-

   ment with a touch of arioso and Neapolitan harmony, Steffani emphasizes the word ‘notte’ with long low notes that reveal his interest in conveying the meaning of the text (Example .). Steffani’s superior handling of words is shown also in the first aria. Melani’s melody is relatively impoverished, with little basis in the text. The rising quavers for ‘solo adoro’ form parallel sevenths with the bass; ‘pace’ is mis-stressed, and piano endings in the verse make for weak feminine cadences in the music (Example .). Matters are not improved by a change to triple metre: it is not clear why the highest note falls on the word ‘riporta’ or why this note occurs on a different syllable of the same word when the word is repeated. Steffani’s material is more appropriate and graceful. Though his melody, too, rises at ‘solo adoro’, this phrase is balanced by descending motion for the nymph’s invitations to her lover, and desire is conveyed by her repetition of ‘vieni’ (Example .). The first half of the text is sung twice, in tonic and dominant, and each statement is echoed by the violins. The second section of this aba⬘ aria is constructed similarly; the word ‘pace’ is correctly stressed, a modest sequence leads to the relative minor, and a small change to the words ensures a masculine cadence (Example .). The final portion of Steffani’s setting is a varied repeat of the first, the order of the two statements being reversed: after a brief opening in the tonic, the original material, including instrumental echoes, returns in the dominant and then in the tonic —a simple device, beautifully executed. His aria is over three times as long as Melani’s, but the increase is due less to his use of violins than to his skilful exploitation of more ample vocal material.  . (b) Steffani

Fileno, idolo mio: end of opening recitative as set by (a) Melani and

[a] by Atto Melani S

Bc

œ œœœ jœ œ & [c] ‰ Jœ Jœ J Jœ œj œj œj œ œ J b œ œ # œ œ ? [ c]

non mi - ro il sol, è per me

˙

#˙

not - te an - co

œ

œ

Bc

j # j & # [ c] ‰ Jœ œ Rœ n Rœ Jœ œ œj œj ˙ ? # # [ c] ˙

non mi - ro il

 . S

& [c ]

œ œ œ J J vie - ni a

Bc

? [c ] œ œ

sol, e pur m’è not

-

-

œ œ œ œ

-

˙ - ra.

˙

˙

j jœ œ j j œ J J œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙ -

te, e pur m’è not - te an - co - ra.

œ œ œ ˙

œ

‰œœœ œ

˙

-

œ œ

[b] by Steffani S

-

˙

˙

From aria ‘Vieni, sol che solo adoro’ (Melani, cantata Fileno, idolo mio)

œ œ œ œ œ œ ques - to

˙

se - no

œ.

Œ

œ J Jœ œ œ a por-tar

œ œ #œ œ œ œ

pa - ce

#œ œ œ J œ œ œ œ

œ

ri - sto - ro

œ

œ #œ





   . Vn I Vn II

S

Bc

# & # cÓ

S

Bc

œ œ œœ Ó œ œœ œ œ œ œ œ Œ

Œ œœ

∑

Œ

# j . œ œ œ œ j . j & # c Œ œ œj œ Œ Œ Jœ œ Jœ R J R Rœ J œ Jœ Rœ œ œ œ œ œj . œr œ Œ ? ## c w

 . Vn I Vn II

Aria ‘Vieni, o sol che solo adoro’ (Steffani, scherzo Fileno, idolo mio)

Vie-ni o sol,

vie - ni o sol che so - lo a - do - ro, vie - ni, vie - ni a ques - to sen

˙.

œ

œ

œ

œ

˙.

From Steffani, aria ‘Vieni, o sol che solo adoro’ (Fileno, idolo mio)

Ó # & # [c] œ œ œœ œ œ Œ

œ œ œœ œ œœ œ œœ # œ Œ

j # œ . r r & # [c] Œ œ œJ œ œj œ œ œj œj œJ œR œJ Jœ J œJ ? # # [c] ˙

œ

œœ œ Ó ∑ J # œ# œ œ ‰ Œ œ Jœ . œR œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œj œ œ œ œ œ J J

a por-tar pa-cee ri - sto-ro ad un al-ma che vien men, ad un al -

œ œ

œ

œ

œ

#œ

œ œ

œ

-

œ

- ma che vien men

œ œ œ

œ

The remainder of Melani’s cantata displays further awkwardness in melody and harmony. False relations—one simultaneous, the other successive—are found in the next recitative and aria (Example .). The last line of the recitative is set as a cavata that delivers both halves of the text twice, but since it avoids melodic repetition it displays no clear structure; it finishes with an open-ended rising phrase that could be seen as beguiling or bizarre (Example .). The crotchet tread of the aria’s continuo recalls the strophic-bass cantata of the earlier seventeenth century; the vocal line is obsessed with a sterile semiquaver figure that merely decorates the crotchet beat, and Melani was evidently stumped by the sdrucciolo ‘indorano’ (Example .). The text of the cantata concludes with two endecasillabi: the composer sets the first as recitative, approaching the cadence via a rare augmented sixth (Example .), and treats the second as a cavata (with material no more distingished than before). Omitting the central recitative, Steffani sets the second aria in abb⬘ form and in
34 time (barred as 124 ). His melodic rhythm is much more lively and varied than Melani’s, with rapid syllabic declamation on quavers, florid semiquaver passages, and syncopation between vocal line and bass (Example .). The vocal line is supported by a contrapuntal basso continuo, which begins imitatively and remains active throughout. The setting suggests that Steffani imagined the nymph at this stage to be more agitated or desperate than before; if he did, his conception represents an understanding of human nature and a seriousness of artistic purpose that are absent from Melani’s cantata. The aria leads without a break into the concluding cavata which, unlike Melani’s, embraces both lines of the final couplet. The transition from aria to cavata is marked by a change of time and the re-entry of the violins. The material of the cavata is typically polished and appropriate, especially for the words ‘si lagna e duole’

    . S

- ba

Bc

From Melani, aria ‘Or dell’alba i vaghi rai’ (Fileno, idolo mio)

j j j œ œ œ œœ j & [c] œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # œ œ . # œ œ Jœ Jœ Jœ ‰ Œ ? [c ] œ

i

va

-

 . S

3 & [2 ] ˙ il

Bc

Bc

? [c ]

-

i

œ œ J J

w

-

œ

mo

de’

re.

ti il

crin

œ œ

in - do-ra -no

˙

œ.

#œ œ J

∑

∑

∑

˙ w ˙. œ œ œ . œ ˙ ˙

w.

œ

œ œ œ

w.

cor sì

la

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ #œ ˙ J J -

˙

j œ œ

˙

gna e duo -

-

˙

œ œ œ j œ Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ J

- le

˙

˙

œ. œ œ œ œ œ. œ. œ œ œ œ œ œœ œ œ

œ

de l’al - ba i va -ghi ra - i già de’ mon

œ.

jœ œ

- ti il cri-ne in -do - ra-no, il

? ## œ œ œ œ œ œ ˙

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

œ. œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ œ œ œ œ œ

# j j j œ œ Jœ œ œ œj . œr œj œ Jœ Jœ & # œ -

-

œ

Steffani, aria ‘Or dell’alba i vaghi rai’ (Fileno idolo mio)

# & # [c43 ] Œ œ .

-

mon

#œ

˙. œ œ œ w. -

w.

˙

? # # [c43 ] ˙

già

From Melani, recitative ‘Solo indarno il mio cor’ (Fileno, idolo mio)

Hor Bc

˙ w

So - lo in - dar - no il mio

 . S

d’a

w

œ œ œ J J

& [c ] Œ

˙

œœœœ ˙ œ œ œœ ˙ w

miel

? [3 ] w . ˙ 2

ra

œ

From Melani, recitative ‘A che tardi, Fileno?’ (Fileno, idolo mio)

˙

 . S

ghi

œ

œ œœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœœ œ

cri-ne in - do

‰ œj œ

-

-

-

-

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ.

-

-

-

ra-[no]

œœ œ œ œ

(Example .), and so is the handling of tonality and structure. The penultimate line is set only once, but the last is heard twice — the first statement moving from tonic to dominant, the second remaining in the home key. The vocal material is shared by the violins, which echo, anticipate, punctuate, and accompany the singer’s phrases and reinforce the expression. The violins also launch the cantata with a Corellian ‘preludio’ in common time and binary form. Although this movement is not related thematically to the arias that follow, it seems to summarize the content of the work: the first half evokes the waking nymph, the brief ‘presto’ her calls to her lover, and the final ‘adagio’ her disappointment at his silence. Similar features and qualities are found in the remainder of Steffani’s ‘scherzi’. The texts are entirely amatory and pastoral. In Spezza Amor, Fileno cannot bring him-





   . Vn I Vn II

S

Steffani, cavata ‘Solo indarno il mio cor si lagna e duole’ (Fileno, idolo mio)

˙. œ ˙ ˙ #˙ ˙ j Ÿ Ó ˙ . œ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙˙ .. œœ ˙˙ ˙˙ # ˙˙ w˙ ˙ w ˙ # w˙ . œ ˙˙ .. œœ œ . Jœœ ˙˙ ww ww .. ˙ Ÿ # ˙ w. w ˙ › w ˙ œ #œ w. & # [c 23 ] ˙ ˙ . œ ˙ ˙ # ˙ w . Ó Ó ˙ ˙ # & # [c 23 ]

∑

- no, so-lo in-dar-no il mio cor

Bc

? # # [c 3 ] w 2

˙

w

˙

w.

w

si

la - gna

e

˙

w

˙

w.

duo -

w.

-

-

˙ w

w.

-

-

-

le

w. w.

self to declare his love to Clori. A shepherd is Il più felice e sfortunato amante because he does not know whether Clori reciprocates his affection. ‘Beware of Cupid’, Guardati warns, ‘for love always ends in tears’. Lagrime dolorose depicts Aminta’s grief on Filli’s death; Clorindo boasts in Hai finito di lusingarmi that his Filli no longer holds him in thrall—only to discover near the end that she does! If the subject-matter of the works is conventional, the forms are unpredictable (see Table .). Four of the ‘scherzi’ begin with a passage for instruments. The ‘preludio’ to Il più felice e sfortunato amante is an imitative andante with serene suspensions in the violins over a restless quaver bass, like a Corellian trio sonata. The opening aria of Guardati, o core begins with one ritornello, while a cavata in the same work (‘sappi ch’ei ti lusinga e se ne mente’) is echoed by another. Similarly, ritornellos introduce both the initial cavata and the central aria (‘Occhi miei, dunque chiudetevi’) of Lagrime dolorose. In Spezza Amor and Hai finito, on the other hand, only a single continuo chord precedes the voice. The instruments are also involved in most of the arias and usually play throughout; the only exceptions are the binary ‘Così dubbia e ria procella’ (Il più felice), of which the violins accompany only the second half, and a couple of dancebased arias, in which they alternate with the voice: the ‘type b’ da capo aria of Steffani’s operas, in which the instruments are dropped for section b, is absent from these ‘scherzi’, along with the large-scale da capo aria with twofold section a. All the arias are in the tonic key, even in the works that begin with recitative (Guardati, o core and Fileno, idolo mio are in major keys, the other ‘scherzi’ in minor). Four of the arias are binary, two are in abb⬘ form, and seven are in aba or aba⬘. Two of the binary arias are strophic dance songs, like those in Steffani’s operas. ‘Così dubbia e ria  .

The Vocal Constituents of Steffani’s ‘Scherzi’

Title

Aria/Recitative

Spezza Amor l’arco e li strali Il più felice e sfortunato amante Guardati, o core, dal Dio bambin! Fileno, idolo mio, ove lungi da me ti stai Lagrime dolorose Hai finito di lusingarmi

A A

A

R R R R R R

A A A A A A

R R R A R R

A A R A

   procella’ looks like two arias joined together, one in common time and with continuo only, the other in 23 and with instruments; but since the first modulates from E to B minor and the second returns to E minor from G, the sections are complementary and act as a unit. ‘Zeffiretti placidetti’ (Spezza Amor) resembles ‘Hor dell’alba’ in using abb⬘ form, but its two verses are substantial (seventy-six bars of 23 ), and each has an elaborate instrumental obbligato, again reminiscent of Steffani’s operas. The written-out aba⬘ form of ‘Vieni, o sol’ recurs in the first and last arias of Hai finito. The repeat in ‘Moro, sì, ma non risolve’ (Il più felice) is also written out, even though, because it is literal, it could have been replaced by a da capo instruction, as in the first movement of Spezza Amor and Guardati, o core. Both of these arias change time for section b and use instruments throughout, but they have little else in common. The two sections of Spezza Amor are similar in length, each being based on two lines of text; the parts for oboe and bassoon, especially the ornamental scales in section b, recall the wind obbligatos in Steffani’s Hanover operas (Example .). The sections of Guardati, o core are also similar in length, although the first is set to one line of text while the second uses four; here and in ‘Occhi miei’ (Lagrime dolorose) the b section ends, unconventionally, in the tonic key. The repeat in ‘Occhi miei’, indicated by a segno, omits the initial ritornello. The ‘scherzi’ incorporate several examples of the cavata. In the three works that end with recitative verse, the final line or couplet is set in this way; similar sections are found in the first recitative of Guardati, o core and Hai finito. The conclusion of Fileno, idolo mio is typical of Steffani’s cavatas in comprising two statements of the textual and musical material, linked by a partial statement or ‘false start’; the final statement is in the tonic, the first in a related key. Lagrime dolorose is exceptional, however, in beginning with a cavata, a substantial movement of forty-three bars with recorder accompaniment. The standard structure is reserved for the second and third lines of the text, occupies the last two-thirds of the movement, and is launched by a ‘presto’ marking. It is preceded by fourteen bars in identical style (arioso) on the opening line of the stanza, the two words ‘Lagrime dolorose’. Much of the remaining recitative verse in the ‘scherzi’ is set to brief passages of arioso such as that in Example .b, but none of these is sufficiently lengthy or structured to be regarded as a cavata. All the recitative is semplice, possibly to maximize contrast with the arias, possibly because

 .

From aria ‘Spezza Amor l’arco e li strali’ (Spezza Amor)

Bsn

˙ ˙ & b [23] ˙ ˙ ? b [3] w 2

S

˙ ˙ & b [23] Ó

Ob

se Bc

? [3] w . b 2

le

n˙

Ÿœ .œ œ œ œ œ ˙

˙

˙

œ

˙. Ÿ ˙ œ œœnœ œ œ œ . œ pia

˙

-

˙.

-

-

œ

˙. œ ˙ #˙ ˙

Ÿ œ nœ œ œ œ œ ˙ œ

n˙ w

ghe son

fa - ta

˙

w

Ÿœ œ bœ œ

˙ w.

œ w J

w.

#

w

˙ œœœ˙

˙

œ œ bœ œ w -

li

nul -

˙

nœ œ œ -

- la

w





  Steffani’s pairs of instruments cannot create the texture that is normally provided in recitativo accompagnato by four-part strings. The only other work requiring discussion here is Piange la bella Clori, e del suo pianto, for soprano and basso continuo, which was copied by Johann Sigismund Kusser, possibly in London about  (Fig. .).15 Though headed ‘cantata’, the piece exhibits an unusual form, comprising a recitative (lines – ), an aria ( –), and a concluding section in a variety of metres, set in arioso style:16 Piange la bella Clori, e del suo pianto cade ogni stella ad affogarmi il core; così tiranno amore, sotto vel di pietà, m’entra nel petto. . . .

   



Pupillette care, care, non piangete, io v’amerò. . . .

  tronco



Ma se poi vi diletta il pianger tanto, consacrate il vostro pianto alla mia libertà, persa per voi.

   

       .  Solo cantata Piange la bella Clori, copied by Johann Sigismund Kusser in ca.  (Harry S Truman Presidential Library, Independence, Missouri; by permission)

   [The fair Chloris weeps, and every star of her tears falls to drown my heart. Thus the tyrant love, under cover of pity, enters my heart. . . . [:] Dear little pupils, do not cry: I will love you. . . . [:] But if weeping delights you so much, consecrate your tears to my freedom, lost to you.]

Although the poem is brief, its technical features are convincing and its sense appears to be complete—though the conceit could have been extended in additional stanzas. The cantata is an effective setting of the text and is consistent with Steffani’s style. The key is G Dorian minor (one flat); the recitative and aria both begin and end in the tonic, but the concluding arioso starts on a chord of E  before returning to base. Because it is tonally ‘open’, this section seems more like an extension of the aria than an independent movement, and the work resembles less a succession of movements than a single entity. The lines of the recitative are set in twos and threes, and the cadences at the ends of these brief sections create a coherent tonal structure. The setting of the words shows careful attention to their rhythm and meaning, and the recitative begins with the kind of virtuoso flourish that is familiar from Steffani’s Hanover operas.17 This melodic phrase is just as impressive, however, for its underlying structure, which rises and falls by one note per bar. The last line of this stanza is set in 23 as a cavata; apart from the imitation in the bass, the way in which the rhythm of the continuo complements that of the voice—moving when the singer is holding, and vice versa—is highly characteristic of Steffani (Example .). The aria, in common time, lacks a tempo indication but would merit ‘larghetto affettuoso’. An atmosphere of reassurance is established with a pleasing turn to the major mode (Example .). Like ‘v’amerò’, the last word of the aria (‘morirò’) attracts a melisma, but here the harmony surprises (E  and E chords in close proximity) and the melody becomes chromatic (Example .). The repeat of the a section is written out and rounded off by an echo of the last two bars. The first two lines of the arioso, which is all in 23, are dispatched in six swift bars, but the last two support a substantial cavata which encompasses, however, the only weak spot in the piece. The first statement of the material, which ends in E , is followed by a ‘false start’ in C minor, but there is a  . S

3 &b 2 Ó

Bc

? b 23 w .

w

˙.

œ ˙

w

fa

l’a - qua in

me

 . S

From solo cantata Piange la bella Clori, ascribed to Steffani

˙

˙

˙

˙

˙ #˙

ciò

˙.

che

˙ fa in

œ ˙

m [altri]

m

Bars  –  from aria ‘Pupillette care, care’ (Piange la bella Clori)

j jb œ œ œb œ œ Jœ œ œ œ œ œ3 œ œ œ b œ œ 3œ œ œ œ # œ Jœ . œ œ . œ œ . b œ œ œ . œ œ & b [c] œ . œ Jœ œ J J J R R R J J Rœ œ pu-pil-let-te ca-re, ca - re, non pian-ge

Bc

w

˙

? [ c] b œ. j œ. œ

-

j bœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ

-

-

œœœ

-

œ

te, io v’a-me - rò,

œœ

bœ

io

œœœœ œ œ

v’a-me - rò

œ

œ

j œ





   .

Bars  –  from aria ‘Pupillette care, care’ (Piange la bella Clori) #

n

S

bœ. œ œ . œ j . œ & b [c] J R J Rœ # Rœ Jœ R œ # Jœ Jœ R # œ al - tri-men - te io mo - ri - rò,

Bc

? b [ c] œ œ

 . S

Bc

œ.

œ œ œœœ m 3

io mo - ri - rò,

œ. œ œ œ . œ œ nœ

œ

œ

m

From arioso ‘Ma se poi’ (Piange la bella Clori)

˙ ˙ bœ œ b˙. œ ˙ Ó ˙. œ #˙ ˙ ˙ m - i, con - sa - cra - te il vos - tro pian - to, con - sa - cra - te il ˙ ˙. œ b˙ ˙ w ? b [23 ] ˙ ˙ . œ w . ˙. œ ˙ m ˙. œ w. 3 & b [2 ] w .

Ó ˙. œ n˙ ˙ ˙

nasty jolt between this and the second statement, which presumably begins on an A minor chord (Example .). Since the manuscript includes an erasure in this bar, it is possible that the copy is unreliable here; elsewhere, however, the cantata and its source are entirely convincing, giving no reason to doubt the work’s authenticity.

Chamber Duets The first ‘modern’ musicologist to examine Steffani’s duets was Friedrich Chrysander, who explored them in connexion with his biography of Handel.18 He divided those he knew into three groups: ‘small’ duets in one movement, some with da capo repeat; ‘large’ duets, in which solo movements for each singer (some with recitative) were framed by others for both; ‘medium’ duets in more than one movement but without solos. Since he found the solo movements less melodious and artistic (‘kunstreich’) than the ‘lively’ and ‘fiery’ duets, he regarded the ‘medium’ duets as the finest works: here was the mastery of melody and counterpoint that Handel was to take as a model. If Chrysander’s preference was reflected in the first scholarly edition of Steffani’s duets,19 their contrapuntal nature was adopted by Eugen Schmitz as ‘the hallmark of the form [the Italian chamber duet] in its highest perfection’: Through Steffani’s work, the genre became associated with the notion of a display of superior contrapuntal refinements. Admittedly, it must be emphasized at once that this polyphonic nature does not constitute the norm throughout the history of the chamber duet but rather that it stands out exclusively as a determinant of style only in the case of isolated, speciallygifted composers—of whom Steffani himself is the most important. For this reason, however, it is nevertheless the hallmark of the form in its highest perfection and as such is of utmost signficance in the history of the development of the genre.20

   The presence of counterpoint is one of four criteria used by Schmitz to distinguish between various kinds of duet. The others concern the nature of the text (whether it is a dialogue), vocal scoring (whether the work includes solo movements), and instrumental scoring (whether it calls for instruments other than continuo). The question of text is fundamental. When the poem is a dialogue, the singers represent different characters, whether named or not, and engage in conversation: the text is a miniature drama. Even if the characters share some of the words or express similar sentiments, their music inevitably differs. This is not the case when the text is a lyrical monologue. A poem of this kind could have been set for one voice, and occasionally was: some of Steffani’s duets are based on words that had been set as solos by other composers. A decision to score a setting of such verse for two singers has no basis in the poem. The musical result is simply a textural expansion of a solo, and this means that the duet is a medium rather than a form. Most duets before  were madrigals or arias for two voices and continuo only.21 The madrigal survived for much longer in duet than in solo settings, and the aria a due flourished as both a serious genre and a lightweight canzonet. The first publication to include the word ‘duetti’ in its title was Barbara Strozzi’s Cantate, ariette e duetti, op.  (Venice, ); printed duets appeared later as ‘duetti’ or ‘cantate’. Dialogue settings were comparatively rare, but their presence in Maurizio Cazzati’s Duetti per camera, op.  (Bologna, ), suggests that even such ‘theatrical’ works could be regarded as ‘chamber’ music. Schmitz’s belief that counterpoint was typical of the chamber style is confirmed by printed ‘duetti’, most of which use imitation and are described as ‘da’ or ‘per camera’. In his search for the sources of Steffani’s style, however, he was continually disappointed, even by Roman composers (though since most of his sources were prints, he could not do justice to Luigi Rossi, Carissimi, Cesti, or Stradella). The most pertinent Venetian was Giovanni Legrenzi, but even his Idee armoniche estese, op.  (), preferred short antiphonal motives to more sustained contrapuntal material. Bolognese duets, too, were largely ‘theatrical’. If Cazzati began with imitation, the parts were soon combined in parallel motion. The same applied to Giovanni Maria Bononcini and to the Duetti da camera, op.  (Bologna, ), of his son. A marked interest in the contrapuntal duet was displayed by a minority of composers, of whom the most prominent were Carlo Donato Cossoni, Francesco Petrobelli, and Giovanni Carlo Maria Clari. Insofar as his works eschewed solo movements and obbligato instruments, Clari surpassed even Steffani in his love of the vocal duet. The second half of the seventeenth century saw a number of developments in counterpoint that are relevant to Steffani’s duets.22 In his Musico pratico () Giovanni Maria Bononcini became the first music theorist to accord the tonal answer equality of status with the real. Johann Adam Reincken proposed a new definition of double fugue (‘contrafuga’): the themes should be contrasted and ‘not continually treated together, but also separately, one after the other, then at times together and against each other, which shows much greater mastery’. He also introduced the concept of stretto into writings on fugue, but it was Bononcini who suggested that close entries be avoided at the beginning and reserved for later on, when listeners would be more familiar with the material and better able to appreciate textural complexity and com-





  positional skill. This advice relates to the ‘a risposta’ technique, ‘whereby the two concertante violin parts [in a trio sonata] begin, not in imitation at the fifth, but by alternation at the unison, with each part presenting the material solo over the bass before turning to more consequential imitation and fugato (which latter then has the effect of stretto)’.23 Examples of this are found in Bononcini’s early sonatas24 but appear to be outweighed by such procedures as the counter-exposition, with parts interchanged, sequential episodes based on motivic fragmentation, canon, and passages based on pedals or the circle of fifths. The trio sonata was the principal arena in which these contrapuntal developments were applied.25 The earliest book consisting entirely of such pieces was Legrenzi’s Sonate . . . libro primo (Venice, ). Trio sonatas outnumber every other kind of sonata in the output of Cazzati, Legrenzi, G. B. and T. A. Vitali, Corelli, and Torelli, but are balanced by solo sonatas in Albinoni and outweighed by them in Vivaldi. The trio thus marks a midway point between the ensemble and the solo sonata, and the peak of its development ‘coincided with the advent of Corelli and the Stradivari violin’. The upper parts of a trio sonata are nearly always treated as equals: they may employ parallel motion and elaborate passages, but the texture is dominated by imitation between two (or all three) of the parts, contrapuntal procedures, and ‘chains of suspensions and resolutions created by the intertwining upper parts against the bass’. The prevalence of counterpoint led Newman to regard the trio sonata as ‘an ideal meeting point between the older vocal styles and the newer instrumental styles and between the older, stricter polyphony and the new emphasis on accompanied melody’. A similar view can be taken of the vocal chamber duet—as a compromise between polyphony and monody and a halfway house between madrigal and cantata. From the point of view of texture it was equivalent to the trio sonata. In Der vollkommene Capellmeister () Mattheson distinguished between French duets, dependant on parallel motion, and Italian duets characterised by counterpoint; he also suggested that the former were particularly effective in church, that contrapuntal textures were especially appropriate to chamber music, and that Steffani’s duets were models of their kind: The duet, or aria for two voices, is arranged in either the Italian or the French manner. We will give a little idea of each type. The French airs à deux tend particularly to use the same or similar counterpoint, that is, where one voice sings the words at the same time as the other, so that either nothing at all or only here and there something dissimilar or concertato-like sneaks in. Such duos sound fine, especially in churches: they are principally devotional and comprehensible. The Italian type of duet lacks much of the aforementioned good qualities of piety and clarity, because of its fugal, artificial, and intertwined nature; however, they require a true man, and are a great pleasure to the musically-trained ear, in the chamber as also in the church (and earlier, in Steffani’s time, even in the theatre), if skilful, well-trained singers can be found for them: of these last we now have fewer than of such works. The said Steffani was incomparably outstanding in this type, before all others

   whom I know, and to this hour deserves to be taken as a model. For such things do not easily become obsolete. 26 The emergence of the contrapuntal Italian duet in the late seventeenth century was noticed also by Burney a century later:27 Near the latter end of the last [seventeenth] century, a species of learned and elaborate Chamber Duets for voices began to be in favour. The first that I have found, of this kind, were composed by John [Giovanni] Bononcini, and published at Bologna in . Soon after, those of the admirable Abate Steffani were dispersed in manuscript throughout Europe. These were followed by the duets of Clari, Handel, Marcello, Gasparini, Lotti, Hasse, and Durante. As we have seen, Bononcini’s Duetti da camera were neither the first nor the most representative ‘of this kind’. They must have seemed ‘learned and elaborate’ in comparison with the music of Burney’s day, but they are less consistently contrapuntal than those of Steffani—and so are the duets of such earlier composers as Stradella and Cesti and most of his rivals in the field. That Steffani’s duets were dispersed after —indeed, after —is attested by the predominance of his revised versions in the sources, but the fact that Oh! che voi direste bene was composed at Munich proves that he was writing chamber duets before . He appeared on the scene at the right moment: if the trio sonata was crystallized by Corelli, the vocal duet was perfected by Steffani, his junior by only a year. C  C Steffani composed at least eighty-one of the hundred-plus chamber duets ascribed to him in nearly  manuscripts around the world.28 Six of them should have instruments as well as continuo, but the instrumental staves are blank in the source (GBLbl, RM . k. ). Nineteen duets survive in two forms: a revised version dating from the autumn or winter of  – , and an earlier version; most of the latter (as well as the revisions) are authentic, but the earlier versions of Lungi da l’idol mio and M’hai da piangere are unreliable attributions. With three exceptions, his duets must all have been finished by the end of , when he gathered them together in preparation for a new, complete, manuscript collection in thirteen volumes, with six duets to a book (see Fig. .). The exceptions are Dolce è per voi soffrire, of which the countess of Egmont asked him for a copy in June ; Dolce labbro, amabil bocca, which appears to have been written at Herten in the summer of ; and Quando ti stringo, which dates from the same season or possibly the summer of .29 Despite the dates mentioned here, which relate to his Hanover and Düsseldorf periods, Steffani also wrote chamber duets in Munich. The only documentary evidence of this is Violanta Beatrice’s letter of  August ,30 but circumstantial evidence is provided by his settings of words used previously by other composers (Table .). The concordances indicate that these texts were in circulation during Steffani’s periods in Munich and Rome. The first piece in van Geertsom’s anthology is ascribed to ‘Marco Aurelli’ (Marcorelli), who worked in Rome in the s and s; of the





 

       .  Chamber duet E perchè non m’uccidete, copied by Steffani in ca. –  (GB-Lbl, RM . k. , f. v; by permission of The British Library)

remainder, all unascribed, two are by Carissimi and two by Luigi Rossi.31 Steffani’s È spento l’ardore includes a second stanza, which is missing from van Geertsom and from a related, anonymous version of the piece, for solo voice, in Lbl, Add. MS . Cesti’s death in  provides a terminus ante quem for his solo setting of Tu m’aspettasti, and most of his cantatas are associated with patrons in Rome. Lonati was based there from  to , leading Queen Christina’s orchestra from at least ; the source of his duet (I-Bc, MS Mart. ., dated ) includes music by Kerll (‘Il mio cor è un passaggiero’) and Ercole Bernabei, and most of the other composers named in it spent part of their life in Rome. Cossoni’s Cantate, op. , lacks a title page but must have been published between  and , the dates of his opp.  and  (op.  was reprinted in ). Given the date of Albergati’s Cantate, op. , Steffani may have en .

Concordances for Steffani’s duets

Steffani duet

Source of concordance

Parlo e rido È spento l’ardore Tu m’aspettasti al mare La fortuna su la ruota No, no, no, non voglio se devo amare Dir che giovi

Pietro Paolo Sabbatini, Seconda scelta di villanelle (Rome, ) Jan van Geertsom, Canzonette amorose libro primo (Rotterdam, ) Antonio Cesti (MS: GB-Lbl; F-Pthibault; I-Rvat; anonymous in I-MOe, Nc) Carlo Ambrogio Lonati (MS: I-Bc, Bsp) Carlo Donato Cossoni, Cantate a una, due, e tre voci, op.  [Bologna, –] Pirro Albergati, Cantate da camera, op.  (Bologna, )

   countered Dir che giovi in Italy in the spring of , just after leaving Munich. The concordances suggest that, alongside solo cantatas, he composed chamber duets in the s in Munich and Rome.32 Some of Steffani’s duets are presumably settings of verse by Munich librettists, but since Domenico Gisberti departed in  and Luigi Orlandi arrived only in , the strongest contender is the composer’s brother, Ventura Terzago. Although Steffani set four of the latter’s librettos, however, no lyrical poetry by Terzago is known: none of the texts of his duets is ascribed to him in a musical source. The only poet whose works appear to have been used in chamber duets by Steffani during his Munich years is Brigida Bianchi, an actress and singer in the comédie italienne in Paris.33 Six of his duets are based on her verse. The words of Ah! che l’ho sempre detto (‘Presagio’), Ho scherzato in verità (‘Testimonianza di fede’), and Torna a dar vita al core (‘Lontananza’) were published in her L’inganno fortunato . . . con alcune poesie musicali composte in diversi tempi (Paris, ) and reprinted in her Rifiuti di Pindo. Poesie (Paris, ), along with E così mi compatite and E perchè non m’uccidete (both entitled ‘Occhi crudeli’) and Sia maledetto Amor (‘Si duole d’Amor’). If Steffani took these poems directly from her books, he is most likely to have done so in Paris in  –. His settings were not necessarily composed there and then: the earlier versions of Ah! che l’ho sempre detto, E perchè non m’uccidete, and Torna a dar vita al core, which were later revised, seem immature, but this is not the case with the others. There is far more evidence of his involvement with chamber duets during his Hanover years. An appealing picture of this activity was painted by Hawkins: It was about this time, when a taste for music prevailed so greatly at Hanover, that Steffani composed his duets, which have acquired him such an universal reputation. It is probable that he might apply his studies so much to this species of composition, in compliance with the taste of the ladies of that court; for it is observable that the poetry of them is altogether of the amatory kind, and it appears by little memorandums, in several copies, that many of his duets were composed at the request of divers ladies of distinction, and that some were made for their own private practice, and amusement. Who the particular persons were, we are at a loss to discover, as they are distinguished only by initial letters, denoting their quality; except in the instance of the two duets, beginning Inquieto mio cor, and Che volete, these appearing to have been made for, and sung by her highness the electress of Brandenburg. For the poetry, to which he adapted his music, he was principally obliged to his friends, the Marquis d’Ariberti, Count Palmieri, Sig. Averara, Abbate Guidi, and Abbate Mauro Hortensio; but the assistance he received from these persons was not so considerable as altogether to free him from the necessity of sometimes composing to words, that, to say the least, did not call for the utmost exertion of his genius: and when every other resource failed him, he would sometimes, as an exercise of his fancy, make use of words that had formerly been set by other masters; of these, the chief are the prince of Venosa, and the famous Alessandro Stradella, so celebrated for his singing, and performance on the harp.34





  Although Hawkins was wrong to imply that all of Steffani’s duets were written at Hanover and that amatory verse was necessarily associated with female patrons, his statement that these works were composed for the ‘private practice, or amusement’ of ‘the ladies of that court’ is entirely plausible. Before the arrival of Caroline of Ansbach, in , the musical ladies of Hanover were the duchess (later electress) Sophie, to whom Barbara Strozzi had dedicated her Arie, op.  (); her daughter Sophie Charlotte, who had married the elector of Brandenburg in ; Sophie Dorothea of Celle, who had married Georg Ludwig of Hanover (later George I) in ; and their daughter, also Sophie Dorothea, born in . The most important of these, for Steffani and his duets, was Sophie Charlotte, who, even after her move to Berlin, spent as much time as possible in Hanover. She wrote the words of his Crudo Amor, morir mi sento (); he sent her three duets from Brussels in —Che volete, o crude pene, Inquieto mio cor, and Placidissime catene—and he also composed Io mi parto for her visit to Elector Maximilian II Emanuel in Brussels in . The words of this last duet were ascribed to ‘Abbate [Francesco Maria] Paglia’, who was active in Rome and Naples from  to  and supplied texts for Scarlatti and Bononcini, including three of Bononcini’s Duetti da camera ().35 When Steffani collected and revised his duets in the autumn and winter of  – , he corresponded with Sophie Charlotte and had her constantly in mind.36 The poets mentioned by Hawkins were all associated with Steffani during his Hanover years and are credited in musical sources with the words of six duets that are often grouped together in the same order: Che volete, o crude pene Inquieto mio cor Gelosia, che vuoi da me () Questo fior che involo al prato Quando mai verrà quel dì Non so chi mi piagò

Count Palmieri ——— Marquis D’Ariberti Abbate Guidi Abbate Guidi Sig[nor] Averara

Francesco Palmieri also wrote the words of the Accademia per musica (Hanover, ) for the wedding of Charlotte Felicitas and Rinaldo D’Este, and the libretto of Briseide (Hanover, ).37 The marquis was presumably the Bartolomeo D’Ariberti who served as Johann Wilhelm’s special envoy in Madrid in ;38 no other poetry by him is known. The identity of Abbate Guidi is uncertain: the most likely candidate, perhaps, is Abbate Giuseppe Guidi, Modenese resident in Hanover,39 but one cannot rule out Anastasio Guidi, who wrote the words of Bononcini’s one-act pastorella Cefalo (Berlin, ).40 Signor Averara was presumably the well-known librettist Pietro D’Averara;41 that his wife Diana Aurelia sang at Hanover in  suggests a date for Non so chi mi piagò that fits well with the other duets in this group. The words of Inquieto mio cor are not ascribed in any complete copy of the group but are attributed in Add. MS  to ‘Sig. Abbate Conti’, presumably the ‘Abate Carlo Conti, Professor’ identified by Chrysander.42 As Hawkins observed, Steffani also used words that had been ‘set by other masters’. He did not draw on Gesualdo or Stradella, however—though the earlier versions of Lungi da l’idol mio and Vorrei dire are ascribed to Stradella, and the latter’s Chi

   dirà che nel veleno is in one source attributed to Steffani.43 Hawkins finally mentioned Ortensio Mauro, the anonymous librettist of Steffani’s Hanover operas. According to a footnote, which Mainwaring must have seen, ‘this gentleman wrote also the words for twelve duets which Mr Handel composed for the practice of the late queen [Caroline (died )], who greatly admired this kind of composition’;44 Mauro also provided texts for eight duets by Carlo Luigi Pietragrua.45 While the latter are ascribed to the poet in the musical source, those of Handel and Steffani are not: Mauro was relatively unknown in Düsseldorf, where Pietragrua worked, but he was a familiar figure in the Hanover of Steffani and Handel. C  S The overwhelming majority of Steffani’s duets are concerned with unrequited love, a subject that had been bequeathed by the medieval courtly love tradition and become the main preoccupation of the Italian cantata in general. It is presented in a variety of guises. Nymphs or shepherds of Renaissance Arcadia are named in one-third of the duets, ancient Classical subjects in one-ninth. Turbini tempestosi begins with Dido and Aeneas in Africa, but one turns to Senti, Filli spietata for mention of Carthage. A few duets invoke such Roman gods as Jupiter, Venus, and Vulcan; others derive imagery from the Greek legends of Tantalus and Ariadne. The texts also allude to geographical locations such as Abydos (whence Leander swam to Hero), the Nile, the sands of Libya, Gibraltar, Vesuvius, the Adriatic, and the Alps. Cupid is sometimes described as the ‘dio di Gnido’, a reference to Praxiteles’s statue of Aphrodite in the temple to the goddess at Knidos in Asia Minor. Allusions such as these, which occur also in the cantatas of Steffani’s contemporaries, afford insight into Seicento Italian culture and inform one’s approach to the repertory. Although the subject is invariably addressed from the lover’s point of view, it is treated in a remarkable variety of ways. In Aure, voi che volate the lover asks when his servitude will end (‘Quando mai avrà mercè / una lunga servitù?’); in Parlo e rido he cheers himself up with the thought that countless women yield to his advances (‘Cento almeno m’han per amante, / ma di tante / una sola nel cor mi sta’). He may feel betrayed (‘Ah! che l’ho sempre detto, / ch’Amor mi tradirà’), but in that case he can try his luck elsewhere (‘Cangia pensier, mio cor, / se la speme t’ingannò’); if he is still unsuccessful he may seek justice at the tribunal of Love (‘Mi voglio far intendere / al tribunal d’Amor’) or renounce love altogether (Quest’è l’ultima per me; Ribellatevi, o pensieri). Già tu parti and Lungi da l’idol mio deal with parting or separation, while Gelosia, che vuoi da me (two distinct texts) and Tienmi ’l cor la gelosia are concerned with jealousy—the nearest Steffani gets to a moral subject. The pleasures of love are extolled in Quanto care al core voi siete (and many others), freedom from it in È spento l’ardore and Più non amo. Io voglio provar may be humorous, but one searches in vain for a satirical, philosophical, or historical duet. The texts are almost exclusively lyrical in expression. The singers normally combine in a single person (the voice of the poet) and, except in solo movements, sing the same words. Even in solos they do not become separate characters. In Begl’occhi, oh Dio, non più, for example, they represent Chloris’s lover, addressing her jointly in the duet movements and separately in the solos:46





  Duet

Begl’occhi, oh Dio, non più, più non piangete . . .

Alto solo

Clori mia, s’il cor t’ingombra qualche dubbio di mia fè, tal pensier sgombra da te . . .

Soprano solo

Se la tua gelosia è parte del tuo amor, o bella Clori, che fia dunque? . . .

Duet

Clori mia, deh, ferma alquanto, ferma il corso a quei due fiumi che dai lumi versi ogn’hor . . .

[Beautiful eyes, oh God, no more, weep no more. . . . My Chloris, if your heart is burdened with some doubt as to my fidelity, put such thoughts behind you . . . If your jealousy is part of your love, oh beautiful Chloris, what then will happen? . . . My Chloris, pray, stop for a while, stop the flow of those two streams that you endlessly shed from your eyes . . . ]

Nothing could illustrate more clearly the concept of the chamber duet as a textural expansion of a work for solo voice. Four of the texts, however, include passages in narrative mode in which the poet sets the scene or comments on the situation. Such passages are far less common or extended in Steffani’s duets than in solo cantatas of the same period. This manner is adopted at the beginning of D’un faggio all’ombra assiso and Turbini tempestosi, but in Saldi marmi the narrative passage occurs later on, providing an explanation for the preceding lyrical section:47 Duet

“Saldi marmi, che coprite del mio ben l’ignuda salma, ch’ogni dì più in mezzo all’alma la mia fede stabilite, che ne dite? Deggio al nuovo desire opporre il vostro gelo, o pur morire?”

Soprano solo [recitative]

Così Fille dicea, del suo perduto bene rivolta un giorno alle bellezze estinte. Viss’ella di Fileno lunga stagione in fortunati amori . . .

[“Oh solid marble slabs that cover the naked corpse of my beloved, that day by day confirm my love more deeply in my heart, what have you to say? Must I oppose this new desire with your coldness, or die?”Thus said Phyllis when she turned one day to the dead beauties of her lost love. She had lived for a long time, happy in the love of Philenus . . . ]

   The narrative in Steffani’s duets is always in versi sciolti and set as recitative, and as soon as it is over the singer resumes his or her normal role in the lyrical duo. The only duet in which the singers do not behave in this way is Io mi parto, which was written for Sophie Charlotte and Max Emanuel. Here the performers—the electress and elector—act as separate individuals. Though they are neither named nor sharply characterised, they have different (if only slightly different) words in the duet movements as well as in the solos. The text of the opening duet would not have been out of place in an opera:48

{ Soprano Tenor

Io mi parto, o cara vita, Resto solo, o cara vita,

{ Soprano Tenor

e tu resti, amato bene . . . e tu parti, amato bene . . .

Lacking a dramatic or narrative element, the work is simply a lyrical dialogue. The use of this medium is due entirely to the fact that the piece was written for a special occasion and is unique in Steffani’s output. Several duets (e.g., Dimmi, dimmi, Cupido and Cruda Lilla, che ti fece questo cor?) begin with questions that could lead to dialogue, but the questions are not answered, and no such development occurs. The subject matter of the duets is generally expressed through concrete images that depend on a poetical style dominated by metaphor and personification. Two sets of images are particularly common. In Forma un mare the god of love is a pilot steering a lover’s heart over the sea of his tears, guided by the star of desire. Hope provides the sail, and the lover’s sighs are the wind. The torments of love are reefs, to be avoided only by constancy: Forma un mare il pianto mio, e lo solca il mesto core; è nocchiero il dio d’amore, cinosura il mio desio. Ho per vela la speranza, sono i venti i miei sospiri; e tra scogli di martiri fida scorta è la costanza.49 In the second set of images, possibly the more common, Cupid is the blind or winged archer and his bow is the lover’s eyebrow; his arrows are the lover’s piercing glances. Such images were common in all the arts in the seventeenth century and earlier: Love, Fortune, Virtue, Glory, and others were personified in countless operas, and the depiction of abstract concepts by painters depended on visual symbols. In the principal sources of Steffani’s duets these images are seen also in miniatures adorning initial letters, which resemble illustrations in contemporary emblem books. Viewed against this background, the texts of his duets seem less naïve than they might: they belong to a venerable artistic and intellectual tradition—and for lovers at court they may have had a personal significance.





  Metaphor, simile, and rhetorical questions are joined in his duets by other figures of speech. Exclamations are not uncommon (‘Ribellatevi, o pensieri, / pera il dio d’Amor!’), and one text bursts into impassioned declamation: Mia speranza illanguidita, a che più lusinghi il cor? La mia gioia è già finita, già comincia il mio dolor. Udite, o voi che in amoroso inferno condanna cruda sorte in maschera di vita a eterna morte . . . [My enfeebled hope, why do you still flatter my heart? My joy has now finished, my grief now begins. Oh hear, you whom cruel fate condemns, under the semblance of life, to eternal death . . . ]

Tengo per infallibile is far from unusual in exploring a paradox, and Vorrei dire ends with a common antithesis: . . . sospiro e peno in vano, perchè gelo vicino, ardo lontano?

(Vorrei dire)

[I sigh and suffer in vain, because I freeze when near and burn far away?]

Even if the final line or couplet lacks antithesis, it may be epigrammatic in a madrigalian manner: . . . così, seguendo le fallaci idee di speme lusinghiera, mai non gode quel cor che sempre spera.

(Crudo Amor)

[Thus, following the false ideas of flattering expectation, the heart that always hopes will never rejoice.]

Some duets have similarly epigrammatic statements in their opening lines. Such examples often recur as refrains, setting the tone of the poem as does the motto of an aria or the text of a sermon. Once the subject has been announced, the remainder of the poem explores its implications, using figures of speech for the purpose, and the composition as a whole becomes a rhetorical exercise. The musical settings, also, are rhetorical in structure and style. The principal aim of a piece of Baroque vocal music was to arouse the passions of the listener by conveying and reinforcing the affections of the words being set. Texture and structure played a part in this process, but the invention and selection of material were fundamental. Steffani’s responsiveness to words was praised by his early biographer, the theorist Count Giordano Riccati, who felt that his music ‘vividly expressed the sentiments of the poetry’.50 Riccati cited the second movement of Saldi marmi to show that the major mode could convey ‘affetti molli’, and he particularly admired Steffani’s setting of the word ‘morire’:51 he may have been thinking of the end of the movement, where the voices form exquisite suspensions over a pedal in the bass (Example .).

    . SI

b & b [ 23] w . w ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w . - re,

S II

End of Steffani’s chamber duet Saldi marmi

b 3 & b [ 2] w . w .

o

pur mo-ri

w

re, o pur,

? b [ 3] ˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w . b 2 w

o

pur mo - ri

w

o pur mo-ri - re,

o

pur mo - ri -

-

re, o pur, o pur mo - ri - re,

˙ ˙˙ ˙ w.

w.

w.

-

- re?

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w ˙ U ›.

˙ w. w ˙. œ ˙ w ˙ w

˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ w.

- re,

Bc

-

U ˙ ˙ w ›.

˙ w ˙ w ˙ w˙˙˙ ˙ w

˙. œ ˙ w

o

pur mo - ri - re?

w. w.

U ˙ w ›.

w.

Such musical imagery, the stock-in-trade of the Italian cantata, was inherited from the Renaissance madrigal. While some musical images represent abstract concepts, others portray visible objects or phenomena. Some of these visions are symbols themselves: when Steffani depicts the flight of Cupid’s arrow in rapid scales, or the bonds of love in a chain of suspensions, he adds musical imagery to symbolic words. The representation of an affection or emotion is not always a straightforward matter. Faced with the words ‘che fermezza Amor non ha’ (‘that Love is not constant’: La fortuna su la ruota), a composer might depict constancy or the lack of it. Steffani does both: the note of constancy is held for some bars but eventually gives way (Example .). Some affections occur so frequently that a variety of musical images are needed to convey them: the anguish, pain, or grief of such words as ‘affanno’, ‘dolore’, and ‘duolo’ is expressed by broken figuration and chromatic harmony in Tu m’aspettasti; by rapid gorgie in Aure, voi che volate; and in Cangia pensier by parallel thirds and dissonant suspensions over a pedal.52 Conversely, some musical effects are employed for a variety of emotions or objects: the passage just cited in Cangia pensier resembles Example . from Saldi marmi, even though the words have little in common.  . S

From La fortuna su la ruota, first movement

b & b b [ 68] œ . ha,

B

. ? b [ 6] ‰ Jœ Jœ œ bb 8 che fer- mez

Bc

-

œ œ œ nœ œ œ.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- za

-

- za

-

-

A-mor

œ J Jœ Jœ -

œ.

-

-

œ.

#œ.

? bb œ œ œ œ œ œ . b -

-

œ œ œ œ œ œj œj . Rœ œ

b & b b œ.

? bb œ . b

œ œ œ œ œ œ.

che fer - mez

œ.

? b b [ 68] œ . b

-

œ.

‰ Jœ Jœ

œ œ.

A - mor

nœ œ œ

œ.

-

-

œ J

non

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ. nœ.

nœ J

œ œ œ œ œ œ.

ha,

r j œ œ

non ha,

œ

-

-

œ.

-

-

-

œ œœœœ -

-

-

-

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ. -

œ.

-

œ.





  Pedals were particularly versatile: in Tu m’aspettasti a pedal overlaid with undulating figuration and static harmony creates an image of the sea; in Forma un mare a similar texture conjures up the wind.53 Such duplication was inevitable because music is limited as a representational art. It is also unimportant: all the musical images cited here are appropriate to their contexts and purposes; only if they had been used for contrasting purposes in a single piece would they have strained credibility. In other words, the effectiveness of an image depends on its context, as well as on its nature or identity. It is not Steffani’s imagery alone that reflects the contemporary stock-in-trade. He also drew on a pool of common harmonic formulae. Six of the movements in his duets begin with the  –  progression found in his sacred works and overtures: after starting on a unison or octave, the voice rises a second over the bass, turning the latter into a suspension under a  –  chord, from which it falls by step.54 The formula had been used by Bernabei (cf. Example .) and probably every Italian composer of the period. Other movements by Steffani begin with a progression involving a  –  suspension in the vocal line over the dominant note in the bass. The voice may start on the tonic or leap to it from the dominant, in which case the ensuing leap in the bass from tonic to dominant will sound like an answer.55 Similar openings are found in Corelli’s trio sonatas, though they are often decorated or varied. As Steffani made use of such formulae, it is not surprising that interrelationships can be found between different duets, the movements of single duets, and the points of single movements. The sections of Quando ti stringo are linked by the inversion of its opening point (Example .), and there are similarities between the material of La fortuna su la ruota and that of Forma un mare (Example .). Comparison of Quanto care and Rio destin (Example .) indicates that such similarities are not confined to earlier works. Furthermore, the opening of Rio destin is extensively modified for re-use in the third movement (‘Un inferno di sciagure’: Example .); similar interrelationships were exploited in the revision of Begl’occhi, oh Dio, non più.56 In Che volete the beginning of the first and the end of the last movement are pervaded by the suspension and harmonic progression of the opening bars (Example .); the material itself is conventional, but when used so persistently and discreetly it becomes an important formal agent and an eloquent expressive device. Bukofzer’s characterization of seventeenth-century bel canto style as ‘the apotheosis of triple metre’57 might have been based on Steffani’s duets. In the works for voices and continuo, there are twice as many movements in triple or compound metre as in common time or . In one movement out of five there is also a change of time. This normally corresponds with a change of poetical metre or some other feature of the text, and often occurs at the last (epigrammatic) line or couplet of a section, which is thus given prominence. In the six works with additional instruments the movements rarely change metre and are more deeply indebted to dance; the vast majority of the duet movements are in triple or compound metre, but the arias are more evenly divided, most being in common time or . Tempo markings are rare in the sources and more likely to signal a change of speed during a movement than to set the pace at the start. The principal collection of manuscripts (RM . k.  – ) includes five indications (presto, allegro, andante, adagio, and largo), none of which appears more than thrice. In general, tempo must be in-

           .   From Quando ti stringo: settings of ‘Quando ti stringo’ (left) and ‘Ma se di voi son privo’ (right)

j œ œj œ .

&c Œ ˙

œœ œ

Quan - do ti strin - go, o

 .

œ

ca - ra

Ma

(La fortuna)

La for - tu - na

su

Ma se sor

(La fortuna)

j j b 6 j j & b [8 ] ‰ œ b œ Jœ œ œ œ b œ œ œ . œ œ A le piu - me

[c]

b 3 V b [ 2] Œ œ œ

si di - no - ta

(La fortuna)

fer -

-

-

& b c Ó œ . Jœ

al

cor voi

œ œ J Jœ Jœ . R œ œ # œ œ œ œ . n œ œ sie - te mie ca - te

Œ œ. œ œ ˙

A - do - ra - ti,

-

-

œ

j œ. œ ˙ b'

ne

œ

(Quanto care)

œ

˙

a - do - ra - ti

œ œ œ œ œœ

miei tor - men

-

m [ti]

(Rio destin)

 .

&b c

-

j j œ œ œ œ œ œ

œ

in-fer - no

. j &b c œ œ œ œ

di

scia - gu - re

Comparison of two points within Rio destin

‰

b

a

œ œ œ œ #œ œ œœ œ c

- go-no

(Forma)

j œ. œ œ

˙

Ho per ve - la la spe -ran - za

[b]

Un

œ œ œ œ . œj b œ

che a tut - te l’o - re vai cer - can - do

. & b c 43 Œ œ œ œ œ ˙

-

(Forma)

j œ ˙ ‰ œ Jœ Jœ J Jœ Jœ # Jœ œ

Rio des - tin,

-

b œ ˙ & b [c ] ˙ œ œ Jœ Jœ n Jœ J

˙

- ma la - for - tu - na

j œ œ œ. œ œ j ‰ J RJ œ œ

j œ

-

Comparison of two points in Quanto care and Rio destin

Quan-to ca - re

œ. &b c

-

Ènoc - chie-ro il di - o d’a - mo - re

œ n œ œ œ œ œ . Jœ œ œ œ œ ˙

˙.

 .

&b c Œ

son pri -vo

j œ. b & b c Œ œ œj œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ n œ œ œ œ œ œ J Rœ œ œ

la ruo-ta

[b]

[a]

voi

(Forma)

b 3 j j & b c8 ‰ œ œj œj j Jœ Jœ n œ œ œ œ

Ho

se di

Comparison of three points in La fortuna su la ruota and Forma un mare

[a]

b 3 & b [2 ] œ

‰ j œ œ œ œ J J #œ œ

& Œ ˙

j œ. œ œ a

c

œœœœœœŒ

. œ œ œ œ . # œ œ œ œ œJ œ . Jœ œ œ œœœœœœ





   . o crude pene

(a) The beginning, and (b) part of the last movement, of Che volete,

[a] S

Bc

b 3 & b c2 Ó ˙.

œ w

Che

vo - le

? b b c 23 w .

[b]

se

S A

b &b ˙ Ó

Bc

? bb ˙

non

w.

œ . œ b ˙ . œ n œ . œj w J

te,

o

˙ nw

ho

˙˙ . ˙ œ ˙˙ Co

-

˙

-

co -

˙˙ .

me pos - s’io

˙

-

cru - de pe - ne

w

w

-

-

-

Ó œ œ m

- [re]

œ œ˙ œ ˙˙. œ # œœ œœ œœ m m ˙ pe - nar,

˙ #w

w.

m

ferred from the character of the melodic writing, the speed of the word setting, and the time signature. An extensive range of signatures is used for triple and compound metres (see Table .). Although these signatures occur most often in the original versions of duets that Steffani revised (and recall those in his early sacred works), they also appear in some of his later duets, along with such proportional signatures as 63, 9 12 24 6, 16, and 16 . The almost ubiquitous broken circle (C: tempus imperfectum) indicates that most of them denote compound duple rather than triple time. The commonest signatures are
23 and
34; the more modern (and more accurate)
64 is used only once. The signature C.13 , which is comparatively rare, means what it says: the semibreve is perfect, so undotted, and the reader must understand alteration and dots of division. This is not so in
13, where the semibreve is imperfect, though here, too, the semiminim is void and coloration is used for hemiolas. None of these signatures implies a speed. The opening of Tengo per infallibile, for example, which is in C.13, is evidently brisk: it abounds in hemiolas and syncopation, the harmony is simple, and the bass often leaps a fourth or a fifth (Example .). The beginning of Torna a dar vita al core, however, seems rather sedate: the words suggest a slow tempo, and so do the leap on ‘lontano’, the change of harmonic direction and the Neapolitan chord that follows it, and the linear character of the bass (Example .). A similar range of speeds is required by movements in
31,
32, and, especially,
43. The signatures 83, 68, and 128, however, always denote a fast tempo. These  .

Triple and compound time signatures in the duets

Signature

Note values per bar

Normal grouping

3 3 3 3 3 C. 1,
1, 1,
2, 2
34, 34,  and
64
83, 83 and
68
128

 minims  crotchets  quavers  quavers

 groups of   groups of   groups of   groups of 

    . S

Beginning of Tengo per infallibile

˙ w . & c. 31 ˙ œ ˙

˙. œ ˙ ˙ w

Ten - go per in - fal - li - bi - le, bel - la

Bc

? . 31 w . c

 . S

˙ w

˙ #w

w.

Tor - na a dar vi - ta al co - re,

Bc

˙ ˙ #œ œ œ œ ˙. œ ˙ œ œ ˙. œ w.

Clo - ri, che mo - ri

˙. œ ˙ w

˙

-

rò,

che mo - ri - rò

#˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

w

w.

Beginning of Torna a dar vita

3 & b c. 1 ˙ . œ ˙ ˙ ˙ . œ ˙ w ? . 3 w. b c1

˙ ˙

˙ w

w

Ó ˙ ˙ . #œ #˙ w ˙ che lon - ta - no da te,

n

˙

˙ #˙ ˙ w.

mia

vi - ta, è mor

˙ ˙. œ ˙ ˙ ˙ n˙ ˙ ˙ ˙

˙ w

m -

[to]

w ˙

m

were relatively recent in origin and initially associated with vocal music, where the tails and beams of quavers and semiquavers clarified the underlay.58 Though found in cantatas by Cesti and Legrenzi, they were still ‘rather remarkable’, according to Klenz, in instrumental music of the s; Fedeli’s use of 128 has been described, with reference to instrumental music in Venice, as progressive for .59 The signature
83 is used in several Steffani duets, including La fortuna su la ruota and No, no, no, non voglio se devo amare, while
68 is found in Oh! che voi direste bene and
128 in Parlo e rido—duets which, as we have seen, were probably composed during his Munich years. If they were, he evidently embraced both ancient and modern time signatures from a relatively early age. Given the influence of French dance on his operas, it is not surprising that Steffani used the same metres in his chamber duets. The earliest datable movement that is labelled as such in a duet — though it is probably not the first of its kind — is apparently ‘Che giova lontano’ in Dir che giovi (ca. [?]).60 Marked ‘sarabanda’, this aria is typical of the French style in its clearly articulated and carefully balanced phrases, its harmonic direction, and general rhythmic uniformity between voice and continuo; but its wide leaps, ornamentation, Neapolitan harmony, and imitation in the bass are more characteristic of the Italian manner: the mould is French, but the filling is Italian, a mixture typical of Steffani in the s and s. Movements labelled ‘menüet’ appear only in Mia speranza illanguidita and S’intimi guerra a la crudel beltà, but the crotchetminim pattern typical of the dance recurs in other works, including La fortuna su la ruota. The  signature and half-bar anacrucis of the gavotte occur in five arias, of which ‘Che rimedio è ’l star lontano’ (D’un faggio all’ombra assiso) is the simplest and the only one labelled in the sources. The others make greater use of repetition, some of it sequential, and of counterpoint between voice and bass. ‘Chi sarà ch’hoggi mi scampi’ (Luci belle, non tanta fretta) is exceptional in lacking a double bar-line halfway; it is bisected by a dominant cadence, but the first section is irregular (. bars) and, uncharacteristically, longer than the second: the aria is in the style of a gavotte but not in its normal form. The  signature also appears, together with a crotchet up-beat, in three movements, of which two are labelled ‘bourée’ (sic). It would be hard to establish when such dances were introduced into Italian vocal music, because most cantata





  sources are undated, but since the gavotte was first published in Italian instrumental music in  and the gigue in ,61 Steffani was probably one of the earliest composers to employ them in arias and duets. As in metre, so in key there is a pronounced difference between his duets with continuo and those with additional instruments. While the former are mostly in the minor mode, the latter prefer the major. Furthermore, while the continuo duets in major keys are predominantly on the sharp side (only six are in F or B ), half of those with instruments are in flat keys. The instrumental duets are so few in number that it is dangerous to generalise, but the emphasis on the major mode is consistent with their more dance-like metres and contributes to their lighter character. The range of keys in Steffani’s output extends from B  to A major and from F to E minor. None of his works is in E major, but several movements have a cadence in B or even F .62 Similarly, although there are no movements in B  minor, Troppo cruda è la mia sorte cadences in D  major and touches on G .63 While most of his key signatures conform with those of the tonal system, that of A major is short of a sharp sign and those of B  major and of G, C, and F minor each lack a flat. There are two exceptions: Tengo per infallibile is in G Mixolydian (no sharp), and Labri belli, dite un pò in D Dorian (no flat). As Steffani’s time signatures preserve features of the mensural system, so his key signatures retain vestiges of the modal. All his duets, without exception, end in the key in which they begin, and most include at least one movement that either begins in one key and ends in another or lies entirely outside the tonic. The ‘modulating’ movements occur mainly in works without solos and contribute to a larger design. The central and final movements of Che volete, for example, are tonally complementary, the former ending and the latter beginning in the relative major key.64 The solo movements that modulate are recitatives with cavata, related to their context in similar ways. Since they promote continuity, modulating movements are particularly common in through-composed works. The movements in keys other than the tonic are all solos: in other words, all the ‘nonmodulating’ duet movements are in the tonic key. Since the latter occur often at the beginning and end of a work, they provide the tonal framework for the internal movements, which may be solos in contrasting keys. The range of such keys is narrow— relative major in minor-key works; relative minor, dominant, or subdominant in major—but the distribution of duet and solo movements makes for balance overall. A wider range of keys is used within movements. Among the commonest modulations in major-key movements is that to the dominant of the dominant. Oh! che voi direste bene goes one step further, to the dominant of the dominant of the dominant, while Luci belle modulates exceptionally to the relative minor of the dominant. Che sarà di quel pensiero and Tu m’aspettasti visit the relative minor of the subdominant,65 but the only modulations to the subdominant itself are found in the Mixolydian Tengo per infallibile.66 In minor-key movements the normal excursions are to the relative major, the dominant, and the relative major of the dominant. The modulations to the subdominant in Dir che giovi and the relative major of the subdominant in Troppo cruda67 are exceptional: as in the major-key movements and other Italian music of the period (e.g., Corelli’s concertos), excursions to the subdominant are rare.

   Although Steffani’s bass lines are virtually unfigured, his harmonic intentions in duet movements are clear from the three notated parts. If he uses the  –  chord, he prepares the fourth and resolves the triad on to – , often via  – . The dominant seventh is not shunned: the seventh is normally a passing note or a suspension, but it occasionally ‘passes’ so slowly as to seem consonant (Example .). The Neapolitan sixth occurred in Dir che giovi; other chromatic chords are found in such duets as Troppo cruda and Occhi, perchè piangete? which make a special feature of chromaticism: the opening of Troppo cruda includes both a diminished seventh and, arguably, an augmented chord (Example .). The harmony of Steffani’s recitative differs in some ways from that of his arias and duets. The most obvious differences are the widespread use of bass pedals (with diverse chords above them); the resolution of a last inversion of a dominant seventh on to a root position tonic; and the practice, seen in his solo cantatas (discussed earlier in this chapter), of starting a phrase on a chord that is unrelated to the chord that precedes it. His harmonic vocabulary is enriched by frequent suspensions. Dissonance and resolution season the harmony, highlight the counterpoint, generate rhythmic momentum, and impart a sense of direction. Even an early duet such as La fortuna su la ruota employs all the normal dissonances—fourth, major and minor seventh, and major and minor ninth—as well as a chain of suspensions over an extended sequence that would be exceptional in his later duets (see Example .). E perchè non m’uccidete, for example, includes a passage with dissonance on nearly every strong beat, but the harmony is not sequential and some of the dissonances are only fleetingly resolved (Example .). His duets are remarkable also for their frequent suspensions in the bass, a distinctive feature that attracted Riccati and epitomizes the contrapuntal role of the continuo. Sevenths in the bass in No, no, no, non voglio se devo amare (Example .) spring from the use of imitation; fourths and ninths are less common but can also be found.68  . A

b & b [ 68] . œ

From No, no, no, non voglio se devo amare, first movement

‰ ‰ n œj œj . œr œj œ

- re,

T

b V b [ 68] Jœ . Rœ Jœ œ bel - la che fa

Bc

? b [ 68] œ . b

 .

Bc

? b [3] w bb 2

œ

ne

mo - ri

œ.

-

re,

mo - ri

ne

bel - la che fa

trop

Ó Ó ˙ w

le

œ œ ˙.

-

- j - po, ˙ ˙ œ. œ n˙ w w #w ˙.

n

mie

œ ˙

stel

-

˙ ˙.

le

œ.

œ

˙ w

trop[po]

Ó œ ˙ ˙˙

trop - po

du - re,

w

j œ œ.

œ

œ.

œ.

œ.

brut - ta che fa

œ J

From Troppo cruda è la mia sorte, first movement

b 3 & b b [2] w˙ . ˙ w sor - te,

fug - gi - re, b j j œ ‰ ‰ œ Jœ . Rœ Jœ œ

brut - ta che fa

œ J

œ.

- re,

S A

ne

j ‰ ‰ j œj . œr œj œ œ œ

j œ œ

-

re, No,

œ.





   .

From E perchè non m’uccidete?, first movement

# & [23 ] w

T

- ti, spie Ÿ ˙. œ œ #œ w. # 3 J V [2 ] ˙

Ó

- ti, spie - ta - tis

Bc

? # [23 ]

 .

- ta - tis

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- si - mi oc[chi]

˙ #œ œ ˙

si-mi oc

-

w.

w.

chi,

w

oc[chi]

˙

From duet ‘Mi pento, mi pento’ (No, no, no, non voglio se devo amare)

b 6 & b [ 8]

T

b 6 j V b [ 8] ‰ œj œj œ œj œj œ .

‰

œ. sia,

? b b [ 68] œ .

-

Ÿ ˙. œ œ œ ˙ œ œ ˙

Ÿ- - - Ÿ - - œ œ œ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ œ. œ ˙ ˙ J

˙. œ #˙

A

Bc

-

˙ ˙.

w.

œ˙

˙.

Ÿ ˙ ˙. œ œ œ ˙

Ÿ Ó ˙ . œjœ w . œ

S

bas

Brut-ta o

œ œ œ œ œ œj œj œj œ œ œ œ j j œj j nœ œ œ nœ œ

œ œ œ œœœœJ J J -

ta che

s’a

-

ma, bas

-

-

∑

∑

œ j J œ œ

œ œ œ œ nœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ nœ

œ J œ

s’a - ma.

∑

bel-la che sia,

œ œ

- sta che

j œ

œ

j œ œ.

Approaching a cadence (which may include parallel seconds alla Corelli69), Steffani sometimes uses an unprepared melodic seventh or a  –  chord, both distinctive features of Seicento music. The seventh can be prepared by the continuo player (Example .), but the  –  chord is more difficult to explain. In the earlier version of E perchè non m’uccidete the fourth and third also appear as the sixth and fifth over a different bass note in the previous bar, suggesting that the  –  chord should be viewed, anachronistically perhaps, as a second inversion of a secondary seventh (Example .). It appears in major and minor keys, and the dissonance is often protracted and  . S

From aria ‘Già mai stabile la sorte’ (La fortuna su la ruota)

b & b b [43] œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ mor

Bc

-

? b b [43] ˙ . b

 .

te

cru

-

œ ˙

del - men - te

Bc

˙.

sos - ti

-

j œ. œ œ œ ˙

nò.

œ.

From E perchè non m’uccidete? (earlier version), first movement e per - chè

S T

œ . Jœ œ œ ˙

non m’uc - ci - de

-

j j j j b . & b [c] Œ œŒ œ ˙Œ n œ œ œ˙ œ # œ œ n œ œ ˙œ n œ J J J J ? b [c ] œ œ b

e per - chè

œ

œ 6 [ n] 5

œ

-

-

-

#œ œ œ œ œœ œ

non m’uc - ci - de

œ #

œ

-

œ

-

œ ˙ te

œ

˙ 4

te

3

   stressed, implying that the sonority was pleasurable. Cadences in the earlier duets are rarely approached via a dominant pedal, a standard device in such later works as Che volete (where Steffani also displays ingenuity in avoiding repeated V–i progressions, occasionally by flattening the leading note). ‘Imperfect’ progressions occur in most duets, but the plagal cadence is not a feature of his style. The continuo promotes unity of texture and continuity of structure. In duet movements, where contrapuntal interest is borne mainly by the voices, the bass mostly reinforces the harmonic rhythm, although it may also echo or anticipate vocal material, especially in a link between sections or a coda at the end. In solo arias and cavatas, however, the continuo plays a more contrapuntal role, imitating the vocal line or supplying an ostinato. Its role is slightly different in movements for bass voice, which, as Legrenzi and Gaffi acknowledged, poses a particular problem.70 Steffani’s writing for bass or baritone, like that of his Italian contemporaries, is characterized by rapid scales, wide leaps, and a desire to treat the voice as equal to the others in range and agility. Such material is less suitable for imitation by the continuo, which therefore adopts a simpler, supporting role, often presenting an outline of the vocal part. The singer usually joins the continuo at cadences and rarely descends below its line. Ostinato basses, common in Steffani’s Munich operas but less so in those for Hanover or Düsseldorf, are found in only five solo movements of his chamber duets. This might suggest that most of his duets are relatively late, but it is more likely to mean that ostinato basses, possibly because of their insistence on a single affection, were more appropriate to the theatre than the chamber—an idea supported by their comparative rarity in the cantatas of Luigi Rossi, Carissimi, Savioni, Gasparini, and Handel.71 Steffani’s ostinatos were regarded by Riemann as a high point in the history of the technique and a probable model for Purcell.72 They display various kinds of treatment, ranging from literal repetition of a melody several bars long to constant reiteration of a motive of as few as four notes. One of the longer examples in Steffani’s duets is the two-bar bass of ‘Sospirar per la bellezza’ in Cangia pensier, which is heard twelve times and in three keys (Table .); the first four notes link adjacent statements in different keys and furnish the basis for two ‘free’ bars ( – ) toward the end.73 Above this framework the voice moves relatively freely, bridging some of the cadences and coinciding with others. The identity and distribution of the vocal material, together with the cadences, determine the overall form. Greater variety of treatment is found in three solos where, as in cantatas by Rossi and Savioni, the ostinato is confined to a section of a movement. In ‘Struggerò con  .

Aria ‘Sospirar per la bellezza’ in Cangia pensier A

Vocal material Ostinato statements

B

A⬘

Bars – 

Bars –

Bars –

Bars  –

Bars – 

Bars – 

Bars  – 

a  in G

a  in D

b  in A

b  in D

a⬘  in G

a⬘ a⬘ – (in G)  in G





   .

Bass of aria ‘Che sarà, mal gradita fedeltà?’ (Il mio seno è un mar di pene) b

a

Bc

œ ?b c ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ

‰ b œ œ œ œj

calde stille’ (Labri belli) the ostinato is also taken from the vocal part, a practice favoured by Stradella. The aria ‘Che sarà, mal gradita fedeltà?’ (Il mio seno) is a tour de force of ‘quasi ostinato’ construction. After the opening eight bars, which are ‘free’, the bass is entirely composed of two motives of four quavers each (Example .). The motives are grouped in varying quantities into phrases of varying length, which are punctuated by rests of varying duration. Both motives are stated in all five closely related keys, and no two phrases are identical in structure. The first phrase avoids motive (b), but this appears up to three times in each subsequent phrase; although this motive has cadential force, it occurs in the middle as well as at the end of a phrase, and toward the end of the movement its final quaver is frequently omitted, possibly to illustrate the word ‘muor’, to which the voice often supplies the missing note. The vocal line incorporates motive (a), but most of its material is free; though some of its phrases are repeated and rather predictable, its form (abbccdeff ) is largely independent of the bass, which is wholly unpredictable. It is not far from this to a running bass in continuous quavers with no ostinato at all. The scoring of Steffani’s duets involves six combinations of voices. Table . reveals his preference for voices pitched a fifth or twelfth apart (soprano with alto, alto with tenor, and soprano with bass) and his interest in those an octave apart (soprano with tenor, alto with bass). Less than one duet in seven is scored for equal voices (two sopranos). It would be wrong to consider soprano-tenor an equal-voice combination: soprano and tenor may have been interchangeable in early-seventeenthcentury duets and later solo cantatas,74 but the counterpoint of Steffani’s duets discourages substitution. His preference for unequal scoring contrasts strongly with that of the earlier chamber duet and contemporary trio sonata. The latter is normally scored for two equal instruments: sonatas with ‘unequal’ melody instruments are rare in the late Baroque period, and the most notable examples—Bach’s sonatas for organ, or for viola da gamba and harpsichord—dispense with continuo realization. Steffani’s duets for soprano and alto, soprano and tenor, or alto and tenor could likewise be performed without chordal accompaniment, and sometimes possibly were, though probably not  .

Vocal scoring of Steffani’s duets

Continuo duets Instrumental duets

SS

SA

ST

SB

AT

AB

11 —

20 1

19 1

19 4

4 —

2 —

    : This table excludes the earlier versions and counts the occasional mezzo-soprano and baritone voices as S and B, respectively.

   for preference, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.75 Early Seicento vocal duets tend to be scored either for high voice and bass or for two equal voices:76 all but two of Monteverdi’s duets are for a pair of sopranos or tenors, only three of Carissimi’s are not for two sopranos, and the same combination predominates in ‘D’autori romani’ (I-Bc, MSS Q.  – ), an extensive collection of music from mid-seventeenthcentury Rome.77 There is greater diversity in succeeding generations: fewer than half of Cesti’s duets are scored for equal voices, while for Stradella the proportion is less than one in three.78 These developments are reflected in Steffani’s duets and were probably encouraged by the growing interest in counterpoint in the second half of the century. Of the works by him for which early dates may be suggested (on the basis of concordances), over half are scored for soprano and bass while another is for two sopranos; by contrast, of the eight remaining duets that can be approximately dated, threequarters are for soprano and alto (see Table .). Although these later duets were probably written for particular singers,79 the fact remains that nearly one-third of Steffani’s soprano-alto duets are relatively late compositions. Since equal voices generally excel in similar parts of the range, their use tends to favour parallel motion; counterpoint is not excluded, but it is more difficult for the composer to maintain the independence and distinctness of two equal parts. Scoring for unequal voices does not guarantee a contrapuntal texture, but it facilitates imitation at the fifth, octave, or twelfth and creates tonal space for manoeuvre: it provides opportunities for counterpoint, and Steffani exploits them to the full. The texture of his duets derives largely from his use of imitative and invertible counterpoint. The subject is normally announced by the upper voice, almost invariably a soprano. The pitch of the answer depends partly on the identity of the other  .

Scoring of datable duets

Duet

Date

Scoring

Parlo e rido È spento l’ardore Tu m’aspettasti No . . . non voglio se devo amare La fortuna su la ruota Dir che giovi Oh! che voi direste bene

Concordance  Concordance  Concordance by  Concordance –  Concordance by  Concordance  By 

SS SB ST AT SB SB SB

Crudo Amor, morir mi sento Che volete, o crude pene Inquieto mio cor Placidissime catene Io mi parto Dolce è per voi soffrire Dolce labbro, amabil bocca Quando ti stringo

By  By  By  By  By  By   ?

SA SA SA SA ST ST SA SA





  voice. Alto and bass often answer at the fourth or fifth (or eleventh or twelfth) below, but the alto may answer at the unison or octave and the bass at the octave or double octave. Although the tenor frequently answers the soprano at the octave below, entries at the fourth, eleventh, and twelfth are also abundant. In duets for two sopranos, answers at the fourth and fifth, above and below, occur alongside those at the unison. There are also examples of imitation, though not of initial answers, at such intervals as the second and third.80 If the subject begins and ends in one and the same key, the answer is normally real. In the first section of a movement the subject is invariably in the tonic, but later sections frequently begin in the dominant; in this case the answer may be in either key. Since an answer in the tonic has a cadential effect, it is often withheld until the end—as in the final section of Dolce è per voi soffrire, a masterly piece of tonal pacing.81 The tonal answer appears comparatively rarely with nonmodulating subjects, but examples can be found, even in such relatively early duets as La fortuna su la ruota. Modulating subjects are not uncommon, and the modulation is invariably to the dominant; the answer is normally adjusted to remain in that key or return to the tonic, though if pitched at the unison or octave it may repeat the subject’s progression.82 Some of Steffani’s duets recall the ‘a risposta’ technique, each voice presenting an extended subject separately before combining in counterpoint. The procedure is normally found at the beginning of a movement and elaborated. In Non, no, no, non voglio se devo amare, for example,83 the head of the answer is detached from the tail and set against the subject in the opening bars—a false answer that camouflages the underlying plan; in Labri belli the answer begins before the subject has finished. A number of techniques are available at the end of the answer. In Labri belli each phrase of the subject is restated by the soprano and immediately imitated by the other voice (bass), creating a series of strettos. The section concludes with a repeat of the second half of this series, transposed down a fifth to end in the tonic. If this kind of stretto is particularly characteristic of ‘a risposta’ sections, repetition and transposition of chunks of material, often accompanied by inversion of the texture, are standard in all types of fugal section. Two further devices are employed in Crudo Amor: the stretto is anticipated by a false entry on the head of the subject (Example .a), and in the partial restatement of the stretto the time lag between the voices is halved (Example .b). Telescoping of entries is not confined to sections employing the ‘a risposta’ technique, but since it tightens the texture it is often reserved for the end. False entries and strettos are among the commonest means by which Steffani enriches his expositions, a sensible measure when only two imitative parts are involved. His practice is illustrated by the duet movement in Tu m’aspettasti. The entries of the opening phrases—(a) ‘Conducetemi verso il porto’ and (b) ‘o nocchieri del mare d’amore’—are shown in Table ..84 The false entry is the first statement of (a) in the tenor. It is imitated in stretto by the soprano’s second (a), which is immediately answered in closer stretto by the tenor’s. As a result of the false entry, the soprano sings the complete subject twice before the tenor finishes it once. Steffani could have avoided this by omitting the false entry and inverting the remainder, but he would have sacrificed both the first stretto and the cumulative impact of two strettos in quick succession.

    . (b) bars –  [a] S A

Bc

&

###

From Crudo Amor, morir mi sento, first movement: (a) bars –;

Ó [c] œ œ œ œ .

? # # # [c] œ .

&

###

- rir

mi

œ œ.

œ

Cru

-

œ J

Cru

-

œ œ. J

j œ

sen - to,

ma

œœ .

œ œ J

do A-mor,

? ### œ œ œ œ

Ó

do A - mor,

j œ. œ œ œ œ

˙œ œ œ œ . œ.

j œ œ.

j œ ˙

[b]

ma

œœ j œ

Ó œ

œ

ma

d’un

œ

œ

-

do A- mor,

mo -

j œœ . # œ . œ œ œœ . J R

œ #œ œ

mo - rir

œ œ œ œ

Cru

pro

d’un

j œ

Œ

mar-tir.

œ.

œ J

len -

-

- [to]

j œœ . œ # œœ . œ œœ . œœ œœ . œœ œœ . . . . J

len

œ

-

œ

-

˙

-

-

-

˙

[to]

The effect of a stretto is enhanced if it creates a new piece of double (or invertible) counterpoint. An example occurs in the earlier version of Ah! che l’ho sempre detto (b), of which the second movement (‘In due luci tutte ardore’) includes a section composed of two phrases— (a) ‘poi con guardo lusinghiero’ and (b) ‘mi trafisse a morte il core’ (Table .).85 Bars –  constitute the exposition; bars –  are a stretto in which (b) acts for the first time as a countersubject to (a); bars –  are the same stretto inverted and transposed, and bars –  are a series of strettos, at diminishing intervals, on (b) alone. The only permutation of material that is not employed is (a) in combination with itself. Although double counterpoint is often introduced in the course of a section, as here, it is normally announced at the beginning and constitutes its principal texture. The phrases are usually similar in length, forming a self-contained block of material capable of inversion and transposition. If in these respects it seems rather limited, the texture also affords opportunities for separate strettos on each phrase in turn. The most characteristic examples in Steffani’s duets are set to the final lines of such comparatively late pieces as Crudo Amor and the revised version of Quanto care, where extended sections of intense counterpoint are preceded by brief passages of recitative a due.86 At the beginning of a movement the texture may be looser and the contrapuntal potential of the material less thoroughly explored.87 Though standard in the trio sonata, double counterpoint is comparatively rare in the chamber duet, possibly because it entails the simultaneous delivery of different portions of text. When the       .  Beginning of ‘Conducetemi verso il porto’ (Tu m’aspettasti) Voices

Material

Soprano Tenor

a

b

a a

a

b b





   .

Structure of part of ‘In due luci’ (Ah! che l’ho sempre detto (b)) Bars and Material

Soprano Tenor

– 

 – 

 – 

– 

a b

a b a b

a b a b

bbb b bb

a b

latter are complementary, antithetical, or epigrammatic, however, double counterpoint is a highly appropriate means of presenting them. Steffani, who used the texture in early as well as late duets, may have been one of the first composers to exploit it in vocal works. He did not, however, employ modulatory episodes or middle entries in related keys. In some duets the idea of a middle entry is ‘replaced’ by an exceptional repeat. In the last movement of Che volete, for example, the opening point returns over threefifths of the way through. The passage in question is almost a literal repeat of the exposition, but because it is widely separated from those bars by other material and appears in a different key (and the interval between the voices has grown by an octave), it has a startling effect comparable to that of a middle or final entry in a fugue.88 That the same device is used in Placidissime catene,89 which, like Che volete, dates from the late s, suggests that at this stage of his career Steffani investigated new ways (for him) of extending contrapuntal sections. Although his duets also lack the harmonic freedom that is typical of fugal episodes, they use textures found in such sections, including motivic interplay between the voices;90 a brief, incisive rhythmic figure in one voice against a long, florid subject in the other;91 and homophony. The last occurs mostly in short passages of recitative a due92 and brief introductions to more extended sections of counterpoint;93 several duet movements begin homophonically, but none approaches the consistent parallel motion of the air à deux, and none is a dance. These textures provide contrast within and between contrapuntal sections of movements. Despite their importance, however, it is the quality of Steffani’s counterpoint and the beauty of his melodic and harmonic expression that make him the greatest exponent of the Italian chamber duet in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century. S That the chamber duet is a medium, rather than a form, is clear from the fact that it may comprise several movements or sections, for two voices or one. The commonest kinds of solo in Steffani’s duets are the aria and the recitative with aria cavata, but some solos combine elements of both.94 Set to the final line or couplet of a stanza of recitative verse, the cavata is composed of one or two phrases, normally in triple or compound metre, which are stated twice: first in the dominant or other related key, then in the tonic; it is in aa⬘ form and is the tonal complement of the preceding recitative. The second statement may be prefaced by a brief pre-echo or ‘false entry’ of the opening phrase or slightly extended at the close; it may also be anticipated, as may the false entry, by imitation in the bass. If this type of section was a regular feature of the Italian cantata in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries (it recalls

   a practice of Luigi Rossi and occurs frequently in Cesti, Stradella, Scarlatti, Albinoni, and Marcello), in Steffani’s duets it achieved a formal perfection. In fifteen of his works, both solo movements consist of recitative with cavata: examples appear in Saldi marmi, Vorrei dire un non so che, Begl’occhi, oh Dio, non più, and Aure, voi che volate.95 In both arias and duet movements the formal determinants are the number of sections and the order in which they appear. The majority of forms are composed of two sections in one of the following patterns: ab, aba or aba⬘, abb or abb⬘. Compound forms such as abbcdd are found only in arias, while longer examples of throughcomposition (e.g., abc or abcd ) are confined to duets. A number of fugal duet movements, based on a single piece of material, may best be described as ‘unitary’. Binary form is by far the most common. The first section may end in the tonic or dominant (or elsewhere); the second, which is normally longer, may include an internal cadence in another related key. The range of arias in binary form reflects that found in Steffani’s operas, extending from simple canzonette and dance songs to the sophisticated structure and texture of ‘Col desio che sempre alletta’ in Cangia pensier.96 A similar range is evident in the duet movements, though few of these display the influence of dance; even in Più non amo, which includes a double bar-line halfway, the voices engage in imitation. In Crudo Amor each section is a thoroughly worked-out fugue, roughly equal in length. The sections often differ more widely, however, with the first acting as a preparation for the second. Brief (and occasional) passages of recitative a due normally occur in extended, through-composed structures such as the last movement of Quanto care, of which the four sections (abcd ) fall into two pairs: 97 the first pair (bars – and – ) employs a typical binary design, while the second comprises a brief piece of recitative a due ( – : ‘più adagio’) followed by a substantial fugal section ( – : ‘allegro’)—a structure reminiscent of the sonata da chiesa.98 Further extensions of the binary principle are found in abb form and its multiples. One of the most ubiquitous of seventeenth-century aria designs, abb can appear to be binary. The opening movement of Parlo e rido, for example, is bisected by a modulation and double bar-line, but since the later section falls into two halves, of which the second is a literal repeat of the first (apart from transposition and inversion of the voice-parts), the correct designation is abb. An exact restatement of b is a rarity, at least in duet movements. In most cases, either the last pair of entries is extended or an additional set is tacked on at the end. More substantial modifications occur in Dolce labbro, where the repeat of b is both abridged at the beginning and extended at the end,99 and in Dolce è per voi soffrire, where the contrapuntal treatment is rejigged. The b section of the first movement (Table. .) is based on three phrases: (a) ‘ma  .

Part of first movement of Dolce è per voi soffrire Section

Soprano Tenor

b

b⬘

a b c b a b c b c

a b b c c a b b c c





  quando voi mirate’; (b) ‘dolcissimo è il morir’; and (c) ‘luci beate’. In the first statement of the section, phrases (b) and (c) form invertible counterpoint; in the repeat (section b⬘) each point combines only with itself, in stretto, producing a texture of greater intensity.100 The few arias in abbcdd form can also look like binary structures: the second solo of Io voglio provar, for example, is bisected by a neat change of metre. It would be misleading to label it ‘binary’, however, as both halves are in abb form. Similar movements are found in Carissimi and Stradella, and further variants (abbcddee) occur in Steffani. The da capo aria, although common in his operas, is the rarest form of solo in his chamber duets. Both examples are preceded by lengthy recitative, one of them with a cavata. Duet movements in aba form are far more numerous. Section b is normally shorter than a, but the reverse also is common; in some cases, the b section ends outside the tonic key, and in four examples it entails a change of metre.101 In the first movement of Io voglio provar, among others, the theme of section a is retained as a counterpoint to new material in section b, reducing the contrast between the sections but forging a more integrated whole. About half of the aba duet movements employ a ‘da capo’ instruction; the written-out repeats in the remainder include a few variants—a bass note at a different octave or an anticipatory note at a cadence—but such discrepancies are of doubtful significance. There are also a considerable number of duet movements in aba⬘ form. In these, section b is normally longer than a and ends outside the tonic; section a⬘ incorporates a literal restatement of all or part of a, but also includes significant variation. In several movements the restatement is extended by the addition of a brief codetta;102 in some the repeat is truncated, usually by omission of the start of the section but sometimes by elision at the end; in a few movements for soprano and tenor the voice parts are exchanged.103 In Ah! che l’ho sempre detto the repeat of section a dispenses with the exposition, beginning instead at the first stretto.104 Since the latter is in the dominant key, in which section b has just ended, sections b and a⬘ are tonally complementary: it is possible to regard them as a unit and the movement as a case of rounded binary form. A similar design is found in Cangia pensier, where the beginning of section a is cut by over a third on its return.105 Another kind of rounded binary form occurs in a handful of duet movements in which section a⬘ is hardly a repeat at all: although it begins by recalling the opening, it continues by extending it in a new way or generating a new texture from the material. Invariably shorter than a, it may comprise just a few bars: the intention was to establish the idea of a repeat, rather than to restate the section in full. The external (or overall) forms of Steffani’s duets are determined by the number of movements involved and the incidence of structural repetition (i.e., the repeat of a movement or, occasionally, section after the appearance of a subsequent movement or section). Nearly all the duets comprise between two and five movements, and over  percent include a solo for each singer. Almost half lack structural repetition and are through-composed; the remainder are in a variety of forms that depend on repetition. The naming and classification of these forms are not entirely straightforward, because a few works can be viewed in more ways than one; but a reasonable overview can, nevertheless, be provided (see Table .).

    .

Steffani’s duets: external forms

Form

Without solo movements

With solo recitative(s)

With solos, without recitative(s)

Totals

Through-composed Da capo Rondo Refrain Strophic Other

10 3 3 2 4 0

24 6 5 0 0 2

4 12 3 1 1 1

38 21 11 3 5 3

Totals

22

37

22

81

The through-composed duets without solo movements are essentially madrigals for two voices and continuo. The number of movements normally corresponds with the layout of the text, but the last line of Che volete is treated separately, while the octave of Ravvediti, mio core, Steffani’s only sonnet-setting, provides material for two movements. The strophic text of Lungi da l’idol mio is not set strophically, and neither are the strophic portions of Forma un mare; the final movement of this duet incorporates a substantial solo section for each singer, but since the words are all part of a single stanza and the musical sections are interdependent, the piece is counted as a duet without solo movements. Most of the movements in such works begin in one key and end in another, thus contributing to an integrated tonal design. The ignoring of strophic elements in texts betokens an interest in through-composition, as does the paucity of movements in aba or aba⬘ form: most of the movements are throughcomposed or binary (through-composed in two sections), reflecting the form of the duets as a whole. The majority of the through-composed works, however, do include solo movements. The standard form is duet, solo, solo, duet (ABCD), although in Aure, voi che volate and Dimmi, dimmi, Cupido the opening duet and solo are reversed (perhaps because the texts begin with invocations) and Tu m’aspettasti and Turbini tempestosi dispense with the opening duet. Five-movement works display symmetrical designs: duets and solos alternate throughout Voi ve ne pentirete, while in Saldi marmi a single solo is flanked by two duets on each side. If the duet movements in any one work are normally contrasted in form, the solos are almost invariably alike. In most cases they comprise a recitative and cavata, but in others they are arias, with or without recitative. The arias, moreover, are usually similar in scale, design, and complexity, implying that they were written for singers of comparable ability. The forms of the movements correspond by and large with those of their texts, though Steffani again shuns opportunities for repetition. The texts of the solos in No, no, no, non voglio se devo amare are matching strophes set to different music. He also ignored strophic features in the texts of Tengo per infallibile and Torna a dar vita al core,106 and there is no sign in Il mio seno that he wanted the restatement of the first movement that the poem appears to require. The throughcomposed duets with solo movements reflect very strongly the influence of the lateseventeenth-century solo cantata: the movements of the chamber duet do not occur





  in the same order as the recitatives and arias of a cantata, but both duet and cantata exploit the alternation of contrasting movements and textures. The other half (approximately) of Steffani’s duets employ structural repetition. Those in da capo form comprise a number of movements of which the first is repeated only at the end. The repeated movement is always a duet, of which the return is normally signalled by a ‘da capo’ instruction, but the central portion varies enormously, ranging from a single duet to a number of duet or solo movements. When the first movement is itself in aba or aba⬘ form, the sources rarely make clear whether the repeat comprises the complete movement or merely the opening section. Even when they do, the form of the work may be open to various interpretations. In I-Fc, MS D. , which was copied at Düsseldorf in , the repeat in Mi voglio far intendere is written out in full (Table .). The order of sections suggests that the piece is a rondo, but the predominance of duet scoring sets it apart from Steffani’s other works in this form. It could also be construed as a large-scale rounded binary structure, although the completeness and independence of the section a repeats argue against this interpretation. Given the order of the movements, it is best considered a da capo duet with truncated repeat, a form employed much earlier by Rossi.107 The majority of the da capo duets, as of the through-composed, incorporate solo movements and derive their musical shape from their texts. The commonest form is duet, solo, solo, duet (ABCA). There are, however, exceptions. The last stanza of È spento l’ardore is not a repeat of the first but a matching strophe to which Steffani set the same music (ABCa).108 The texts of Libertà! L’infelice umanità and Ribellatevi, o pensieri appear to begin with refrains, but there is no indication that the opening section of Libertà! L’infelice umanità should be repeated before the end of the setting, and a central restatement of the first movement of Ribellatevi is ruled out by the fact that its solo movements are joined together. These solos, incidentally, and those in Su, ferisci, alato arciero, are strophic arias of which one verse is sung by each soprano in turn: the external form is ABbA. Io voglio provar, La fortuna su la ruota, and Tienmi ’l cor la gelosia each comprise five movements (ABCDA: duet, duet, solo, solo, duet), but the repeats are based only on the beginning of the opening stanza. The external form of the da capo works is reflected in that of their constituent movements. In two-thirds of those with solos, the duet movement is itself a da capo, ternary, or rounded binary structure. Most of the solos incorporate strophic repetition: either of them may be a strophic aria, or the texts of the solos may be a single strophic poem, set to the same or contrasting music.109 Recitative is found in only one-third of the da capo works, and the recitative with cavata is rarer still: Porto l’alma incenerita is the only ternary duet in which both solos are of this type. The effect of closed forms is reinforced by key schemes. In the majority of da capo duets, all the movements are in the tonic. A number of works have movements that begin in one key and end in another, but only three duets (Libertà! L’infelice umanità, Mia speranza illanguidita, and Porto l’alma incenerita) include a movement—in each case a solo—entirely in another key. The rondos begin with a textual refrain that is set as a duet in the tonic key (movement A). Though few in number, these works must be divided into simple rondos (ABACA) and strophic rondos (ABAbA). In simple rondos the subsequent stan-

    .

Structure of Mi voglio far intendere

Movement

A

B

A⬘

Section

a

b

a

c

d

a

Time

3 4




3 4

3 2




3 4

Scoring

Duet -----------------

Solo

Duet

zas of text are treated as ‘episodes’ for solo voice. The repeats of A are indicated by ‘da capo’ instructions and never varied, though the restatements of the first movements of Dir che giovi and Luci belle, which are in da capo form, could be limited to the opening section. The solo movements draw on recitative, cavata, and various aria forms, and there is usually a contrast between the two solos in a work. In Luci belle and Nel tempo ch’amai, however, the solos are arias based on the stanzas of a single strophic poem; the settings are not the same, but they are all in the tonic. This is unusual: in most of the simple rondos, either or both of the solos may begin or end in a related key or inhabit one throughout. In the strophic-rondo duets the text of the ‘episodes’ is a strophic poem of which both verses are set to the same music, partly for both voices, partly for one; movement A is in aba or aba⬘ form, and its repeats are limited to section a (this is all that the copyist supplied for the first repeat in Non ve ne state a ridere and the second in Sia maledetto Amor). Ho scherzato (ABAba) is unique in that its ‘episodes’ are solos throughout and the last repeat of A is set to new words.110 In the refrain duets the final section (only) of the opening duet movement is repeated as a refrain. The music of Labri belli consists of two duets (AB) and two solos (CD) in the following order: AB/CB/DB. The texts of Pria ch’io faccia and Rio destin, che a tutte l’ore are strophic and set entirely as duets, but whereas the musical form of Rio destin may be notated as AB/Cb, that of Pria ch’io faccia, in which the last line of each strophe is identical, must be shown as AB/CB. A similar structure is found in both verses of Già tu parti, of which the overall form is strophic. The duets in this category (strophic), none of which includes a solo movement, are all based on strophic poems with two verses, but the composition of the musical strophe varies from a single movement in aba⬘ or abc form (E così mi compatite and Io mi rido, respectively) to two movements in abb form (Parlo e rido) and three movements (ABCA) in M’hai da piangere. Già tu parti is unique in having a refrain in both text and music (verse : AB/CB; verse : ab/cB).111 The three ‘other’ duets, which combine through-composition and repetition, fit none of the standard categories. In Libertà! Non posso, non voglio the order of movements is ABACD (duet, solo, duet, solo, duet); the solos are both arias, and every movement is in the tonic key. In Inquieto mio cor and Non so chi mi piagò, on the other hand, the arrangement is ABCAD (duet, solo, solo, duet, duet) and the solos are mainly of the recitative-with-cavata type, beginning and ending outside the tonic. In all three works the repeated duet is a brief unitary movement, not unlike a refrain. Like the scoring of the duets, the external forms of those for which dates are suggested present an interesting picture (see Table .). Up to and including Oh! che





   .

External forms of Steffani’s datable duets

Title

Datea

Form

Solos?

Parlo e rido È spento l’ardore Tu m’aspettasti No . . . non voglio se devo La fortuna su la ruota Dir che giovi Oh! che voi direste bene Crudo Amor Che volete Inquieto mio cor Placidissime catene Io mi parto Dolce è per voi soffrire Dolce labbro Quando ti stringo

  By  – By   By  By  By  By  By  By  By   ?

Strophic (abb/abb) Da capo (ABCa) ABC ABCD Da capo (ABCDA) Rondo (ABACA) Da capo (ABCA) ABCD ABC ABCAD AB ABCD AB A (abb⬘) A (abb⬘)

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No

a Date

of concordance or reference.

voi direste bene the duets incorporate solo movements and, with two exceptions, display structural repetition. From Crudo Amor, however, solo movements occur only in Io mi parto, the dialogue for Sophie Charlotte and Max Emanuel, and in the unusuallystructured Inquieto mio cor, the only duet of this period to employ repetition. If Steffani’s earlier works include both solo movements and duets, embraced by one or two da capo repeats, his later works prefer two-voice texture and through-composed forms. After his removal from Munich, apparently, he abandoned the repetition-based patterns of the mid-Seicento cantata in favour of the through-composed cantata and madrigal of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. This conclusion is supported by his approach to the poems of Bianchi112 and his revisions; the latter suggest, in addition, that this development was fuelled by his burgeoning interest in counterpoint. R The revised versions of Steffani’s duets are unusual for their period in not having been commissioned or required by a patron or employer. The composer produced them because he wanted to and because the work was therapeutic.113 He informed Sophie Charlotte that he was revising ‘all the duets of mine that I no longer like’ (‘tous mes Duos, qui ne me plaise [sic] plus’), which included an exceptionally high proportion of those for two sopranos. Apart from the evidence of the music itself, there is no other information on how he chose which duets to revise. The process affected almost every feature of the works, but changes in text, material, counterpoint, and other parameters all had a bearing ultimately on musical form. Compared with the earlier versions, the revisions generally comprise a smaller number of longer movements, of which a greater proportion are duets and are not repeated. Solos are mostly reduced or excised: none was significantly expanded. Some

   duet movements also were cut, but the majority were considerably enlarged: the average increase is  percent. This was normally achieved by more thorough exploration of the contrapuntal potential of the (revised) thematic material; indeed, it appears that Steffani’s enhanced interest and skill in counterpoint enabled him to compose longer sections that affected the balance and structure of individual movements and in some cases compelled him to change the overall form of the work. The earlier versions of the revised duets came from every formal category except the ‘strophic’ and ‘other’. In over one-third of the revisions Steffani altered the poetical text. In three of these cases the alteration resulted in a change of external form, due primarily to the omission of a solo. The revision of his setting of Bianchi’s E perchè non m’uccidete entailed the omission of one solo and recomposition of others as duets; divisions between movements were moved to different points in the text, and the setting was transformed from a rondo into a da capo structure. Begl’occhi, oh Dio, non più and Tengo per infallibile were changed from da capo to through-composed duets. In Begl’occhi his intention again was to avoid repetition: while the earlier version is pervaded by formal repeats, the revision is unified by more subtle and organic means. Begl’occhi is the only work in which a movement was transplanted in revision, and one of the few in which a duet movement was transformed from one structure to another.114 The revision of Tengo per infallibile was more easily achieved. The earlier version ends with three lines of recitative, of which the last word is ‘possibile’; the rhyme with ‘infallibile’ signals a repeat of the opening duet, though the sources lack a ‘da capo’ instruction. Steffani avoided the repeat by omitting the recitative. In three other works the omission of text led to the compression of the external form. Both versions of Quanto care are through-composed, but whereas the earlier setting comprises two solo movements, each framed by duets (ABCDE ), the revision retains only the duets (ACE ).115 The theme of the poem is announced in its opening lines (‘Quanto care al cor voi siete, / mie catene, / per colei che mi legò’: ‘How dear to my heart are you, my chains, because of her that tied you round me’). The solo movements extend and explore the conceit (‘Che chi serve in catena ad un tel viso / in mezzo de contenti ha il paradiso’: ‘Who serves, enchained, such a face enjoys paradise amid contentment’). Since they add nothing essential, however, their omission does not change the meaning. It does remove contrast between solo and duet textures, but this impoverishment is arguably offset by the doubling in length and interest of the final (fugal) section of the work. The revision of Vorrei dire and Pria ch’io faccia entailed the omission not of solos but of duets. The earlier version of Vorrei dire comprises two duets, two solos, and a final duet (AB/CD/E ). As in Quanto care, the subject of the text is summed up in the first movement: Vorrei dire un non so che, che mi tiene oppresso il cor; ma la lingua m’annoda Amor, ne conoscer so perchè. [I’d like to tell you something or other which is pressing on my heart, but Cupid has tied my tongue, and I know not why.]





  The second movement is set to the words ‘Io v’amo, si sa, / v’adoro, si vede, / ciascuno si crede’ (‘I love you, as is known; I adore you, as is seen; everyone believes it’)— the very sentiment that the tongue-tied lover is supposedly unable to articulate! The omission of this duet (B) improves both the sense and the musical balance of the work. The text of the earlier version of Pria ch’io faccia is composed of three matching strophes, each ending with the refrain ‘basta ben che lo sappia Amore ed io’ (‘let it suffice that Love and I know’). Taking his cue from this endecasillabo, Steffani set the whole of the second part of each strophe to the same music: the form is AB/Cb/Db⬘. The revised version retains AB/Cb⬘ only. Since the meaning of the text is not impaired, the reason for the omissions appears to have been musical—related, perhaps, to the composer’s disenchantment with repetition. The only duet in which words seem to have been added in revision is Saldi marmi. The addition was evidently required by the sense of the poem, which is concerned with the feelings of a nymph after the death of her lover. At first she wonders whether to yield to another suitor; the question is aired, in the earlier version, at the end of the first two strophes:116 []

Deggio al novello foco opporre il vostro gelo o pur dar loco? . . .

[]

Deggio al nuovo desire oppor vostra durezza o pur morire?

[Must I oppose my new flame with your coldness or give way? . . . Must I oppose my new desire with your hardness or die?]

Since the nymph is unsure, it seems odd that she should plunge into the next movement (‘Incostanza, e che pretendi? / Amerò, sì, ch’amerò’: ‘Inconstancy, what do you want? I shall love again, yes, I shall love’), which answers the question before she has thought about it. In the revised version, therefore, this movement is prefaced by a substantial recitative, narrative in mode (‘Così Fille dicea . . .’), which places the question in context and allows time for reflection.117 After this it is natural to pass to ‘Incostanza, e che pretendi’ and to the nymph’s antithetical conclusion: ‘vissi agl’estinti, e per chi vive or moro’ (‘I lived for the dead, and now for one who lives I die’). Notwithstanding the cases examined here, the majority of Steffani’s revised duets appear to retain the poetical texts and overall forms of their models. It is impossible to be entirely certain, however, because the sources of three of the earlier versions may be slightly defective. There should probably be a central repeat of the refrain in the earlier version of Ah! che l’ho sempre detto and a pair of solos in Ribellatevi, o pensieri; if there were, these duets would correspond with their revisions. The revised version of Rio destin comprises four duet movements (ABCb), but the sources of the earlier version lack the repeat. In some cases the process of revision entailed transposition or adjustment of the overall key scheme. Half the duets were transposed (see Table .). Three of the transpositions entailed a change of mode, and five involved a shift of a fourth or a

    .

Transposition in Steffani’s revised versions

Title

Earlier

Revised

Ah! che l’ho sempre detto Aure, voi che volate Begl’occhi, oh Dio, non più E perchè non m’uccidete Fredde ceneri / Saldi marmi Occhi, perchè piangete? Pria ch’io faccia altrui palese Ribellatevi, o pensieri Torna a dar vita al core

C a c g g e a C a

g d d e B a A G d

fifth. One duet in this group, Torna a dar vita al core, was rescored for soprano (instead of alto) and bass, but this was not the reason for the other transpositions. Only in a few duets was the overall tonal plan revised. An example of such changes is provided by Occhi, perchè piangete? (Table .). By eschewing the dominant region at the end of the first movement and espousing the relative major, the revised version avoids undermining the end of the work, where the dominant looms large, and achieves a better balance overall. Similar adjustments were made to duets that were not transposed, such as Rio destin (Table .). By revising movement C to end in the dominant, Steffani avoided a premature cadence in the tonic, and to avoid repeating the d–a progression, perhaps, he altered movement A so as to cadence in the relative major. In addition to being better balanced, the resulting scheme—like that of the revised Occhi, perchè piangete?—displays a greater command of tonal planning and resources. The internal re-organization of duet movements depended partly on changes to thematic material. Some of the original material survived intact, but most of it was modified. Steffani’s normal method was to alter the beginning of a point, usually by inverting it. Two kinds of inversion are seen at the opening of Cangia pensier (Example .). The inversion (or reversal) of the first two notes paved the way for a stronger harmonic progression, while the inversion of the third on ‘pensier’ introduced a change of melodic direction that reflects the meaning of the words. The beginning of a point could also be modified in other ways. The earlier version of ‘a te solo tanto duolo destinò’ in the same duet was prefixed by extra notes, enabling Steffani to repeat the words ‘tanto duolo’ (Example .). It was presumably a desire for emphasis, via expansion of the section, that prompted him to make this adjustment: the revi .

Key-schemes of Occhi, perchè piangete? Movement A

Movement B

Section

a

b

c

d

e

f

Key (earlier) Key (revised)

e a

G–D C

D C

b–e a

e–b a–e

b–e e–a





   .

Key schemes of Rio destin Movement

Key (earlier) Key (revised)

A

B

C

b

d–a d–F

a–d a–d

d–d d–a

[a–d]a a–d

Movement b is absent from the fullest sources of the earlier version (B-Lc, MS -. L–IX, and F-Pc, MS D. ).

a

sion, in other words, sprang from a desire to intensify expression. In the case of ‘non servir a nume ingrato’, also from Cangia pensier, the original point was simplified in the process of revision and a new head grafted on at the start (Example .). The relation between the two versions of a point is sometimes less obvious. One would never guess at a connexion between the versions of ‘Dite a Filli’ in Aure, voi che volate, since they differ in key, metre, and rhythm, but if they are superimposed in the same key the similarities quickly emerge (Example .): the important syllables ‘Dite’, ‘Filli’, and ‘moro’ fall on the same notes; the passages on ‘moro’ are similar in shape, and both points end with a falling scale. Despite surface differences, the two versions are intimately related. The same is true of the opening point of Ah! che l’ho sempre detto, the only other duet movement that changed from triple to quadruple time. Here, however, the pitches of the notes are altered while the rhythm remains the same (Example .). The rhythm of the earlier version fits the words, but the triple metre feels uncomfortable: the stressed syllables ‘Ah’, ‘detto’, and ‘amor’ fall on weak beats. In the revised version, in quadruple time, ‘detto’ and ‘amor’ occur on strong beats, and ‘Ah’ is deliberately syncopated. The change of metre makes sense of the rhythm. The revision of Ribellatevi, o pensieri is exceptional in that it draws on material from an aria in one of Steffani’s operas. The beginning of the earlier version, the aria (‘Ira  .

S

Cangia pensier, mio cor: the opening points of Steffani’s two versions

Earlier version Ÿ # 3 œ œ. œ & [4] œ œ # œ . Jœ œ J can -gia,

 .

can - gia pen - sier,

Revised version

# & [43] Œ œ œ œ . # Jœ œ

˙.

mio cor

Cangia pensier: the two versions of the point ‘a te solo tanto duolo destinò’

# j & [43] œ # œ # ˙ œ ˙ # œ ˙ # ˙ œ œ œ # ˙ œ œ œ . œ œ a te

so - lo tan - to duo

-

-

Revised version

S

# 3 & [4 ] œ œ # ˙ œ ˙ # œ # ˙ œ ˙ # œ ˙ # œ œ ˙ a te

˙

can - gia, can - gia pen - sier, mio cor

Earlier version

S

œ ˙

so - lo tan - to

duo-lo, tan - to duo -

-

- lo de - sti - nò

j œ œ œ. œ œ - lo

de - sti -nò

    .

Cangia pensier: the two versions of the point ‘non servir a nume ingrato’ Earlier version

S

# & [ 43] œ # œ

˙

œ œœœœ œ

Non ser - vir

Revised version

S

# & [ 43] œ œ

œ œ #œ

Non ser - vir

 . movement)

a nu

œ

-

œ

œ . œj œ

a

˙

me in - gra - to

œ . œj œ

nu - me in - gra - to

Aure, voi che volate: the two versions of the point ‘Dite a Filli’ (second

Earlier version

S

3 & b 4 Œ œ œ ˙ œ Œœ œ œ œ œ Di-te a Fil - li,

di-te a Fil - li

œ ˙ œ œ œ ˙. œ œ œ ch’io mi mo -

-

œ˙

- ro, ch’io

mi

œ œ . œj œ ˙ mo -

-

œ - ro

Revised version

S

j j & b c œ . œj œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œj . œr œ œ œ #œ œ œœ œœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Di - te a Fil - li

 .

ch’io mi mo

-

-

j j & 43 Œ Œ œ ‰ œr œr œ Jœ Jœ œ ‰ Jœ Ah!

Revised version

S

che l’ho sem - pre det - to,

b œ ‰ Rœ œ Jœ œ &b c Œ R J Ah!

-

-

-

-

-

ro, ch’io mi mo - ro

Ah! che l’ho sempre detto: the two versions of the opening point

Earlier version

S

-

œ œ œ œ œ m J J J

ch’A -mor mi tra - di - [rà]

œ œ j j r J J ‰ Jœ # œ œ œ œ . œ m

che l’ho sem - pre det - to,

ch’A-mor mi

tra - di - [rà]

eterna’ from Le rivali concordi, III/), and the opening of the revised version are given in Example .. If the use of the aria was suggested by the fact that it shares the duet’s affection of anger, its potential for textural expansion was demonstrated by imitation in the opening bars. The revised duet movement also appropriated the vocal pedals and milder manner of the aria’s b section. Ribellatevi furnishes an intriguing example of recomposition based on two models rather than one.118 No less interesting are the uses to which revised material was put. The structure or balance of a movement was frequently altered by expansion or contraction of constituent sections, or by transplantation or omission of short passages. The expansion of a section was achieved in most cases by more thorough exploration of the contrapuntal potential of the material. The process is most apparent in sections where imitative treatment is replaced or supplemented by invertible counterpoint. A vivid example is found at the section based on (a) ‘più la speme non m’avviva’ and (b) ‘di conforto ’alma è priva’ in the second movement of Aure, voi che volate (Example .; Table .).119 In the earlier version the phrases overlap but are not combined; in the





          .   (a) Beginning of Ribellatevi, o pensieri (earlier version); (b) aria ‘Ira eterna’ (Le rivali concordi, III/); (c) beginning of Ribellatevi, o pensieri (revised version) [a] S

&3 Œ œ œ

S

&3

œ.

œœ J

Ri - bel - la - te-vi,

Bc

S

Bc

œ.

-

œœ J

-

œ œ œ

œ

- te-vi,

∑

œ œ

o pen

∑

œ

œ

sie

-

ri,

I - ra e-ter -

-

- na,

Œ œ œ

i - ra e - ter

œ œ

m

œ

m

œ # 3 œ œ œ. j œ œ Œ & 4 Œ

S

# & 43 Ó .

Ri - bel - la - te-vi,

Œ

œ

ri - bel - la

-

-

-

 .

-

-

œ

œ œ

te - vi, o pen

-

∑

Ri - bel - la - te-vi,

œ œ

-

-

- na

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . œj œ œ Ó. J

œ œ . œj œ Ó .

? # 43 œ œ œ œ œ

-

Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. #œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ m œ

œœœœœœœ ˙

S

-

m

Ri - bel - [latevi]

œ

œ ˙

Medea

?# 3 4 ˙.

Ó

Œ œ œ

∑

œ . Jœ œ

œ

-

œ

œ # 3 œ œ œ œœ˙ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ Œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ. #œ œ œ œ œ œ & 4Œ

[c]

Bc

œ œ œœ ˙

Ri - bel - la - te-vi,

?3 œ œ œ [b]

ri - bel - la -

Œ œ œ

∑

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ . Jœ œ

Œ œ œ

œ

Œ

œ m

Ri - bel - [latevi]

j œ. œ œ œ œ

œ œ

sie - ri,

œ

œ œ

œ m

From ‘Dite a Filli’ in Aure, voi che volate (both versions)

Earlier version

A

& [43] œ œ # œ . œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ # ˙ Più la

B

? [43] [˙]

spe -

-

-

- me non

∑

∑

Bc

Più la spe -

˙.

˙.

œ ˙

˙.

Œ

œ

œ œ

œ œ.œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Œ œ m’av - vi

- gor.

? [43] œ œ

˙ -

va

-

œ œ œ œ ˙

di con - for-to l’al

-

- me non

˙.

m’av

-

-

˙.

œ œ œ ma è ˙ œ

vi - va

˙.

Revised version

A

B

j j j j j Œ j j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œj - gor. Più la spe - me non m’av - vi -va œ œ œ œ nœ œ. œ œ . Jœ ? [c] œ Jœ J œ n œ œ œ œ œ n Jœ Jœ Jœ J Jœ Jœ Jœ Jœ œ . J J b & b [ c] œ Œ

Ó

- gor. Più la spe

Bc

? [ c] ˙ b

œ.

Ó

-

-

#œ J

-

Œ

me non m’av-vi-va di con - for

œœ œ

˙

[#]

[n]

œ.

-

nœ œ. J to l’al

-

ma è pri - va,

œ J

œ.

œ J

    . Aure, voi che volate: revision of part of second movement (‘Dite a Filli’) Earlier version Revised version

alto: bass: alto: bass:

a bb⬘ a b abbb ab b ab aabb b b

revised version, on the other hand, (b) is presented as a countersubject to (a), and this combination appears repeatedly in both inversions. The section grows from twelve bars of triple time to sixteen of quadruple; considering the increase in contrapuntal interest, it is surprising that the expansion is not greater. The growth in the last movement of Quanto care is due partly to the addition of a stretto (see Table .). In the earlier version, the treatment of the points—(a) ‘la man che mi legò’ and (b) ‘quella mi scioglia’—falls into two halves which, apart from inversion and transposition, are identical and thus reminiscent of a cavata.120 The revised version, however, falls into three overlapping subsections. The first two correspond with those of the earlier version. Phrase (b⬘) is a shortened form of (b) which reduces the distance between the voices and hastens the stretto of (a) at the end. The addition of this stretto means that the section as a whole can open and close in the tonic key, which imparts an integrity and independence that are lacking from the earlier version. Although most of the structural alterations involve expansion or addition, some are cuts; in other cases the original scheme was replaced by another of similar length and complexity, or the ground plan was retained, despite revisions to the material. In the second movement of Ah! che l’ho sempre detto an entire exposition was excised in revision. In the earlier version the second section of this movement comprises an exposition, a stretto, an inversion of the stretto, and a series of strettos on the second phrase (b) only. The revised version drops the exposition, goes straight into the first stretto, and reduces the concluding series to a single stretto of (b); strettos ‘saved’ from this series are added to the first stretto and its inversion, where the theme also is extended. As a result of these changes, and despite structural cuts, the revised version ends up longer than the original.121 Revisions to sections, as outlined here, inevitably affected the shape and balance of movements. An average example is provided by the duet movement Cangia pensier (Table .).122 Although the form in both versions is aba⬘, the proportions of the settings differ markedly. Whereas the earlier version resembles an arch, the outer sec .

Soprano I Soprano II Keys

Closing section (‘la man che mi legò’) of Quanto care al cor mi siete Earlier version

Revised version

a b a b a

abb⬘ abb d

a b a b d

abb⬘ abbb⬘ a

ab ab d





   .

Revision of Cangia pensier: proportions Section

Bars in earlier version Bars in revised version

a

b

a⬘

Total

25.5 28.5

11.5 17.5

21.5 18.0

58.5 64.0

tions being roughly twice as long as the middle, the revision is shaped more like a head with two tails: sections b and a⬘ are similar in length, but the centre of gravity lies in section a, which has grown. The difference derives mainly from the expansion of section b, which is based on (a) ‘non servir a nume ingrato’, (b) ‘che spietato’, and (c) ‘a te solo tanto duolo destinò’ (cf. Exx. . and .; Table .). Phrases (a) and (b) appear twice as often in the revision as in the earlier version, and there is an extra statement of (c). These changes may have been prompted by harmonic, as well as contrapuntal, factors. In both versions, section b begins by modulating from the tonic to the dominant of the dominant. In the earlier version this modulation is squeezed into eight bars, but in the revision the restatements of (a) and (b) allow five extra bars for a more leisurely and convincing modulation. Similar adjustments were made to the proportions of other duets, such as Rio destin and the last movement of Aure, voi che volate, but they did not necessarily result in a significant increase in length. The effects of changes to the duet movements are reinforced by Steffani’s treatment of the solos. Solo movements are found in twelve of the earlier versions— roughly two-thirds. As we have seen, they were recomposed as duets in E perchè non m’uccidete and omitted from Quanto care, and one solo was cut from Tengo per infallibile: in these works the revision places greater emphasis on duet movements. In the other nine pieces, however, the solos are retained. While only slight variations are found in the arias and cavatas, the recitatives display more significant revision. The most important change involves rhythm. In the revised versions the vocal phrases tend to be shorter and less melodic in character: the text is set to shorter note-values with longer rests between phrases, ensuring that words that belong together are sung to one breath and implying a faster rate of delivery (Example .). This is also suggested in Aure, voi che volate by a broader harmonic plan. The earlier version of this movement cadences four times in the opening sixteen bars; the revision of this passage, only fourteen bars long, moves simply from tonic to dominant. The tonic pedal with which both versions begin is nearly doubled in length, providing a firmer tonal foundation and al .

Revision of Cangia pensier: contrapuntal expansion of section b

Section b Earlier version Revised version

Soprano I: Soprano II: Soprano I: Soprano II:

a a aa aa

b

c

b b

b⬘ bb⬘

c cc ccc c c

    . (both versions)

From recitative ‘Diteli che per lei, ma no, tacete’ in Aure, voi che volate

Earlier version A

& [ c] Œ

Bc

? [ c] w

œ pur,

Œ

Revised version

j œ œj œ .

j œ œ œ

se par - lar

vo - le - te

w

& [ c] Œ œ ? [ c] ˙

r ‰ œ œr œj . œr œj œj Œ

pur,

se par - lar

vo - le - te

w

lowing the singer greater freedom in the performance of the shorter note-values. Taken together, these changes result in what seems to be a more operatic style of recitative, perhaps reflecting Steffani’s experience in the theatre. His revisions are important because they shed light both on his development and character as a composer and on Italian music in general in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. They reveal a sensitive musician with a natural flair for melody, harmony, and rhythm; an ear finely tuned to niceties of scoring and texture; a consummate grasp of contrapuntal technique; and a masterly command of musical architecture—all of which he deployed in expressing the meaning of the words, to which he was extremely responsive. His formal revisions are consistent with developments in other genres of the period, including the solo cantata, confirm the abandonment of repetition apparent in his tentatively datable duets, and lend further weight to the dating of his earlier examples. The emphasis on duet movements at the expense of solos also corroborates the evidence of the datable works and possibly reflects the influence of the trio sonata. If the process of revision illustrates Steffani’s advances in composition and his changing attitude to the chamber duet over a period of thirty years, the results of that process—his revised duets—rank alongside the most distinguished examples of vocal chamber music from the Baroque or any other period. R Steffani’s duets, especially the revised versions, circulated in manuscript throughout eighteenth-century Europe, becoming widely known among composers, performers, theorists, and music historians and exerting an influence long after his death. They enjoyed such favour in court circles that other composers felt obliged to follow his example. In Munich they were imitated by Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei and Pietro Torri; the latter also wrote duets for the Bavarian court in Brussels. At Hanover Steffani’s duets furnished a model for Handel and other composers in the region, such as Georg Caspar Schürmann.123 At Düsseldorf he was complimented by the duets of his colleague, Carlo Luigi Pietragrua. Performances in Munich, Brussels, and Berlin are attested by the correspondence of Violanta Beatrice and Sophie Charlotte. A letter of Ortensio Mauro suggests that Steffani’s duets were regularly performed at Hanover, or Herrenhausen, in : ‘Here there is singing and playing every evening . . . You [Steffani] may bless, confirm, ordain, excommunicate, what you will; neither your blessing nor your curse will ever have as much power or charm, or so much ethos and pathos, as your lovable music.





  Here we never cease to marvel at it or listen to it’.124 That Steffani’s duets were valued also in Kassel and Würzburg is shown by the letters of Ruggiero Fedeli and Johann Philipp Franz von Schönborn. In London the impresario Heidegger sang them for Princess Caroline in ;125 two years later Durastanti sang ‘four songs and [with Senesino] six duetto’s by the famous Signor Stefani’ at her benefit concert in July126— possibly the first public performance of his chamber duets. Tosi recommended in his Opinioni de’ cantori antichi, e moderni () that music for two or more voices should be performed as written; when Galliard translated this paragraph () he added a pertinent footnote: [Tosi:] All Compositions for more than one Voice ought to be sung strictly as they are written; nor do they require any other Art but a noble Simplicity. I remember to have heard once a famous Duetto torn into Atoms by two renown’d Singers, in Emulation; the one proposing, and the other by Turns answering, that at last it ended in a Contest, who could produce the most Extravagancies. [Galliard:] The renowned Abbot Steffani, so famous for his Duetto’s, would never suffer such luxuriant Singers to perform any of them, unless they kept themselves within Bounds.127 Galliard also added music examples, including one (his plate VI, ex. ) from Steffani’s Navicella che ten’ vai; that he could quote from his teacher’s duets lends weight to his views on their performance. His observations were echoed by Hawkins in his Memoirs of the composer, and even by Burney, who nevertheless saw merit in ‘emulation’. From the middle of the century Steffani’s duets were known less in performance than as models of counterpoint or as practice material for singers. In  the tenor Anton Raaff, Mozart’s first Idomeneo, visited Vallotti in Padua. While he was there, his host took delivery of some Astorga cantatas and Steffani duets. The latter were new to Raaff, who wanted to have them copied and sent to Padre Martini.128 In his Esemplare, ossia Saggio fondamentale ( –) Martini praised Steffani’s knowledge and command of practical music, especially double counterpoint of all kinds.129 A few years later Giordano Riccati admired his duets for their variety and unity, expression of words, and marvellous ‘conduct’, which he found ‘unaffected, easy, and delightful’;130 in  he extolled the composer for placing dissonance in the bass.131 In the third volume of his History () Burney wrote that ‘there are perhaps no compositions more correct, or fugues in which the subjects are more pleasing, or answers and imitations more artful, than are to be found in the duets of Steffani’, but he did not understand the nature of the chamber duet and was not sympathetic to the genre: Notwithstanding the purity of harmony, ingenuity of design and imitation, and masterly style of these compositions [duets by Bononcini, Steffani, Clari, Handel, Marcello, Gasparini, Lotti, Hasse, and Durante], there seems a radical imperfection in the plan, with respect to the expression of the words, and propriety of two persons repeating and joining in the same complaint or sentiment, whatever it may be, instead of preserving two distinct

   characters, as in modern dramatic duets. But these chamber duets were perhaps meant originally as studij for singers, in which the passages being echoed in fugue excited emulation in the performance, and furnished an opportunity of comparing the rapidity and neatness of the execution, as the comparative speed of two coursers is best known by their running a trial.132 Burney’s suggestion as to the origin of the duet was conceivably prompted by the fact that, as he later recorded, ‘the greatest singers of Italy during the last age used to exercise themselves in these duets [Steffani’s], as Solfeggi. Mrs. Arne, the widow of the late Dr. Arne, has frequently assured me, that she had heard Senesino and Strada often sing them during their morning studies’.133 The credibility of this anecdote seems strengthened by a proposal of  from Saverio Mattei, head of the Neapolitan Conservatorio dei Turchini, that students should acquaint themselves with, among other things, the technique of cantus firmus, Steffani’s duets, Marcello’s psalms, music by Scarlatti, Leo, and Durante, and treatises from Zarlino onward.134 That Steffani’s duets were still known in the early nineteenth century is suggested by the stories of E. T. A. Hoffmann. When, in Das Majorat (), the young baroness Seraphine is moved by sinister foreboding, the hero intones, as tenderly as possible, ‘one of those solemn canzonets of Abbot Steffani. In the melancholy sounds of Occhi, perchè piangete? Seraphine awoke from her dark musings and, gently smiling, listened to me with gleaming pearls in her eyes’.135 In Die Fermate (– ), furthermore, ‘those serious, profound duets of Abbot Steffani’ were sung by a pair of Italian sisters, Lauretta and Teresina: ‘Teresina’s full-bodied, celestially-pure alto pierced my soul’, and she also accompanied on the guitar.136 The more soulful of Steffani’s duets evidently appealed to the German Romantic sensibility. But despite such informal or private performances, Burney was probably right in suggesting, in the early nineteenth century, that there was little point in singers practising such pieces: ‘they were then [in their day] in the best melody of the times; but, at present, they contain very few passages which opera singers would be likely to meet with in their parts of the operas of the present day’.137

Other Works The full extent of Steffani’s musical output will probably never be known. No one can guess what was in the chest that went to his relatives after his death and was lost. When he attempted to round up his music in , he asked Sophie Charlotte to look for some madrigals among the papers of Madame Kielmansegg; she could not find them, but he assured her there should have been some.138 Apart from his madrigalian chamber duets, only two madrigals by him now survive—the trio Al rigor d’un bel sembiante (SAT, bc) and the five-part Gettano i re dal soglio. The former prompted William Crotch to write in  that ‘Steffani was a composer of considerable fame. It is not certain however that he deserves so much praise as he has obtained. His music is correct but is not fraught with the variety and invention which appear in Carissimi /





  Scarlatti / Stradella’.139 If Al rigor d’un bel sembiante were the only piece that Steffani had composed, one would have to agree. The masterly Gettano i re dal soglio (SSATB, bc) was evidently sent to the Academy of Vocal Music in .140 Scored for the same forces as Qui diligit Mariam, which reached the academy in the following year, the madrigal is the secular counterpart of Steffani’s magnificent last motet. With the exception of chromaticism, it has all that one might hope for in a polyphonic madrigal: the parts are equally involved in a rewarding variety of textures, the structure is simple and strong, and the melodic material vividly reflects the meaning of the words: Gettano i re dal soglio, arman popoli ingrati, e desolano il mondo astri spietati: più doler non mi voglio se mi tiranneggiate, o luci belle, se tiranne anco in ciel sono le stelle. [Pitiless stars throw kings from the throne, arm ungrateful peoples and desolate the earth: I no longer wish to suffer if you torment me, oh beautiful lights, since your stars are also tyrants in heaven.]

The first half of this striking text is objective and impersonal; the second is personal and subjective. The setting, in D major and common time, is divided halfway by a cadence and a bar’s rest; the second half is somewhat longer than the first, mainly because the last line of verse is treated more elaborately than any of the others. Although each phrase of the text is set to its own distinctive point, some pieces of material are interrelated and serve to unify the composition. The falling shape and rhythm of ‘Gettano i re dal soglio’ recur at the words ‘astri spietati’, ‘più doler non mi voglio’, and, in the closing bars, ‘sono le stelle’, and are complemented by a rising countersubject based on ‘arman popoli ingrati’ (Example .). A similar rising phrase forms one of the subjects of the double fugue on ‘se tiranne anco in ciel’; its partner does not look like ‘Gettano i re’, but its falling shape betrays the family relationship (Example .). The opening point is announced by the three lowest voices, each entering one note higher than its predecessor—an idea that Steffani was to carry further at ‘Quando corpus morietur’ in his Stabat Mater (Example .). ‘Arman popoli ingrati’ is introduced as the countersubject to ‘Gettano i re’, and neither point is heard alone thereafter. The first entry of ‘e desolano il mondo’ overlaps with these earlier points, its wide leaps occupying the space left for it in the texture. The music of lines  –  is presented twice, first by the low trio, as at the start, then by all five voices, but the most striking feature here is an abrupt change of key, to E minor, a move that is made more effective by the first half being entirely in the major. So as far as counterpoint is concerned, the treatment of lines  –  is relatively simple, each of the three points (‘o luci belle’ has its own material) combining only with itself. These sections are thus a perfect foil for the masterly double fugue that ensues. Since ‘se tiranne anco in ciel’

    . S II

# . & # [c ] ˙ Get

B

Four points from the madrigal Gettano i re dal soglio

? # # [c ] œ

-

-

œ

ar - man

T

# ˙ V # [c] a -

B

T

se

ta - no i

re

dal

so

œ. œ œ œ œ œ.

in - gra

œ #œ œ ˙ J J

w

-

-

-

˙.

-

glio

œ J œ -

œ - ti

- ti

w

non mi vo

-

glio

w

- no le stel -

-

œ

œ -

œ œ œ n˙ J J œ œ œ ˙ J J

 .

# V # [ c] œ .

œ

- stri spie -ta -

# ˙ & # [c]

# & # [ c] Œ

œ

po - po-li

do - ler

so -

S II

˙

œ. œ œ œ J RJ J

? # # [c] œ . œj ˙ Più

S II

-

-

œ J Jœ

w -

- le.

Invertible points from Gettano i re dal soglio

œ se

j j œ œ œ. j œ œ. ti - ran

ti - ran

-

j œ œj œj -

ne

j œ œ œ œœœœœ m œ J J J œ œ

an -co in

ciel so - no le stel

œ œ œœœ J ne an

-

-

œ

-

-

œ

˙

co in

ciel

-

-

-

[le]

is set to two subjects, it occupies two or four voices at a time, leaving three or one available for the florid countersubject on ‘sono le stelle’ (Example .). Various combinations of material and voices are presented during some fourteen bars, before the final possibility is explored—all five voices singing the countersubject. Since the most animated music is set to the last three words, the most intense counterpoint falls in the closing bars. Most of the entries begin on consecutive crotchets; squeezing them closer produces an entry in parallel sixths (Example .). The tension of this climactic passage is released in a broad concluding cadence, marked ‘adagio’, which recalls the opening bars. No independent instrumental music can be attributed to Steffani with confidence. His Sonate da camera a tre, due violini, alto e basso (Amsterdam: Estienne Roger [ca. ]) are certainly authentic but consist of selections and arrangements from his Hanover operas, grouped into a number of ‘ouverture-suites’; although it is impossible to say whether the edition was compiled by the composer, the publisher, or somebody else, the Sonate appear to have influenced the development of the ‘ouverture-suite’ in north Germany. 141 According to Riccati, Steffani published a collection of sonatas for four instruments ‘and then’ his Sacer Ianus quadrifrons (Munich, ).142 Whatever Riccati was referring to, his statement may explain Fétis’s claim that Stef-





   . SI

Gettano i re dal soglio, final section

# & # [ c] œ

Œ

- le,

S II

j j ‰ œ œ œ œœœ œœœ œ J

‰ œ œ œ J J J so - no le

stel -

-

- le,

Adagio

œ œ J J œ œœœ

so - no le stel

Œ

œ

-

le,

# œ œ œ œ j œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Jœ œ Œ & # [ c] J J œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ J œ ‰ J J J œ œ œ J - no le stel -

-

-

-

- le,

so - no le stel

-

-

A

j j j j j j # j j j & # [ c] œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ .

T

# V # [ c] Ó

B

? # # [ c]

ciel so - no le stel

-

Œ

-

-

‰ Jœ

le,

so - no le stel

œ œ J J œ œœœ

so - no le stel

-

-

œ œ J J

-

-

- le,

œœœ

-

-

-

œ œœœ

le, le

stel

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ó

œ - le,

œ -

so-[no]

le,

œ

œ

so

-

- le, so

-

œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Jœ Jœ œ œ œœœ œœœ œœ stel

œ

œ

[no]

[no]

fani issued a set of ‘Sonate da camera a due violini, alto e continuo; Munich, ’.143 Twelve trio sonatas in D-Hs, Mus. ms. , long regarded as Steffani’s, were shown sixty years ago to be a copy of Caldara’s Suonate, op.  (Venice, ).144 The only piece of instrumental music requiring discussion is a manuscript ‘Sonata à Violino Solo con Cembalo di Steffani’ in the Schönborn library at Wiesentheid (D-WD, Hs. ). The title appears to be in a different hand from that of the music, though an unusual ‘d’ in the words ‘di’ (title) and ‘andante’ (first movement) argues in the opposite direction. The score is a fair copy with few mistakes. The opening phrase of the Andante is brief and ends abruptly; its consequent includes a hesitant bass (including an unresolved seventh), an unprepared seventh (or dominant ninth) in the violin, and a sudden lurch to the relative minor (Example .): if these bars were written by Steffani, they are most uncharacteristic of his style. Unpredictable or unbalanced phrases appear also in the ensuing Allegro. After an early modulation to the dominant, the first half of this movement lapses into aimless arpeggios on chords of D and A; the second half returns to the tonic for the final reprise, but the modulation is immediately undermined by further toying with the dominant. The short third movement, a triple-time Largo in the relative minor, begins with imitative entries, but Steffani would not have brought in the bass at the major third, abandoned the imitation so soon, or approached the dominant by means of simultaneous chromatic motion in both parts. The final Vivace in 34 seems obsessed

 . Vn

Bc

Beginning of a Violin Sonata in G, ascribed to Steffani in D-WD

# Andante œ œ & c œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ ‰ Jœ ?# c œ

‰ œj œ

‰ œ œ J

œ # œ œ œ # œ œ œ œ œ . œ œ œ œ œ œŸ. œ # œ œ œ œ œ œ m œ

œ œ œœ œ

œ

œ #œ œ œ œ œ

œœœœœ

œœm

   with its initial three-bar phrase, which is immediately repeated like an echo (unmarked); since both statements reappear at the beginning of the second half and in the closing reprise, the phrase occurs six times in all and occupies no fewer than eighteen of the movement’s forty-six bars. Even more surprising is a sudden eruption of semiquavers only seven bars before the end. The sonata is a thoroughly wayward work: there is no musical reason for attributing it to such a thoughtful composer as Steffani, and every reason for doubting the ascription.



C: P  A


Composer, diplomat, bishop: Steffani really was a remarkable figure. Many people excel in two walks of life, but few achieve distinction in three. One wonders what sort of person he was; what made him attempt so much; how much, ultimately, he achieved, and what conclusions, if any, should be drawn from his example. To begin at the beginning, he was fortunate in the circumstances of his birth. His family was not wealthy, but neither was it impoverished. His parents were sufficiently far-sighted to realize that by allowing their son to be taken to Munich at the age of thirteen they were giving him opportunities that would pay dividends in his future career (and might also benefit them). He, in turn, appears to have been an appreciative and affectionate son. He presumably was behind his brother’s appointment at, and his family’s removal to, Munich; took a continuing interest in his sister when his mother and brother returned to Italy; and supported his half-sister in Padua. He tried to care for his family and share some of his good fortune with them. When he returned to Padua in the s he made contact with his relations. That property was at stake played a part in his thinking, but to judge from his record and his letter to his cousins1 he was moved also by family loyalty. He was fortunate, moreover, in being talented. In addition to ability in music, he was blessed with a good brain and a capacity for study. He presumably was quick and eager to learn and enjoyed his education. As he matured, he grew more ambitious, wanting to make the most of his abilities and opportunities. A career as a singer may have beckoned at first, but when his voice broke he turned to keyboard-playing and composition. While directing chamber music and opera, he displayed talents that his patrons could use in other spheres. Since he relished a challenge, he accepted diplomatic responsibility, realizing, no doubt, that this would bring him into close contact with his masters and earn him the gratitude of their courts. Munich and Hanover broadened his horizons, nurtured his ambition, and opened doors to responsibility, power, and wealth. To have succeeded at court from the age of thirteen he must have acquired outstanding social skills. As a teenager and young man, his awareness of his own value bred arrogance and brashness: humility, good manners, and facility in polite conversation were among the first things that he had to learn. The contrasting experiences in the s of tending sick musicians in Rome and visiting the French court in Paris 

:    must have improved his character and behaviour. Thereafter he invariably responded to the wishes of other people, however trivial these may have been: in this way he sought to smooth the path for all, including himself. In addition to Latin (and his native Italian), he mastered both French, the fashionable tongue of the courts that he served, and German, the everyday language of the men with whom he dealt in his public life. There is no sign that he was interested in such masculine pursuits as hunting, yet apart from the incident that caused his departure from Munich he seems to have enjoyed good relations with his male employers and colleagues. He also got on exceptionally well with women, forging specially close relations with Violanta Beatrice and Sophie Charlotte. If they were charmed by the beauty and spirit of his music and by the humanity and warmth of his expression, on paper and in person, he also enjoyed their affection, encouragement, and praise; his correspondence with Sophie Charlotte in  affords astonishing insight, rare for this period, into the emotions and psychology of a composer. His employers and their families placed great trust in his character and ability. They sought his advice on a wide range of topics, relying on him for the conduct of marriage negotiations and affairs of state. As a musician, diplomat, and bishop, and especially as an apostolic vicar, he came into contact, in person or by letter, with most of the ruling houses of western Europe: in addition to Germany, where he was universally known, he was a familiar figure in Paris, Vienna, and the major courts of Italy. Many of the people with whom he dealt became his friends. Among the closest of these were the leading Catholic rulers in north and west Germany, including Lothar Franz von Schönborn, prince-bishop of Bamberg and elector-archbishop of Mainz, and Franz Arnold von Wolff-Metternich, bishop of Münster and Paderborn. He also maintained close relations with Italians in Padua, notably his former schoolfriends Count Girolamo Frigimelica Roberti and Abbot Angelo Maria De’ Lazzara, and in northern Europe, such as his librettists Ortensio Mauro and Stefano Benedetto Pallavicini, 2 the diplomat and music lover Giuseppe Riva, and (indirectly) the composer Giovanni Bononcini. He was particularly close to Mauro, whom he sought to comfort (by letter from Padua) as he lay dying in Hanover at over ninety years of age. That he commanded the affection and respect of so many people over long periods of time suggests that Steffani was a remarkable character. He displayed unswerving loyalty to his friends, colleagues, and employers, and he remained true to his principles and word. He was a persistent campaigner on behalf of just causes, by which his attention seems often to have been claimed. Campaigning was an inevitable activity for any apostolic vicar in north Germany, but Steffani took to it like a duck to water, even in his personal affairs: his endless battle for his income from Seltz is merely the most salient example. By nature and by calling he was a tireless correspondent, who wrote dozens of letters each week on diplomatic, ecclesiastical, and personal matters, in addition to countless official memoranda and reports. He had an enormous capacity for hard work and must have been respected for his industry, even if he sometimes failed to achieve the result he desired or his correspondents disagreed with him. Though conscious of his abilities and influence, he generally exhibited modesty, discretion, and tact. Despite his knowledge and experience, he also displayed an accessibility and immediacy that made him an engaging companion and





  counsellor, and a capacity for kindness to others—as when he tried (unsuccessfully) to help the soprano Benedetta Sorosina and her father. Such traits arose from a devoutness of nature that underpinned his entire outlook and career (but which did not prevent him from enjoying a glass of wine, a game of chess, or a joke3). He was not, however, unflawed. His most serious weakness was a desire for money and what it could buy. At Munich he was extremely demanding, constantly petitioning for additional expenses and allowances. Maybe he envied the wealth that surrounded him there; perhaps he was jealous of his brother’s inherited fortune (he was mystified and angry that little of it came his way). His interest in riches led him to deceive the public authority in Padua and benefit from his brother’s position there after the latter had died. One would like to attribute this lapse to inadvertence or naïvety, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Steffani did wrong for personal gain in the hope that he would not be found out or would be able to claim ignorance if he were. This episode predates his period as apostolic vicar, when, to influence princes, he felt he should live like a prince himself. When he learnt, in , that his transgression was common knowledge in Padua, he was repentant and humble. It says much for his character that he admitted his error; after this date his resources declined sharply, forcing him to sell possessions during his final years. Likenesses of Steffani were left by two of his contemporaries. Giorgio Maria Rapparini included a ‘medal’ of him in his ‘portrait’ of Johann Wilhelm () and discussed him immediately after the elector—a sign of his lofty status at Düsseldorf.4 According to Rapparini, experience had aged him before his years. As a diplomat he had satisfied all his employers; as a bishop he had been appointed a domestic prelate and an assistant to the pontifical throne, honours that were not bestowed lightly. The medal of Steffani (Fig. .) does not, at first glance, seem convincing, yet Rapparini supplied likenesses of all the important figures at the palatine court, and they all differ. Steffani was roughly fifty-five years of age. His short curly wig makes him look younger, but his forehead is furrowed and there is tiredness and sadness in his large wide eyes. Other distinctive features include his straight nose, furrowed at the top, the line beneath his eyes, his pleasantly shaped mouth with slightly protuding lower lip, his chin pointing forward, and his sloping shoulders. This likeness is not inconsistent with Hawkins’s description of the composer, which must have come from either Handel or Galliard, or both: As to his person, he was less than the ordinary size of men, of a tender constitution of body, which he had not a little impaired by intense study and application. His deportment is said to have been grave, but tempered with a sweetness and affability, that rendered his conversation very engaging; he was perfectly skilled in all the external forms of polite behaviour, and, which is somewhat unusual, continued to practice and observe them at the age of fourscore. 5 The likeness by Rapparini is also consistent with the (in other ways) very different formal portrait of  by Gerhard Kappers (see Frontispiece), a medium-sized oil-painting on canvas ( ⫻  cm.), discovered at Haus (Wasserschloß) Welbergen, between Burgsteinfurt and Ochtrup (near Münster), in .6 Kappers came from a

:   

        .  Likeness of Steffani (‘medal’ no. ) from Giorgio Maria Rapparini, ‘Le portrait du vrai mérite . . . de Monseigneur l’Electeur Palatin’, MS,  (Heinrich-Heine-Institut Düsseldorf; by permission)

family of artists in Münster, where he joined the guild in . His sitter is not named, but the mitre identifies him as a bishop. Since he is not the then bishop of Münster, Franz Arnold von Wolff-Metternich, he must be the suffragan, Steffani. The identification is confirmed by the words ‘Aetatis suae ’ in the bottom righthand corner: Steffani would have been in his sixty-first year after July , so the portrait was painted in the second half of the year, just after his appointment at Münster. The coat of arms in the bottom left-hand corner (red oval shield, with five white diamonds or squares) must also be his. Kappers’s distinguished subject appears to be very different from Rapparini’s, but the images have many features in common—in the forehead, eyes, nose, mouth, chin, and shoulders. In addition, Kappers depicts Steffani with the fingers of a keyboard-player. The contrasts between these images reflect Steffani’s metamorphosis from musician and diplomat to bishop of Spiga and apostolic vicar of north Germany. The transformation was completed in  – , the principal watershed of his maturity. He took the change seriously, adopting the pseudonym of Gregorio Piva to cover his musical past; for Hawkins, ‘that sense of the importance of his character and situation in life, which induced him to assume the name of his copyist,’ also explained why so little of his music was printed.7 Some of Steffani’s contemporaries found it hard to come to terms with his metamorphosis. The following was written in April  by Ernst August of Hanover, son of his former employer:





  Since your departure we have had here Monsignor the bishop of Spiga, who has abandoned his wig in favour of a little short, black hair, mixed with some grey, and a satin skull-cap, a large cross of brilliant diamonds, and a large sapphire on his finger. All this suits him very well and makes one forget about the orchestra. But I remember an incident at the opera, when the electoral prince [Georg Ludwig(?)] lavished praise on Baron Sickingen and Monsignor answered him: ‘I am pleased you like it [the opera], because it is one of my creations!’ This lofty style seemed to me more redolent of the theatre than of ecclesiastical humility. 8 A decade later, an anonymous travel writer furnished unique (and possibly unreliable) evidence of Steffani’s musical versatility and found his transformation ‘ridiculous’: . . . he used to play the recorder, the spinet and other instruments in the orchestra, appeared on stage, and took part in opera. Of his character one may gather what fortune, favour, and his qualities allow. I found this metamorphosis of an entertainer into a bishop just as ridiculous as the transformation in Lucian of a courtesan into a philosopher. 9 Steffani’s change from composer to bishop did not occur overnight and was predicated on factors common to both walks of life. If music was the first of his talents to emerge, his interest in the church was founded on piety of nature and fostered alongside his aptitude for music. His preparation for the priesthood presumably began in the early s and may have been encouraged by his period of study in Rome; in Munich he must have been influenced by the Theatines. By the time he was nominated bishop he had been a priest for over twenty-five years. It was as a director of chamber music and Kapellmeister that he developed the organizational and social skills required of a public figure. As a composer he also mastered the rhetoric of writing—how to invent, gather, and marshal material; construct and develop an argument, and express himself clearly and cogently. The clarity of purpose and thought, balance of structure and content, and modesty and elegance of expression that characterize his musical works are also the hallmark of his prose, whether in official documents or private correspondence. One is constantly struck by the parallels between his compositions in music and in prose and his consistently high quality of expression in both. His musical works impress by quality rather than quantity. Compared with such contemporaries as Stradella, Pasquini, Scarlatti, Gasparini, Caldara, Bononcini, Albinoni, and Vivaldi, his output is not large, but then his career as a composer was brief. It began in earnest when he went to Rome at the age of eighteen and lasted approximately thirty years: from  on, music was a diversion, not his profession. His surviving works are also predominantly vocal. Unlike most Italian composers of the period, who contributed to both vocal and instrumental repertories, Steffani, in common with Corelli, Colonna, and Lotti, concentrated mainly on one. He may have written keyboard and lute music, now lost, and conceivably a violin sonata, but the only instrumental works undoubtedly by him are the so-called Sonate da camera, issued by Roger, comprising movements from his Hanover operas.

:    Steffani’s output as a composer was largely determined by the fact that he was introduced to music through singing. As a singer he appreciated the importance of words to the shape and sound of a melody. As a linguist he responded to texts on a literary plane: he thought about the words he set, as Mattheson recorded, and this shows. Most of his sacred works date from his Munich period and appear not to have exerted much influence, although like the late Qui diligit Mariam and Stabat Mater, some were sent to England and became well known after his death. His chamber duets, on the other hand, date from all parts of his musical career and represent the purest distillation of his style, of which the most admirable feature was his ability to compose wonderful counterpoint without sacrificing naturalness or grace of melody or harmony. Like the trio sonatas of Corelli, Steffani’s duets represent a satisfying balance between monody and polyphony and were widely dispersed and influential: Handel imitated them in his own duets and used some of the latter as a basis for choruses in Messiah. In this respect, at least, the influence of Steffani was very far-reaching indeed. Steffani’s dramatic works for Munich and Düsseldorf belonged to established and continuing traditions, but Italian opera at Hanover was more sporadic before him and non-existent immediately after: there the name of Steffani is virtually synonymous with opera at that period. His Hanover works attracted attention, were revived elsewhere in Germany, and stimulated the development of opera in the north: as Lully was to France, and Purcell to England, so Steffani was to north Germany. The bel canto style of seventeenth-century Venetian opera was raised to new heights in his works and enriched by his emphasis on counterpoint—in duets, obbligatos, and bass lines. He also extended the range of Italian opera by adopting the French overture and dance metres, using the (French) oboe and bassoon, and exploiting these instruments in trios and obbligatos. His fusion of Italian and French styles forged a musical language that spread throughout north Germany and was spoken by all his immediate successors, including Handel and Bach. As a diplomat and bishop Steffani experienced disappointment as well as success. His principal achievements in the political sphere were the raising of Hanover to an electorate in the early s, his running of the Palatine government from  to , and his mediation between Rome and Vienna in  – . Had the Hanoverians not secured the electorate, they would still have succeeded to the English throne, Handel would have come to London, and Steffani would have been elected president of the Academy of Vocal Music, but the Italian’s links with England would have loomed less large in his final decade. Had his negotiations in Rome not succeeded, he might not have been made apostolic vicar of north Germany, the last twenty years of his life would have been very different, and so would the history of the Catholic Church in the north. Steffani soon realized that the ambition entertained by Johann Wilhelm and himself—to convert Protestant north Germany to Catholicism—was hopelessly idealistic, and he adjusted his sights accordingly. It could be argued that all he achieved as apostolic vicar was the founding of two missions, the building of two churches, and the conversion of a handful of princes and princesses (he made little headway in Prussia). But his major achievement in this capacity was less tangible: he maintained a Catholic presence at Hanover during a period when Hanover could not afford to be seen as sympathetic to Catholicism. His success was due to his personal





  rapport with George I. When he was in Italy in the s, relations between the court and the Catholic community deteriorated. Steffani was the only apostolic vicar that George would trust. The two men had known each other for a long time and understood each other well; both had to tread a fine line, but together they maintained an equilibrium. Steffani should be given credit for retaining such a toehold, not losing it; this was a success for which he had to work. His major disappointment in public life was his failure in  to persuade Max Emanuel of Bavaria to form an alliance with the emperor, Leopold I, rather than with Louis XIV; but although this led to the elector’s defeat and affected the course of the War of the Spanish Succession, it also sent Steffani back to music for consolation, a process that resulted in the revision of his duets and the creation of some of the finest chamber music of the period. Steffani is probably the first composer in the history of western music to have been the subject of a biographical monograph and one of the first to have left a substantial proportion of his works in autograph scores and authorized copies now surviving in a single collection. Hawkins’s Memoirs of Steffani (ca. ) may differ from Mainwaring’s Memoirs of Handel () in having been intended for private circulation, but Hawkins regarded his work as biography and admitted that ‘recording’ the life of a musician was unusual. He may have been drawn to Steffani by a number of factors—his extraordinary career or his connection with Galliard, Handel, the Hanoverians, or the Academy of Vocal Music—but he attributed Steffani’s reputation unequivocally to his achievement as a composer: Of what importance his life was to mankind, or what degree of esteem he may merit from those who imagine no life worth recording but what has been spent in the achieving of great or glorious actions, is a matter beside the present purpose to debate. It is sufficient to say that excellence in any of those arts which the supreme being, by the constitution of our nature, has appointed as the sources of true and rational delight, must ever be deemed a laudable pursuit, and, consequently, that our regard for such men as have attained to a proportionate degree of perfection in that divine art, of which our author was so eminent a professor, is founded on very nearly the same principles as justify that tribute of esteem and reverence, which the universal sense of mankind concurs in paying to the memory of a Homer, a Milton, or a Raphael.10 Hawkins may well go too far in invoking Homer and Milton, but maybe it would not be unreasonable to see Steffani as a musical Raphael, especially if one regarded Handel as his Michelangelo. Like the painter, the composer possessed purity of line and colour, perfection of design and form, harmonious beauty of proportion, serenity of expression, and refinement of taste, but lacked the range, magisterial sweep, irresistible power, and sheer exuberance of his more flamboyant contemporary. As a cosmopolitan and a polymath, Steffani was a man of his age; as a master of European languages and many ‘transferable skills’, he would also have flourished in ours and demonstrated the value of music as an education for life.

A A




D

Steffani’s Autobiography () On  July  Steffani wrote the following autobiographical letter to Count Antonio Maria Fede, the resident in Rome of both the grand-duke of Tuscany (from  to ) and the Palatine elector (from  to ). The elector, Johann Wilhelm, was about to write to Pope Clement XI, recommending Steffani for a bishopric; Fede was expected to promote the proposal. Steffani’s letter of self-introduction, which may have been prompted by the elector, was intended to brief him for the purpose. It is a valuable source of information on the first fifty-two years of his life and on his character, and to the best of my knowledge it has never been published in extenso before. In the following transcription, original spelling has been retained, but ‘u’ and ‘j’ are replaced by ‘v’ and ‘i’, where appropriate. Abbreviated words are spelt out in full, added letters being given in italic. Punctuation and capital letters are modernized or supplied. Editorial additions are placed in square brackets. The date is moved from the end. The original—a file copy of the letter sent to Fede—is preserved in I-Rscge, Archivio Storico, Fondo Spiga, vol. . Düsseldorf . Luglio. . . . . Perche Vostra Signoria Illustrissima conosca a qual segno arrivi la confidenza con cui seco tratto, permetta che io gli dia la noia di dirle il più brevemente che posso il corso della mia vita, e vedrà chiaro che può facilmente essere ingannato chi domanda informationi degli huomini che fanno alle corti, le figure che vi facio io da  anni in quà.  Tre corti hò servito; quella di Baviera  anni; quella di Hannovera ; e questa dal  in quà. Alla prima fui condotto giovinetto dal defonto Elettore Ferdinando Maria, al quale presentato in Padova ove studio frà molti altri ragazzi, s’invogliò d’una certa tal qual di me non sò per qual destino, e condottomi seco à Monaco mi diede in cura al Conte di  Tattembach, allora suo Cavallerizzo Maggiore. Tutta l’Alta Allemagna sà che alla corte di Baviera io hò goduto l’honore di tutta la più intima confidenza del vivente sfortunatissimo prencipe di modo che, per darne una idea à Vostra Signoria Illustrissima, nel delicato affare del suo primo matrimonio, questo signore non si servì che del Conte Friderico di Preysing Canonico  di Saltzburgo per vedere la Prencipesa di Eisenach morta poi Elettrice di 



  Sassonia, e di me per esaminare la Prencipesa di Hannovera morta poi Regina di Prussia; e la mia stella haveva allora à la corte di Baviera influenze si forti, che io solo solissimo feci testa otto mesi continui à tutto il Consiglio di Stato della Corte Imperiale, et à tutto quello  dell’Elettore, che unitamente volevano dargli in moglie l’Arciduchessa Maria Antonia che poi sposò perche la Prencipesa d’Hannovera, stanca d’aspettar le risolutioni di Monaco, fu data al vivente Rè di Prussia, allora vedovo Prencipe Elettorale di Brandeburgo. Partii da quella corte di mala grazia per un aggravio fatto ad un mio  unico fratello dal Conte di Sanfrè, che doveva à me solo tutte le sue fortune. Mà non ostante che lasciassi l’Elettore disgustatissimo per la mia inaspettata e brusca partenza, pochi anni doppo mandato à lui con carattere d’Inviato Straordinario dalla corte d’Hannovera, vi fui ricevuto con tanto applauso e con tali distinzioni alla vista di tutta il Brabante, e  poi di tutta la Baviera, che restai appresso la di lui persona  anni, e sino alli  di giugno dell’anno in cui egli si precipitò ad occupar Vlma li  di :bre [settembre]. Fortunato se m’havesse creduto un poco più, perche egli ne ’l fratello Arcivescovo di Colonia non si trovarebbero nelle presenti miserie.  Attaccatomi poi alla corte d’Hannovera, tutto il mondo hà veduto come vi sono stato, e lo hà veduto da due circonstanze: la prima che dove era qualche cosa d’importante da fare, ero veduto correre io; la :da [seconda] che que’ Prencipi mi hanno confidati li loro più secreti arcani senza esiger mai da me ne per ombra il minimo giuramento com’è solito  in tutte le corti della Germania. Partii da quella con grandissimo scrupolo di conscienza, perche la Religione Cattolica haveva là bisogno di me; e che sia il vero, appena fui io partito, che fù prohibito alli missionarii l’esercitio delli due atti parochiali del battesimo, e del matrimonio: col mio ultimo viaggio però spero  d’haver rimediato à questo male. Ne partii dunque per pura necessità; purche non potendo que’ Prencipi servirsi di me (à causa della religione) ne in cariche di corte nè in governi del paese, mi conveniva far sempre la vita del corriere ò più tosto quella del zingaro; il che è buono sino ad una certa età, mà poi non più. Ne partii dunque e venni quì, dove il padrone  che lasciavo mi accompagnò con una lettera, che io mi vergognavo di presentare à questo mio nuovo Serenissimo Signore, perche l’altro gli scriveva di me come gli haverebbe potuto scrivere d’un suo fratello. Come poi io stia qui, non occorre dirlo a Vostra Signoria Illustrissima perch’ella pur troppo la vede, con mio sommo dolore, da ciò che le và scrivendo Sua  Altezza Elettorale medesima. Veniamo al punto. Perche crede ella che io gli dica confidentemente tutte queste circonstanze? Per dirli che con una tal vita si fanno molti amici, mà molto più nemici. Nemici sono tutti quelli che non vedono volontieri un forastiere occupar certi posti d’honore e di confidenza.  Nemici tutti quelli che nodriscono desiderii ingiusti. Nemici tutti que’

 pretendenti d’un posto vacante, che non puol essere riempito che da un solo. Nemici tutti quelli che perdono le liti, nelle quali gli avvocati gli fanno credere haver essi ragione. Nemici tutti quelli che erano avvezzi ad ottenere benefizis ecclesiastici senza capacità, e sè nè vedono in hoggi chiusa la strada. Nemici tutti li protettori di simili ingiustissimi pretendenti. Nemici tutti que’ frati che trovano un argine unsupperabile al corso d’una certa insatiabile avidità di profitar di tutto e di mescolarsi di tutto. Nemici, secondo il sentimento di Tacito, quelli stessi che sono beneficati, perche ‘Beneficia eo usque laeta sunt, dum videntur exsolvi posse: Ubi multum antevenere, pro gratia odium [redditur’. Tacitus: Annals, .]. E nemici, per finirla, tutti quelli, li quali, al dire del giovine Plinio Secondo, ‘quamlibet saepe obligati, si quid unum neges, hoc solum meminerunt, quod negatum est’ [Pliny the Younger: Letters, .,]. Concluda benignamente Vostra Signoria Illustrissima da tutte le verità che le dico, che le informationi che si domandono di un huomo quale son io devono esser domandate e ricevute con grandissima cautela. Vostra Signoria Illustrissima farà forse doppo questa mia candidissima confidenza una questione ch’è stata fatta sin ora cento e mille volte. Come sia possibile che un huomo che serve già più di  anni corti generosissime, in impieghi rilevantissimi, con mercedi proportionate alli caratteri che hà portati, e che di soli regali per le molte frequenti et importanti commissioni che gli sono state appongiate hà ricevuti m/ [,] scudi incirca, si trovi nella sua età avvanzata in istato di dover importunar la corte di Roma per esser proveduto? Questo è un altro conto che io mi trovo obligato di rendere à Vostra Signoria Illustrissima, acciò ch’ella non mi creda pazza da catena. Io hò havuto un fratello, che Dio benedetti di molti m’haveva lasciato unico al mondo. Questo si chiamava Ventura Terzago, nome che portava per l’adottione d’un fratello di mia madre che hà vissuto  anni nella opulenza, senza voler mai prender moglie, non ostante ch’egli fosse restato unico della sua linea. Ciò ch’egli havesse, io non lo sò: sò bene che li suoi amici hanno inutilmente tentato di persuaderlo di comperare la Nobilità Veneziana nel tempo della Guerra di Candia. Per far questo acquisto è notorio che ci vuole m/ [,] ducati di quella moneta: è forza dunque ch’egli ne havesse di più. Qual capitale ch’egli habbia lasciato al di lui figlio addottivo, suo herede universale, ne pure mi è noto. Che imprudenza! Mi perdoni. Vedendo io il fratello risolutissimo come il zio à non ammogliarsi, supponevo che s’io morivo primo di lui, li conti erano aggiustati, e s’egli mancava prima di me non lasciava altri heredi che me solo. Non mi è noto dunque ciò che possedeva; ma so quello che hò veduto con tutta la citta di Padova, che questo mio detto fratello viveva; e viveva bene quanto un altro potesse farlo: che haveva li suoi cavalli in stalla, la sua servitù in casa, li suoi mobili, la sua argenteria, le sue gioie, li suoi libri, insomma tutto ciò che serve alla vita honesta et al lusso moderato. Il caso portò che, morta la madre che questo mio Fratello amava tenera-























  mente come doveva, la melancolia lo assali, chiuse la casa e andò à ritirarsi in quella d’un cavalliere amico e vicino suo chiamato Marc’Antonio Franchini. Non vi fù egli  ò  mesi, che morì d’una febre intermittente, che nel :o [settimo] gli diede una sincope che lo portò via. Mi fù notificato il caso e scritto, che andassi à raccogliere la heredità o mandassi procure ad amici che la raccogliessero. Feci il :do [secondo], non potendo fare il primo, perche il publico deve precedere il privato. Che crederebbe Vostra Signoria Illustrissima che io habbia raccolto di quella heredità?  ducati fatti da’ mobili ch’erano troppo visibili. Del resto? Nulla. E quello ch’è di più galante, ne meno un pezzo di carta grande quanto la di Lei mano, dal quale io potessi vedere un ‘Questo era mio’, per rivendicarlo per le strade ordinarie della giustitia. Questa è storia nota a tutta Padova; chi non mi crede puole informarsene. Ella poi la chiami disgratia ò assassinio, poco importa. Basta che questa è la causa per la quale tanti Prencipi porgano per me le suppliche à Nostro Signore, che io certamente non importunerei se non havessi sofferto una si grande perdita ò se havessi potuto  anni sono prevedere di haverla à soffrire; e dico che non importunerei nessuno (ne servirei, se hò da parlar chiaro) perche chi mi conosce sà che l’ambitione non mi stimola, l’interesse non mi punge, e la vanità non mi sprona. Mi vergogno di havere scritta a Vostra Signoria Illustrissima una si lunga lettera de’ fatti miei particolari. Me lo perdoni con la sua nota generosità et attribuisca la noia ch’ella ne hà sofferta al desiderio che hò ch’ella sappia à chi ella fà tante gratie, delle quali io dovrò conservare una gratissima memoria quanto vivrò . . .











Steffani’s Letter to Giacomo Antonio Stievani () Giacomo Antonio Stievani was the son of a cousin of Steffani on his father’s side, who still bore the surname with which Agostino had been baptized. The latter made contact with his relatives during his retirement in Padua in –. His letter to Stievani survives in I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols. –, and is followed, in cols. –, by his letter of the same date (and similar content) to his cousin, the archpriest Antonio Scapinelli. For the context and significance of these letters, see Chapter , ‘Retirement and Return’. Al Signor Don Giacomo Stievani

[Padova,]  Giugno  E hormai passato l’anno ch’ella mi favori d’una cortesissima visita, accompagnata da obbligantissime esibizioni, alle quali corrisposi nel modo che mi poteva permettere la brevità del tempo e l’incertezza del mio soggiorno. Non havendo però da quell’hora più inteso parlare ne di Lei ne del Signor Arciprete nostro, non voglio mai credere che si siano pentiti delle finezze usatemi allora e delle quali io mi ricordo con sensibile riconoscenza. Essendomi dunque fermato qui assai più di quel che io giudi-



 cavo non potere, mi è mancato il comodo di dare una scorsa costì, come ne havevo il disegno. Ne pure adesso mi trovo in istato di prendere alcuna  risoluzione, particolarmente in questo principio di Pontificato. Venendo però assiduamente sollecitato di prender parte in un certo negozio che riguarda un fideicommisso caduto nelle mani delli Nobili Huomini Labia di ragione della eredità d’una certa Signora Fermana o sia Perina da Ponte; e venendomi supposto che tanto il sudetto Signor Arciprete quanto Lei siano  nel numero dei discendenti della predetta da Ponte, e per consequenza coeredi de fideicommisso di detta ragione: io, che al certo son dispostissimo a cooperare vigorosamente ai vantaggi della famiglia, la prego istantamente di far ogni possibile per venire a star qui meco tre o quattro giorni, ad oggetto di darmi tutte le informazioni necessarie perche io possa fon damente unire il mio nome a quello degli altri coeredi e così facilitare il conseguimento del fine più sollecitamente. Ella si compiacesi comunicar questa mia lettera al Signor Arciprete; e caso ch’ella non possa farmi il piacere che Le domando, veda io può impetrarnelo dal nostro gentilissimo Signor Dottore Scapinelli, o pure da qualche altra persone che sia bene in formata e possa darmi lumi per diriggere i miei passi, li quali finalmente non tendono, come hò già detto, che al vantaggio della famiglia. Sarebbe inoltre utilissimo, e necessario, che la persona che venirà a trovarmi mi facesse questo piacere per la Festa del Santo e venisse dritto in contrà di S. Giovanni alle Scalette della contrà di Sant’Anar, ove troverà in mia casa  la sua stanza, il suo letto e la sua Tavola per tutto il tempo che potrà fermarsi. Hò detto per la Festa del Santo perche allora spero haver qui da Venezia il Procuratore delli Consorti, che mi fanno sollecitare d’entrar nel negozio. Spero ch’ella havrà la bontà di consegnare al messo latore della presente una favorevole risposta, e che non vorrà dubitare della perfetta  stima con cui sono . . .

Arrangements for Opera in Munich in  The following document (D-Mbsa, HR I Fasz.  Nr. , ff. – v) is preserved among others relating to Steffani. Dated  March , it refers to the carnival of that year, when his opera Niobe, regina di Tebe had first been performed. Elector Maximilian II Emanuel hereby authorizes payments to ten named instrumentalists who had augmented the court orchestra during the season; the document also gives dates and venues of rehearsals and performances, and rates of pay for both. Auswurdigste Speciall Anschaffung Ihro churfrtl: drtl: ist denen zu der oppera deß Herrn Don Augustin Stephani churfrtl: Cammer Music Director, und auch Hoffdiensten .. bestelten und hierundter gesetzten Statt: und Pfare Musicis bezalt worden. Wie folgt [:] Für das probiren der gangen oppera so . mahl geschehen, als nemblichen den .. . und .. bris: [novembris] wie auch den .. Xbris







  [decembris] in der churfürstlichen Residenz, Item den .. und .. dito Anno . auch den . Jenner Anno . in dem Commedi Haus, ist Jedem für ainmahlige prob die Helffte als .i. florin ausgevolgt thuet . fl. So ist gemelte oppera den ..tij ..tij und .. Jenner wie auch den .. februaris gehalten worden, iedem für .. Act:  florin thuet .. fl. / Latus  fl. (f. v:) Mer den Undtengesezten .. Statt: Und Pfare Musicis, Für .. mahliges Musicieren bey den palleten, in der churfürstlichen Residenz, zu dem so genannten Hercules Saall, als den .. und .. Jenner. Item den .. und .. februaris wie auch den .. Martij iedem für .. Act:  florin thuet .. fl. / Latus Per Se. / Summa .. fl. / [List of musicians:] Veith Ulrich Seiten, Johan Pichler, Muhel Koch, Francesco Pompardo, Caspar Mayr, Sebastian Fünffer, Petter Hueber, Franz Staining, Franz Herman, Caspar Schweitzenberg [f. v, upside down, for the sheet had been folded:] Ihrer Churfürstlichen Durchlaucht gnedigstes befelch ist, das beide dise Opera und Tournierspele, welche zusamen drei hundert Vier und Sechzig gulden machen, und die Statt: und Pfarn Musicos belangen, fürderlich bezalt werden. Sigl: den . Martij Anno  / Max Emanuel.









A B




C  S’ M W

This is the first published attempt at a catalogue of Steffani’s complete musical works. It gives the location (and occasionally the number) of the principal manuscript source(s), as well as references to printed sources and editions. It does not list constituent movements of works, nor manuscripts of secondary importance. The arrangement is as follows. A. Sacred Works I. Liturgical Works II. Motets III. Doubtful Works IV. Arrangements V. Spurious Works B. Dramatic Works I. Operas II. Tourney III. Serenata IV. Doubtful Works V. Spurious Works C. Vocal Chamber Music I. Chamber Duets II. Duets with Instrumental Accompaniment III. Solo Cantatas IV. Cantatas with Instrumental Accompaniment V. Madrigals VI. Doubtful Works VII. Spurious Works D. Instrumental Music I. Selections from Operas II. Doubtful Works III. Spurious Works E. Writing Each work is given its own number within the section of the catalogue to which it belongs and can, therefore, be identified without recourse to its title (the chamber duet Dolce è per voi soffrire, for example, is C/I/). 



  In Section A, Sacred Works, the entries take the following form: reference number, title, scoring (in parentheses), source(s), edition(s). Printed sources are identified by abbreviations first given to the left of the title when cited (e.g., PV: Psalmodia vespertina). Manuscript locations are denoted by RISM sigla (e.g., GB-Cfm: Great Britain, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum); if a sigillum is not enough to enable a source to be identified, the manuscript number is given, too. Unless there is a special reason for including them, the following kinds of manuscript are omitted: copies made from the major printed sources; incomplete copies; nineteenth- and twentieth-century manuscripts. Section B, Dramatic Works, builds on Hugo Riemann’s pioneering ‘Bibliographie’ in DTB, no.  (). The existence and present location of the librettos and scores cited by Riemann have, however, been checked: some sources have been lost, but others have come to light. In this section of the catalogue the entry for each work, after the title, supplies () the genre designation as given in the libretto or score, the number of acts and the name of the librettist (in full, first time only); () the place and date of the first and () of any later performance, version, adaptation or translation: each entry is followed by RISM sigla (giving the location(s) of the libretto) or by a reference to another source; () the principal sources of the music: included here are pre- manuscript copies of complete scores and substantial selections, and all printed sources, but not (generally) manuscripts of isolated movements, or of transcriptions or arrangements (which appear in Section D); () modern editions. Steffani’s duets (Section C, I and II) were first catalogued by Alfred Einstein in DTB, no.  () and then by me in ‘The Chamber Duets’ (). Entries for duets begin like those for sacred works, though if a duet survives in two forms, ‘a’ denotes the revised and ‘b’ the earlier version. The second line of most entries opens with an ‘E’ number—that is, the number assigned to the duet by Einstein. The present catalogue includes three early versions that were unknown to him but relegates to the ‘Doubtful’ section (VI) a handful of duets that he regarded as authentic. The principal sources of complete copies are generally all that is given, but if these are in doubt, all manuscript locations are provided; if an early version could not otherwise be distinguished from the revised version of the same duet in the same library, manuscript numbers also are supplied. The aim is to include enough information to enable a user to find or identify either version of any duet. Section C also represents the preliminary results of research into Steffani’s cantatas for solo voice, with and without instruments. For this reason it excludes from sections III and IV any work of which the authenticity is doubtful. Most of the pieces in section VI are clearly not by Steffani, but the cantata Piange la bella Clori, e del suo pianto (C/VI/) and a few of the arias could be by him, even if the latter belonged to lost cantatas or serenatas. As there is uncertainty in this area, all the sources are given for the pieces in sections C, III–VI. All the music by Steffani in Section D, I, comes from his Hanover operas. In addition to items originally intended for instruments, it includes vocal movements arranged for instrumental performance. An asterisk against a RISM sigillum means that the library has autograph material.

  ’     Ed fl FP inst L LP orch piff SM vc

edition(s) flute(s) first performance instrument(s) libretto(s) later performance(s) orchestra piffero (pifferi) source(s) of music violoncello

A. Sacred Works I. Liturgical Works   PV

PSALMODIA / VESPERTINA / VOLANS / OCTO PLENIS VOCIBVS CONCINENDA . . . PRINCIPI DOMINO, / D. FERDINANDO MARIAE / Vtriusque BAVARIAE . . . Electori, &c. / nec non . . . HENRIETTAE ADELAIDI . . . DICATA / AB AVGVSTINO STEFFANO / Eorund: Sereniss: Principum Musico-Organista / ANNO SAL. MDCLXXIV. / Aetatis suae XIX. / ROMAE, Ex Typographia Io: Angeli Mutij. SVPERIOR. PERMISSV. Nine partbooks: CATB (coro I), CATB (coro II), organo.

  CS

. . . . . . . . . . .

Cinque salmi e un Magnificat dalla Psalmodia vespertina volans octo plenis vocibus concinenda (Castelfranco Veneto: Fondazione Morello, [ca. ]) Beatus vir (SATB/SATB, org), PV; CS Beatus vir (SSB, vn, bc), GB-Cfm Mu MS  Beatus vir (SATB/SATB, bc), I-Ac N./ ( September ) Confitebor tibi Domine (SATB/SATB, org), PV Credidi propter quod locutus sum (SATB/SATB, org), PV; CS Dixit Dominus (SATB/SATB, org), PV Domine probasti me (SATB/SATB, org), PV In convertendo (SATB/SATB, org), PV; CS In exitu Israel (SATB/SATB, org), PV; CS Laetatus sum (SATB/SATB, org), PV Lauda Jerusalem Dominum (SATB/SATB, org), PV





  . Laudate Dominum omnes gentes (SATB/SATB, org), PV . Laudate Dominum omnes gentes (SSSA/SSSA, org), GB-Cfm ( December ) . Laudate pueri Dominum (SATB/SATB, org), PV . Laudate pueri Dominum (SSATB/SATB, org), GB-Cfm (November []) . Magnificat (SATB/SATB, org), PV; CS. ‘Sicut erat’ printed in Martini, Esemplare, ii. –; MS copy in D-B Mus. ms. . . Memento Domine David (SATB/SATB, org), PV . Nisi Dominus (SATB/SATB, org), PV; CS . Stabat Mater dolorosa (SSATTB, strings, bc), D-Hs M B/ (vocal parts); GB-Lam MS , Lbl Add. MSS , , Ob Tenbury MS  (organ part); ed. Charles Kennedy Scott (London: Oxford University Press, ) and Heinrich Sievers (Wolfenbüttel: Möseler, ) . Triduanas a Domino (SMAT/SMAT, org), GB-Cfm ( November ) II. Motets   SIQ

SACER / IANVS QVADRIFRONS / TRIBUS VOCIBUS / VEL DUABUS / QVALIBET PRAETERMISSA / MODVLANDVS . . . PRINCIPI / MAXIMILIANO / EMMANUELI, / Vtriusque Bavariae . . . ELECTORI . . . MONACHII. / Typis JOANNIS JAECKLINI, Electoralis Bibliopolae, /& Typographi. / ANNO M.DC.LXXXV. Four partbooks: CI, CII, B, bc.

  DTB, no. 

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Alfred Einstein and Adolf Sandberger, eds., Ausgewählte Werke von Agostino Steffani ( –), Erster Teil, Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Bayern, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ) (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, )

Cingite floribus (STB, bc), SIQ Elevamini in voce tubae (ATB, bc), SIQ Felices Adae filii (SAT, bc), SIQ Flores agri, maris gemmae (SAB, bc), SIQ Fuge, cara anima (ATB, bc), SIQ Non plus me ligate (S, vn, bc), D-B Mus. ms.  Qui diligit Mariam (SSATB, bc), GB-Cfm, Lam, Lbl, Lcm, Ob Qui pacem amatis (SSB, bc), SIQ Reginam nostram formosissimam (SSB, bc), SIQ; DTB, no.  Sonitus armorum (SAT, bc), SIQ Sperate in Deo (SSATB, org), GB-Cfm Mu MS  () Surge, propera, veni (ATB, bc), SIQ Tandem adest clara dies (SAB, bc), SIQ; DTB, no. 

  ’   . Venite exultemus (SAB, org), SIQ . Videte gentes (STB, org), SIQ. Second movement (‘Pro Christo affligimur’) printed in John Hindle, A Set of Glees . . . to which . . . is added A Composition of . . . A. Steffani (London: Longman & Broderip, [ca. ]) III. Doubtful Works . . . . . . . . . .

Ad supernam coeli mensam (SA, bc), GB-DRc MS E. ; Ob Mus. d.  Benedicam Dominum in omne tempore (SB, bc), GB-DRc, Ob Cantate Domino canticum novum (AB, bc), GB-DRc, Ob Confitebor tibi Domine (SSB, vn, bc), GB-Lbl Add. MS  () Credo: ‘Patrem omnipotentem’ (ATB, org), D-Rp C.  Dixit Dominus (SSATB, vn, va, bc), D-B Mus. ms.  Estote fortes in bello (BBBB, bc), D-Rp C. Omnes gentes ad Jesum venite (AT, bc), GB-DRc, Ob Quemadmodum desiderat cervus (ST, bc), GB-DRc, Ob Super flumina Babilonis (SS, bc), GB-DRc, Ob

IV. Arrangements Works by Steffani adapted by later hands to English words   Stevens

Richard John Samuel Stevens, ed., Sacred Music for One, Two, Three & Four Voices. From the Works of the Most Celebrated Composers, Italian and English,  vols. (London: For the Editor, Charterhouse, [ –])

. Be wise now therefore (B, bc), GB-Lbl Add. MS  Model: ‘Mulier timens Dominum’ in Venite exultemus . Blessed be the Lord who hath pleasure (SSB, bc), GB-Lbl Model: ‘Eia surgite fideles’ in Qui pacem amatis . By the waters of Babylon (SSAAB, bc), GB-DRc, Ob, Y Model: Duet ‘Soavissime catene’ in opera La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo . Come, ye children, and hearken to me (SS, org), Stevens, GB-Y Model: ‘Non pavescat lethales horrores’ in Qui diligit Mariam . I will give thanks to Thee, O Lord (SSATB, bc), GB-DRc, Ob, Y Model: Qui diligit Mariam — I will give thanks unto Thee, o Lord (SS, org) See Spurious Works (A/V/) . I will love Thee, o Lord (S, bc), GB-Lbl Model: ‘Si tranquilla ridet unda’ in Qui pacem amatis . Lord, who shall dwell in Thy tabernacle (SSB, bc), GB-Lbl Model: Reginam nostram formosissimam . O be joyful in God, all ye lands (SSB, org), Stevens, GB-Y Model: ‘O decus sanctarum’ in Venite exultemus . O clap your hands (SSATB, bc), GB-Ob Tenbury MS  Model: Qui diligit Mariam





  . O come, let us sing unto the Lord (SAB, bc), GB-Lbl Model: Venite exultemus (first movement) . O hear ye this, all ye people (SSB, org), Stevens, GB-Y Model: ‘O Domina mundi’ in Reginam nostram formosissimam — O praise the Lord with me (SS, org) See Spurious Works (A/V/) . Praise the Lord, ye servants (SATB/SATB, bc), GB-Lbl Mad. Soc. B. – and C.  Model: Triduanas a Domino . Rejoice in the Lord, o ye righteous (SSB, org), Stevens, GB-Y Model: Qui pacem amatis (first movement) . Sing merrily unto God (SSATB, bc), GB-Ob Mus. d.  Model: Qui diligit Mariam . Thou art my portion, o Lord (SSB, org), Stevens, GB-Y Model: ‘Pro Christo affligimur’ in Videte gentes V. Spurious Works Items – , ascribed to Steffani in manuscript sources, were published in André Campra, Motets à I, II, et III voix, avec la basse-continue. Livre premier (Paris: Christophe Ballard, ). . . . . .

Diligam te, Domine (SS, bc), GB-Lam MSS , ; Lbl Add. MSS ,  In Domino gaudebo (SB, bc), GB-Lam; Lbl Add. MS ; Ob Mus. d.  Laudabit usque ad mortem (SS, bc), GB-Lam, Lbl Tota pulchra es (SS, bc), GB-Lam, Lbl, Ob Vos in terris (‘Mottetto per ogni tempo’; SATB,  clarini,  vn, va, [vc], org), I-Fc MS A. 

The following arrangements, attributed to Steffani in Stevens (see Section IV), are based on ‘Diligam te, Domine’ (no.  in the preceding list). . I will give thanks unto Thee, O Lord (SS, org), Stevens, GB-Y Model: Campra, Diligam te, Domine (first movement) . O praise the Lord with me (SS, org), Stevens, GB-Y Model: ‘Laudans invocabo Dominum’ in Diligam te, Domine (Campra)

B. Dramatic Works I. Operas   Roger

Sonate da camera à tre, due violini, alto e basso (Amsterdam: Estienne Roger, [ca. ]) Four partbooks: vn I, vn II, va, bc (containing overtures and instrumental music from Steffani’s Hanover operas)

  ’   Ballard Boivin

Meslanges de musique latine, francoise & italienne; divisez par saisons . . . Première année (Paris: Jean-Baptiste-Christophe Ballard, ) Ier Recueil contenant XXIV des plus beaux duo de l’abbé Stefani, de Bononcini et d’autres bons auteurs disposés en trio, pour  flutes traversières avec la basse (Paris: François Boivin, [– ])

  DTB, no. 

Extracts in Hugo Riemann, ed., Ausgewählte Werke von Agostino Steffani ( –), Dritter Teil, Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Bayern, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ) (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, )

. Marco Aurelio Drama per musica,  acts, Ventura Giacomo Terzago FP Munich, carnival [ or  February(?)]  L A-Wn; D-Mbs SM GB-Lbl* LP Munich, October  Ed DTB, no.  . Solone Drama per musica,  acts, Terzago FP Munich, carnival [ February(?)]  L A-Wn; D-Mbs SM Lost . Servio Tullio Drama per musica, prologue and  acts, Terzago FP Munich,  January  L In Italian: B-Bc; D-DI, Mbs, Mth; I-Bc, Vgc In German: D-Au, Mbs; GB-Lbl SM A-Wn; D-WINtj LP Weimar, , adapted as Die erhöhte Dienstbarkeit unter der königlichen Prinzessin Tarquinia, mit Servio Tullio geschehener glücklicher Vermählung (Brockpähler, Handbuch, ) Ed DTB, no.  . Alarico il Baltha, cioè L’audace re de’ Gothi Drama per musica,  acts, Luigi Orlandi FP Munich,  January  L D-KN, Mbs, Rp; US-Wc SM A-Wn; D-SWl, WINtj Ed Complete opera, ed. Hugo Riemann, DTB, no. ; recitative ‘Tra le feste di Roma’, ed. Günter Hausswald, Die Musik des Generalbass-Zeitalters, Das Musikwerk, no.  (Cologne: Arno Volk, )





  . Niobe, regina di Tebe Drama per musica,  acts, Orlandi FP Munich,  January  L In Italian: D-Mbs; in German: D-Mbs, Rs; US-Wc SM A-Wn*; D-SWl, WINtj Ed DTB, no. ; aria ‘Il tuo sguardo’, ed. Riemann, Musikgeschichte in Beispielen (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, ); aria ‘Quanto, quanto sospirerai’, ed. Franz Wasner (New York: Schirmer, ) LP Munich, August : an extract from Niobe, beginning at ‘Dell’alma stanca’ (I/), was included in Pietro Torri’s La reggia dell’Armonia (D-Mbs) . Henrico Leone Dramma,  acts, (Bartolomeo) Ortensio Mauro FP Hanover,  January  L D-HVl, HVsa, LEu, SWl, W; I-Mb LP (a) As (Hertzog) Henrich (or Heinrich) der Löwe, trans. Gottlieb Fiedler: Hamburg,  (L: A-Wn; B-Br; D-B, Hs, KNt, WRz); Brunswick, ‘Sommermesse’  (Gottsched, Nöthiger Vorrath, i. ); Augsburg,  (Gottsched, Nöthiger Vorrath, ii. ); Brunswick, ‘Sommermesse’  (L: A-Wn; D-W); Augsburg,  (MGG, xii.  –); Brunswick, Candlemas , arr. Georg Caspar Schürmann (L: D-W); Brunswick, ‘Sommermesse’  (L: D-BS) (b) As Mechtilde: Stuttgart, Tuesday  October  (L: US-Wc) SM D-B, Hs, SWl; GB-Lbl*; US-AUS; Roger Ed DTB, no. ; aria ‘Io consolo i cori amanti’, ed. Ludwig Landshoff, Alte Meister des Bel Canto, iii (Frankfurt: Peters, ); overture in Nagels Musik-Archiv, no.  (Hanover: Nagel, ); aria ‘Un balen d’incerta speme’, ed. Archibald T. Davison and Willi Apel, Historical Anthology of Music, ii (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, ); Brunswick () version of opera, ed. Theodor Wilhelm Werner, Musikalische Denkwürdigkeiten, no.  (Hanover: Albert Küster, ) . La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo Divertimento drammatico,  act, Mauro(?) FP Hanover, summer  L D-HVl, LEu SM D-B, Mbs, SWl; GB-Lbl; US-AUS, NYp; one duet in Boivin Ed Facsimile of complete work, ed. John H. Roberts, Handel Sources: Materials for the Study of Handel’s Borrowing (New York: Garland, ), ix; extracts in DTB, no.  . La superbia d’Alessandro Drama, prologue and  acts, Mauro FP Hanover, carnival [January or February]  L A-Wn; D-HVl, HVsa, LEu, W LP (a) As Il zelo di Leonato: Hanover, carnival  (L: D-HVl, W; I-Bca)

  ’  

SM Ed

(b) As Der hochmüthige Alexander, trans. Fiedler: Hamburg,  (L: A-Wn; D-B, Hs, HVl, KNt, RT (undated), WRz; NL-DHgm); Brunswick, ‘Sommermesse’  (L: D-B, W); Stuttgart,  September  (Sittard, Zur Geschichte, i. ); Hamburg,  (L: B-Br; D-B, Hs, HVl, WRz; GBLbl; US-Wc: the libretto states that the music was by Handel, but Mattheson claimed that ‘something’ of Steffani remained; cf. MGG, xii. ); Brunswick,  (Brockpähler, Handbuch, ): as Hamburg, (?) D-B (including overture copied by J. S. Bach as appendix to suite by his cousin Johann Bernhard Bach), Hs, SWl; GB-Lbl*; US-AUS; Roger DTB, no. ; overture ed. in Johann Bernhard Bach, Vier Ouvertüren (Stuttgart: Carus, )

. Orlando generoso Drama,  acts, Mauro FP Hanover, carnival  L D-HVl, HVsa, W; I-Mb LP (a) Hanover, carnival  (L: D-HVl, LEu, W; GB-Lbl ); Brunswick, Candlemas  (DTB, no. , p. x) (b) As Der grossmüthige Roland, trans. Fiedler: Hamburg,  (L: A-Wn; B-Br; D-B, Hs, KNt; US-Wc; undated librettos in B-Br; D-B, HAh, Hs, HVl, WRz); Brunswick, ‘Sommermesse’  (Marpurg, Historischkritische Beyträge, iv. ); Brunswick,  (DTB, no. , p. x); Hamburg,  (L: A-Wn; D-B, Hs); Hamburg,  (L: B-Br; D-B, Hs; NL-DHgm); Hamburg , , and  (Marx and Schröder, Gänsemarkt-Oper,  – , ) SM A-Wn; D-B, Hs, HVs, SHs, SWl; GB-Lbl*; US-AUS; Die auserlesensten und vornehmsten Arien aus der Oper Roland mit unterschiedlichen Instrumenten. Wie sie vorgestellet auff dem Hamburgischen Schau-Platz (Lübeck: Johann Wiedemeyer, ); Roger † Ed DTB, no. ; overture, ed. Alfred Einstein, Beispielsammlung zur Musikgeschichte, th ed. (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, ) . Le rivali concordi Drama,  acts, Mauro FP Hanover, carnival  L D-LEu, W; I-Mb LP (a) Hanover,  and  February  (L: D-HVl, HVsa; I-Mb) (b) As Die vereinigten Mit-Buhler oder Die siegende Atalanta, trans. Fiedler: Hamburg,  (L: A-Wn; D-B, Hs, HVl, KNt, WRz; US-Wc) (c) As Le rivali concordi oder Die versöhnte Nebenbuhler, trans. Fiedler: Stuttgart,  September  (L: D-Sl ); Stuttgart,  (L: D-Sl) † In  –  Roger also advertised ‘Les Air à joüer de l’opera de Roland à quatre parties’: cf. Lesure, Bibliographie, ; no examplar of this publication is known.





  SM Ed

A-Wn; D-B, Hs, SHs, SWl; GBLbl*; I-MOe; US-AUS, NYp; Roger; one duet in Ballard Facsimile of autograph score, ed. Howard Mayer Brown, Italian Opera –, [no. ] (New York: Garland, ); extracts in DTB, no. 

. La libertà contenta Drama,  acts, Mauro FP Hanover,  and  February  L D-HVl, LEu; GB-Lbl; I-Mb LP As Der in seiner Freyheit vergnügte Alcibiades, trans. Fiedler: Hamburg,  (L: A-Wn; D-B, Hs, KNt, RT, W, WRz); Stuttgart,  April  (Sittard, Zur Geschichte, i. ; DTB, no. , p. xii); Brunswick, Wintermesse  (L (undated): D-W, Wa): date from Brockpähler, Handbuch, ; Stuttgart,  April  (Sittard, Zur Geschichte, i. ) SM D-B, Dlb, Hs, SWl; GB-Lbl*; US-AUS; Roger; one duet in Ballard Ed DTB, no.  . I trionfi del fato Drama,  acts, Mauro FP Hanover, carnival [January(?)]  L D-W; I-Mb LP (a) As I trionfi del fato o Le glorie d’Enea: Hanover, carnival  (L: D-B, HVl, LEu, W ) and November  (b) As Il triumfo del fato oder Das maechtige Geschick bei Lavinia und Dido: Hamburg,  [] November  (L: A-Wn; B-Br; D-B, Hs, KNt, WRz; US-Wc) (c) As Enea in Italia: Brunswick, Candlemas  (L: D-HVl ) SM D-B, Dlb, Hs, SHs; GB-Lbl*; US-AUS; Roger; three duets in Boivin Ed DTB, no.  . Baccanali [Divertimento drammatico],  act, Mauro FP Hanover, carnival  L D-HVl, HVsa, LEu; GB-Lbl; I-Mb LP (a) Hanover, November  (b) As Doppia festa d’Himeneo, arr. Schürmann: Salzdahlum (Brunswick),  September  (L: D-W ) (c) As La festa di Minerva (words as in Doppia festa; composer unknown): Wolfenbüttel,  May  (L: D-HVl, W ) SM D-SHs; GB-Lbl; one duet in Boivin Ed None . Arminio Tragedia per musica,  acts, Stefano Benedetto Pallavicino FP Düsseldorf, carnival  L Location unknown

  ’   SM Ed

D-WD; GB-Lbl None

. Amor vien dal destino Dramma, introduction and  acts, [Mauro] FP Düsseldorf, carnival [January(?)]  L D-BFb, DÜl, MHrm LP Düsseldorf,  (Walter, Geschichte des Theaters, : doubtful) SM D-HVl; GB-Lbl* Ed DTB, no.  . Tassilone Tragedia,  acts, Pallavicino FP Düsseldorf, carnival [ January(?)]  L D-Mbs, MH SM D-B; E-Mn; GB-Lbl Ed Complete opera, ed. Gerhard Croll, Denkmäler rheinischer Musik, no.  (Düsseldorf: Schwann, ); extracts in DTB, no.  II. Tourney . Audacia e rispetto Torneo, Terzago FP Munich, carnival  L D-Mbs SM Lost Ed Extracts from libretto in DTB, no. , pp. xxviii–xxix III. Serenata . Serenata ‘alla maniera d’Italia’ FP Munich, , on marriage of Countess M. A. T. von Preysing SM Lost IV. Doubtful Works . Accademia per musica (‘Ecco l’alba, ecco l’aura’) FP Hanover, [November] , on marriage of Charlotte Felicitas of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Rinaldo III of Modena L D-HVl(?) (cf. DTB, no. , p. xiii) SM Lost Ed DTB, no. , includes a list of the arias, taken from the libretto There is no evidence that Steffani was or was not the composer. . Briseide Dramma per musica,  acts, Francesco Palmieri FP Hanover, carnival  L D-HVl, HVsa, LEu, W; GB-Lbl SM A-Wn; D-B, Mbs (partly in hand of Pietro Torri); GB-Lbl





  DTB, no. ; three arias, ed. Gertrude Parker Smith, Smith College Music Archives, no.  (Northampton, Mass.: Smith College, ); aria ‘Vieni, o cara amata sposa’, ed. Franz Wasner (New York: Schirmer, ) The opera was probably composed by Pietro Torri (see Chapter ).

Ed

V. Spurious Works . La costanza nelle selve Favola pastorale,  acts, Mauro FP Hanover, summer  L D-HVl, LEu SM D-HVs; GB-Lbl An inscription on the title page of the libretto in D-HVl states that ‘Manza [Luigi Mancia] hat die Music gemacht’. . Il figlio delle selve Dramma,  acts, Carlo Sigismondo Capece FP (?) L Many versions cited in Sartori, Libretti, iii.  – ; also GB-Lbl; US-Wc SM GB-Ob (ascribed to Steffani) The libretto was first set by Cosimo Bani; there is no other evidence that Steffani composed a setting.

C. Vocal Chamber Music   DTB, no. 

Garland

Alfred Einstein and Adolf Sandberger, eds., Ausgewählte Werke von Agostino Steffani ( –), Erster Teil, Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Bayern, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ) (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, ) Colin Timms, ed., Cantatas by Agostino Steffani  –, The Italian Cantata in the Seventeenth Century, no.  (New York: Garland, )

I. Chamber Duets   The entries for most of the duets give the principal source(s) only. These are as follows: D-Mbs Mus. ms.  (eight volumes); GB-Lbl RM . k. – ; RM . k.  – (including two autograph volumes); I-Fc MSS D. – . Further copies of the duets are to be found in the following libraries: A-Wgm, Wn; B-Bc, Br, Lc; D-B, Bs, BNms, Dlb, Hs, HVs, Mbs, MÜs, Rp, SHs, SWl, WD; F-Pc, Pn; GB-Bu, Cfm, Ckc, CDu, Er, Lam, Lbl, Lcm, Lgc, Mp, Ob, Ouf; I-Bc, Bsp, Fc, Gi, Mc, MOe, Nc, OS, Pca, PAc, Rc, Rsc, Tn, Vc, Vnm; J-Tk, Tn; US-AA, CHH, NYp, SF, Wc.

  ’     FM A-R

John Alexander Fuller Maitland, ed., Duetti da camera. Italian Chamber Duets by Various Masters of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,  vols. (London: Joseph Williams, ) Agostino Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, ed. Colin Timms, Recent Researches in the Music of the Baroque Era, no.  (Madison: A-R Editions, )

a. Ah! che l’ho sempre detto (ST, bc) E.: GB-Lbl; I-Fc; Garland b. Ah! che l’ho sempre detto (ST, bc) F-Pn a. Aure, voi che volate (AB, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; A-R b. Aure, voi che volate (AB, bc) E. b: B-Lc; F-Pc; GB-Lbl; I-Nc a. Begl’occhi, oh Dio, non più (SA, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; I-Fc; A-R b. Begl’occhi, oh Dio, non più (SA, bc) E. b: GB-Lam, Lbl RM . k. , Ob Mus. d.  a. Cangia pensier, mio cor (SS, bc) E. a: GB-Lbl; Garland b. Cangia pensier, mio cor (SS, bc) E. b: D-BNms; F-Pn; I-MOe . Che sarà di quel pensiero (SS, bc) E.: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; I-Fc; Garland . Che volete, o crude pene (SA, bc) E. : I-Fc; DTB, no.  . Cruda Lilla, che ti fece questo cor (ST, bc) E. : GB-Lbl . Crudo Amor, morir mi sento (SA, bc) E. : GB-Lbl; I-Fc; Garland . Dimmi, dimmi Cupido, e quando mai (SA, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; I-Fc; Garland . Dir che giovi al dio d’amore (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; Garland . Dolce è per voi soffrire (ST, bc) E. : I-Fc; DTB, no.  . Dolce labbro, amabil bocca (SA, bc) E. : I-Fc; DTB, no.  . E così mi compatite (ST, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; A-R a. E perchè non m’uccidete (ST, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; A-R





  b. E perchè non m’uccidete (ST, bc) E. b: I-Bc, Bsp . E spento l’ardore ch’il sen m’infiammò (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs . Forma un mare il pianto mio (ST, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; Garland. Printed in Hawkins, History (), iv. –  — Fredde ceneri gradite: see no. b . Fulminate, saettate, luci belle (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs . Gelosia, che vuoi da me? Folte schiere (ST, bc) E. : B-Bc, Lc; D-B, Mbs; F-Pc; GB-Bu, Ckc, Lam, Lbl, Ob; I-Fc; US-AA, Wc; DTB, no.  a. Gelosia, che vuoi da me, nel mio sen (SB, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl b. Gelosia, che vuoi da me, nel mio sen (SB, bc) E. b: B-Bc F. , vol.  . Già tu parti, io che farò? (SA, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; DTB, no.  . Ho scherzato in verità (SS, bc) E. : GB-Lbl; Garland . Il mio seno è un mar di pene (ST, bc) E. : GB-Lbl . In amor chi vuol godere (SB, bc) E. : GB-Lbl . Inquieto mio cor, lasciami in pace (SA, bc) E. : I-Fc; DTB, no.  . Io mi parto, o cara vita (ST, bc) E. : GB-Lbl; Garland . Io mi rido de’ tuoi dardi (SA, bc) E. : GB-Lbl; I-Fc; Garland . Io voglio provar s’è vero ch’amore (ST, bc) E. : GB-Lbl . Labri belli, dite un po’ (SB, bc) E. : GB-Lbl . La fortuna su la ruota (SB, bc) E. : GB-Lbl . Libertà! L’infelice umanità (SA, bc) E. : D-Mbs. Opening printed in Duetti del Sig.r Agost.o Stefani [London: B. Goodison, ] . Libertà! Non posso, non voglio (SA, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; I-Fc; Garland . Lilla mia, non vuoi ch’io pianga (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl

  ’   . Luci belle, non tanta fretta (SB, bc) E. : GB-Lbl . Lungi da l’idol mio (SA, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; I-Fc; DTB, no.  For an earlier version of this duet, see Section C/VI/. . M’hai da piangere un dì, fa quanto vuoi (SA, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; I-Fc; DTB, no.  For an earlier version of this duet, see Section C/VI/. . Mia speranza illanguidita (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs; Gb-Lbl . M’ingannasti, fanciullo bendato (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; I-Fc. The first movement was adapted as ‘Prethee leave me, or dare not to court me’ in the pasticcio Thomyris (London, ). . Mi voglio far intendere (AT, bc) E. : D-Mbs; Gb-Lbl; I-Fc; first movement ed. (for SA) by Vittorio Ricci, Antiche gemme italiane (Milan: Ricordi, []) . Navicella che ten’ vai (ST, bc) E. : D-Mbs; Gb-Lbl; Garland . Nel tempo ch’amai (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs. Printed in Recueil d’airs serieux et a boire . . . imprimé au mois de mars (Paris: Christophe Ballard, ) and in Recueil des meilleurs airs italiens (Paris: Christophe Ballard, ) . No, no, no, mai nol dirò (AT, bc) E. : GB-Lbl; FM, ii (first movement, transposed for SA) . No, no, no, non voglio se devo amare (AT, bc) E. : GB-Lbl; FM, i (first movement, transposed for SS) . Non so chi mi piagò (SA, bc) E. : I-Fc . Non te lo dissi, o core (SB, bc) E. : GB-Lbl. First movement printed in Recueil d’airs serieux et a boire . . . imprimé au mois de juin (Paris: Christophe Ballard, ) and in Recueil des meilleurs airs italiens (Paris: Christophe Ballard, ) . Non ve ne state a ridere (ST, bc) E. : GB-Lbl; Garland a. Occhi belli, non più (ST, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; I-Fc; A-R b. Occhi belli, non più (ST, bc) E. b: B-Bc, Lc; D-B, Mbs Mus. ms. ; F-Pc D. ; I-MOe a. Occhi, perchè piangete? (SA, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; I-Fc; DTB, no. ; also ed. Arnold Schering, Geschichte der Musik in Beispielen (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, ) and Richard Jakoby, Die Kantate, Das Musikwerk, no.  (Cologne: Arno Volk, ). Printed in Nouveaux Solfeges d’Italie avec la Basse (Paris: Bailleux, ca. ) b. Occhi, perchè piangete? (SA, bc)





 

. . . .

. a. b. . . a. b. . . . a. b. a. b.

E. b: B-Lc; D-MÜs Hs. ; F-Pc D. ; GB-Lbl RM . k. , Add. MS , Ob Mus. d. ; I-Fc D. , MOe Mus. F. , Pca, PAc; J-Tn; US-Wc M..SD case, vol.  Oh! che voi direste bene (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl Parlo e rido con questa e quella (SS, bc) E. : GB-Lbl Più non amo e non vaneggio (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs Placidissime catene (SA, bc) E. : D-Mbs; I-Fc; DTB, no. ; bars –  also ed. Günter Hausswald, Die Musik des Generalbass-Zeitalters, Das Musikwerk, no.  (Cologne: Arno Volk, ). Printed in Nouveaux Solfeges d’Italie avec la Basse (Paris: Bailleux, ca. ) and in Duetti del Sig.r Agost.o Stefani [London: B. Goodison, ] Porto l’alma incenerita (SA, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; Garland Pria ch’io faccia altrui palese (SS, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; I-Fc; DTB, no. ; A-R Pria ch’io faccia altrui palese (SS, bc) E. b: B-Lc  – .L-IX; D-MÜs; F-Pc D. ; I-MOe, Nc, Pca; DTB, no. , pp. xxxii–xxxv Quando mai verrà quel dì (ST, bc) E. : B-Bc; D-B, Hs, Mbs; F-Pc; GB-Bu, Ckc, Lam, Lbl, Lcm, Ob; I-Fc; US-AA, Wc Quando ti stringo, o cara (SA, bc) E.: A-Wn; B-Bc; D-B, Dlb, Hs, Mbs, MÜs; F-Pc; GB-Cfm, Lbl, Lcm; I-MOe, Nc, PAc, Rsc, Vc; US-Wc Quanto care al cor voi siete (SS, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; I-Fc; A-R Quanto care al cor voi siete (SS, bc) E. b: B-Lc  – .L-IX; D-MÜs; F-Pc D. ; GB-Cfm Mu MS ; I-MOe, Nc Quest’è l’ultima per me (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl Questo fior che involo al prato (ST, bc) E. : I-Fc Ravvediti, mio core (SS, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; A-R Ribellatevi, o pensieri (SS, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; A-R Ribellatevi, o pensieri (SS, bc) I-Vnm Cod. It. IV.  () Rio destin, che a tutte l’ore (SA, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; I-Fc; DTB, no.  Rio destin, che a tutte l’ore (SA, bc)

  ’  

a.

b. . . . . a. b. . a. b. a. b. . . . . a. b.

E. b: I-Vnm Cod. It. IV  (); first and third movements in DTB, no. , pp. xxxvii–xxxviii Saldi marmi, che coprite (SS, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl; I-Fc; DTB, no. ; A-R. Last movement (‘Voi, tra tanto, occhi lucenti’) printed in Nouveaux Solfeges d’Italie avec la Basse (Paris: Bailleux, ca. ) Fredde ceneri gradite (SS, bc) ⫽ earlier version of Saldi marmi D-MÜs Hs.  Sia maledetto Amor (AB, bc) E. : GB-Lbl; I-Fc; Garland Siete il più bizzarro umore (SB, bc) E. : D-Mbs Sol negl’occhi del mio bene (SA, bc) E. : GB-Lbl; Garland Su, ferisci, alato arciero (SS, bc) E. : D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; FM, i (first movement); A-R Tengo per infallibile (SB, bc) E. a: GB-Lbl; I-Fc; DTB, no. ; Garland Tengo per infallibile (SB, bc) E. b: GB-Ob Mus. d.  (MS ) Tienmi’l cor la gelosia (ST, bc) E. : GB-Lbl Torna a dar vita al core (SB, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl Torna a dar vita al core (AB, bc) E. b: GB-Lbl RM . k. , Lcm, Ob; US-Wc Troppo cruda è la mia sorte (SM, bc) E. a: D-Mbs; GB-Lbl*; DTB, no. ; first movement also ed. Hugo Riemann, Musikgeschichte in Beispielen (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, ) Troppo è cruda la mia sorte (SA, bc) E. b: GB-Lam, Lbl RM . k. , Add. MS , Ob Mus. d. ; I-Bc Mart. ., Mart. ., Bsp Tu m’aspettasti al mare (ST, bc) E. : GB-Lbl; Garland Turbini tempestosi spinsero Enea (SA, bc) E. : D-Mbs Vo dicendo al mio pensiero (ST, bc) E. : D-Mbs Voi ve ne pentirete (AT, bc) E. : D-Mbs Vorrei dire un non so che (ST, bc) E. a: GB-Lbl; A-R Vorrei dire un non so che (ST, bc) E. b.: F-Pn





  II. Duets with Instrumental Accompaniment . Corri all’armi, o core altero (SA) E. : GB-Lbl RM . k. , Lcm; US-Wc . D’un faggio all’ombra assiso (SB) E. : GB-Lbl, Lcm; US-Wc . Fuggi da questo seno (ST) E. : GB-Lbl, Lcm; US-Wc . Senti, Filli spietata (SB) E. : GB-Lbl, Lcm; US-Wc . S’intimi guerra a la crudel beltà (SB) E. : B-Bc; GB-Lbl, Lcm; US-Wc . Stille degl’occhi amare (SB) E. : GB-Lbl, Lcm; US-Wc III. Solo Cantatas . Occhi miei, lo miraste (S, bc), D-HVs Kestner vol. ; ed. in Werner and Einstein, ‘Die Musikhandschriften’, –  IV. Cantatas with Instrumental Accompaniment . Fileno, idolo mio, ove lungi da me ti stai, mio bene? (S,  vn, bc), I-MOe Mus. F. ; DTB, no. , Garland . Guardati, o core, dal dio bambin (S,  vn, bc), MOe; DTB, no. , Garland . Hai finito di lusingarmi (S, piff, bc), MOe; Garland . Il più felice e sfortunato amante (A,  vn, bc), MOe; Garland . Lagrime dolorose, da gli occhi miei venite (B,  rec, bc), MOe; Garland . Spezza Amor l’arco e li strali (S, piff, bsn, bc), MOe; Garland V. Madrigals . Al rigor d’un bel sembiante (‘La Spagn(u)ola’; SAT, bc), GB-Cfm, Lam, Lbl, Ob . Gettano i re dal soglio (SSATB, bc), D-Hs; GB-Cfm, DRc, Lam, Lbl, Lcm, Ob; ed. Colin Timms (London: Novello, ) VI. Doubtful Works (Anonymous unless otherwise stated) a. Chamber Duets . Dite la verità (SB, bc) E. : B-Bc; GB-Cfm, Lbl, Lcm, Ob; US-Wc . Lontananza crudel, tu mi tormenti (SS, bc)

  ’  

.

. . . a. b. . . .

E. : B-Lc; D-BNms (Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei), MÜs; F-Pc; GB-Cfm, Lcm; I-Bc DD.  (‘Stefani’), Mart. . (‘Bernabei’), Bsp (‘Bernabei’), Nc, Pca; DTB, no. . Printed in Nouveaux Solfeges d’Italie avec la Basse (Paris: Bailleux, ca. ) (‘Stefani’) Lungi da l’idol mio (SA, bc) E. b: B-Bc F.  (‘Stefanni’); D-Dlb /F/. (Ercole Bernabei); GB-Lbl RM . f.  (Stradella); I-Bc DD.  (Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei), Mart. . (‘Bernabei’), Bsp (‘Bernabei’); US-Wc M. A.S (Stradella) For a later version of this duet, see Section C/I/. M’hai da piangere un dì, fa quanto vuoi (SA, bc) E. b: GB-Lam (‘Stephani’), Lbl Add. MS ; I-Bc DD.  (‘Stefani’) For a later version of this duet, see Section C/I/. Non voglio, non voglio, no, no (SB, bc) E. : B-Bc; D-Mbs; F-Pn; GB-Lbl; I-Pca; US-Wc Porto ne’ lumi un mare (SS, bc) E. : B-Bc; D-SWl; GB-Lbl (‘Stefani’); I-Fc; US-Wc Quando un eroe che s’ama (SS, bc) B-Bc F. ; D-Mbs, SHs; GB-Er, Lbl Add. MS  (‘Stefani’), Lcm (‘Steffani’); US-Wc Quando un eroe che s’ama (SS, bc) B-Bc F. , vol. ; D-Dlb; GB-Lbl Add. MS ; I-Bc (‘Scarlati’) Son tutto contento, gioisco, sì, sì (AB, bc) D-BNms (‘Steffani’) Trionfate, o mie pupille (SB, bc) D-BNms (‘Steffani’) Vuol il ciel ch’io sia legato (SS, bc) B-Bc; D-Mbs; GB-Cfm, Lbl, Lcm, Ob; I-Fc, Nc; US-Wc (Steffani)

b. Cantatas . Alle lacrime, homai, occhi lucenti (A, bc), GB-Lgc G. mus.  (‘Stephano’) . All’or ch’in grembo all’ombre (A, vn, bc), GB-Lcm MS  (‘Stephani’ in later hand) . Desiava gioire sotto riche cortine (S, bc), GB-Lgc (‘Stephano’), Lwa C. G.  (‘Stephano’); final aria (‘Vezzose pupille, di vostre faville’) only: Lbl Add. MS  (unascribed); US-Cu MSf . O martirio d’amor, che mi trafiggi! (S, bc), A-Wn MS  (Giovanni Maria Pagliardi); GB-Lgc (‘Stephano’), Lwa (‘Stephano’) . Piange la bella Clori, e del suo pianto (S, bc), US-IDt (‘Steffani’) . Qual subterea mole il sol lampeggia (S, bc), GB-Lgc (‘Stephano’); last movement (‘Sembra caro’) only: GB-Lbl Add. MS  (‘Bononcini’), RM . f.  (‘Stefano’), Lwa (‘Stephano’); US-Cu, NYp *Mus. Res. *MN.M (‘Steffani’) . Va girando intorno al suolo (S, bc), GB-Lbl Add. MS  (‘Steffani’ in later hand)





  c. Arias   SCMA, no. 

. . . . . . . . . . . — . . .

Agostino Steffani, Eight Songs for Solo Voice, One or Two Woodwinds and Continuo, ed. Gertrude Parker Smith, Smith College Music Archives, no.  (Northampton, Mass.: Smith College, ). These ‘songs’ come from D-Mbs Mus. ms. , an anonymous four-volume collection of which the contents are attributed by Robert Münster to Pietro Torri.

Alma di donna più spesso impiaga (S, bc), US-IDt (‘Steffani’) Ama, confida e spera (S, bc), GB-Lgc G. mus.  (‘Stephano’) Chi non gode di sua lode (B,  inst, bc), D-Mbs Mus. ms. ; SCMA, no.  Colà de gli Arcadi (B, [fl], bc), D-Mbs; SCMA, no.  Con placido incanto (B, fl, bc), D-Mbs; SCMA, no.  Il pastorello sen’ giace afflitto (S, ob, bc), D-Mbs; SCMA, no.  In ogni loco d’amor il foco (S, bc), GB-Lgc (‘Stephono’) M’influisse il nume arciero (S, bc), GB-Lgc (‘Stephano’) Misero core, tu chiedi amore (S, bc), GB-Lgc (‘Stephano’): possibly the first movement of a cantata with item  Per lusinghe, vezzi e pianti (with recitative ‘Non vivo che ti disperi’; S, bc), GB-Lgc: possibly the second and third movements of a cantata with item  Securo che m’amate (S, vn, va, bc), GB-Lam MS  Sembra caro l’infante Cupido: last movement of Qual subterea mole (item  above) Se non piange afflitto un seno (S, bc), GB-Lgc (‘Stephano’) Vaghi rai del sol ch’adoro (S, vn, va, bc), GB-Lam Vuoi saper perchè nel core (S, bc), D-SWl Mus.  (‘Steffani’): possibly the first movement of a (lost) cantata

VII. Spurious Works a. Chamber Duets The following duets are ascribed to Steffani in one or more manuscript sources but may safely be regarded as unauthentic for musical and/or bibliographical reasons. If the true composer’s name is known, it is given in parentheses. . . . . . . . . .

Ahi, che sarà di me (Alessandro Scarlatti) Cara sposa, io ti lascio Chi dirà che nel veleno (Alessandro Stradella) Chi non sa che cosa è duolo Gran tormento è innamorarsi In amarti, o bella Clori La speranza mi dice ch’io speri Libertà, libertà, gioisci, o core Lidio mio bello

  ’   . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lontan dal suo bene (Carlo Luigi Pietragrua) Mi palpita in seno O care catene Odi, o Lilla (Pietro Torri) O dolci catene O felice l’onda del fonte (Pietragrua) Palesar vuò la mia doglia (Torri: last movement of ‘A voi lumi, a voi tiranni’) Sempre dorme la mia sorte Se più d’una amo, o Cupido Se potessi al seno stringere (Torri) Son lontano da chi adoro Torniamo a le gioie Valli secrete (Torri)

b. Solo Cantata . Bei crini d’oro (S, bc), GB-Lgc G. mus.  (‘Stephano’) Composer: G. Bononcini. Cf. Lowell Lindgren, ed., Cantatas by Giovanni Bononcini (–), The Italian Cantata in the Seventeenth Century, no.  (New York: Garland, ), –  c. Aria . Amor porta le pene (S, bc), GB-Lbl Add. MSS  (‘Stephano’) and  (lacking words; ‘Steffani’), Eg.  (‘Sabatini’); Lwa C. G.  (‘Sabattina’); Ob Mus. Sch. E.  (unascribed) Composer: Bernardo Sabadini, from his opera L’Eusonia (Rome, ) d. Madrigals . Se già t’amai, crudele (SATB, bc), GB-Cfm Mu MS ; Lam MS ; Lbl Add. MSS  and  (all anonymous) Composer: Galeazzo Sabbatini, from his Secondo libro de’ madrigali . . . concertati a due, tre, et quattro voci, op.  (Venice: Alessandro Vincenti, ) . Stracciami pur il core, ragion è ben ingrata ( voices; words by Guarini), B-Br MS Fétis . C. Mus. (‘Steffani’) Composer: possibly Flaminio Tresti or Claudio Monteverdi, each of whom set these words in his Terzo libro de madrigali a cinque voci ( and , respectively)

D. Instrumental Music I. Selections from Operas . SONATE DA CAMERA / à Tre / Due Violini Alto e Basso / del Signore / STEPHANI / Abbate &c. &c. &c. &c. / A AMSTERDAM / Chez Estienne Roger Marchand Libraire [ca. ]. Four partbooks: vn I, vn II, va, bc.





 

.

. . . . .

.

Ed. Lino Pizzolato (Venice: Fondazione Levi, ) These ‘sonatas’ consist of the overtures and selected movements from Steffani’s six full-length Hanover operas. Their publication was announced in the Amsterdamsche Courant on  March  (cf. Lesure, Bibliographie, ). Roger’s catalogues for – , , and  include mention also of ‘Les Ouvertures, Chaconnes & les autres airs à jouer des Opera d’Orlando, Henricus Leo, Alexander, Gli Rivali Concordi, Alcibiades, Gli Triomfi del Fato, composez à  parties par Mr. l’Abbé Stephani’ (cf. Lesure, Bibliographie, and ‘Estienne Roger et Pierre Mortier’, Revue de musicologie,  (), ). No copy of this publication is known. Since ‘Les Ouvertures’ and the Sonate da camera share the same reference number () in Roger’s catalogues, they were presumably identical in content. A-Wn MS : selections in organ tablature from Le rivali concordi, La libertà contenta, Baccanali, I trionfi del fato, Briseide [by Pietro Torri(?)], Orlando generoso, La costanza nelle selve [by Luigi Mancia], and Henrico Leone; copied by ‘C. G[rimm]’, finished  October  B-Bc MS : selections in organ tablature from La superbia d’Alessandro, Orlando generoso, Le rivali concordi, La libertà contenta, Briseide, and La costanza nelle selve B-Bc MS : selections in organ tablature from Henrico Leone, Orlando generoso, Le rivali concordi, La libertà contenta, and Briseide B-Bc MS XY : selections from Baccanali, I trionfi del fato, Briseide, and La costanza nelle selve, grouped into suites for orchestra or ensemble (⫽ vol.  of D-SHs Mus. B:  (– ), below) D-HVl MS IV. : eight items from ‘Enea’ [Amor vien dal destino], transcribed for recorder (‘flutte’) D-SHs Mus. B:  (– ): selections from (in vol. ) Henrico Leone, La lotta d’Hercole, and La superbia d’Alessandro, and (in vol. ) Orlando generoso, Le rivali concordi, and La libertà contenta, grouped into orchestral or ensemble suites (cf. item , above); B:  () is an ‘Haute Contre’ part belonging to () and (). GB-Cmc MSS F-–  (– ):  movements copied by Charles Babel in early eighteenth-century England (see Herissone, ‘Magdalene College Partbooks’).

II. Doubtful Works . ‘Sonata à Violino Solo con Cembalo’ D-WD MS  (‘di Steffani’) Regarded as doubtful by Gerhard Croll (MGG, xii. ); doubtful for stylistic reasons. III. Spurious Works . ‘XII Sonaten für Streichinstrumente mit Continuo’ D-Hs Mus. ms. , Mbs Mus. ms.  (Sonatas , , and  from Hs, copied c. ); US-Nsc (transcription of D-Hs by Alfred Einstein) Sonata no.  in B  major and no.  in C minor ed. as works of Steffani by Erich Schenk in Nagels Musik-Archiv, nos.  () and  (). The title is taken from an old catalogue of the Hamburg library, but as Schenk himself reported in ZMw,  ( – ), , the manuscript is merely a copy

  ’   (in score) of Antonio Caldara’s  Suonate [da chiesa], op.  (Venice: Giuseppe Sala, ). . ‘Sinfonia ’ DK-Kk C I,  (mu .: ‘Stephani’) This is the Sinfonia No.  attributed to Josef Antonín Sˇteˇpán in The Breitkopf Thematic Catalogue: The Six Parts and Sixteenth Supplements,  –, ed. Barry S. Brook (New York: Dover, ), .

E. Writing . QUANTA / CERTEZZA / Habbia da suoi / Principii / la / MUSICA / Et in qual pregio fos- / se perciò presso gli / Antichi. / AMSTERDAM, / M DC XCV / [p. :] RISPOSTA / Di / D. A. STEFFANI / Abbate di Lepsing / Protonotario della San. / Sede Apostolica. / Ad / Vna Lettera del S.r March.e /A. G. / In difesa / D’Vna Proposizione Soste- / nuta da Lui in Vna / Assemblea. / HANNOVERA / Sett. ./ . German translation of above by Andreas Werckmeister: D. A. Steffani, Abtes von Lepsing, und des heil. apostolischen Stuhls Protonotarii, Send-Schreiben, darinnen enthalten, wie grosse Gewissheit die Music aus ihren Principiis und Grund-Sätzen habe und in welchen Werthe und Würkung sie bey denen Alten gewesen. Aus dem Italiänischen ins Hochdeutsche befördert; dann um der Würde und Nutzen, so darinnen enthalten, mit einigen Anmerckungen erläutert und dem Druck übergeben von Andr. Werckmeister . . . Quedlinburg und Aschersleben: Gottlob Ernst Struntz, ; reprint Quedlinburg und Aschersleben: Struntz, . . Revised edition, by Johann Lorenz Albrecht, of no.  above: D. A. Steffani . . . Sendschreiben . . . Jetzt aber aufs neue übersehen, an vielen Orten verbessert, von den vorigen Fehlern gereinigt, mit einer Vorrede und etlichen Zusätzen vermehret, und zum Druck befördert von Johann Lorenz Albrecht, Gymnasii Mülhusini Collega IVtae Classis, et ad B. M. V. Cantor et Director Musices. Mühlhausen: druckts Joh. Christoph Brückner E. HochEdl. Raths Buchdrucker, .



A C
A  S’ O

Table A.. General Structural Analysis Table A. gives an overview of the general musical content of Steffani’s operas. It is based on what appear to have been the first performance versions, with two exceptions: La superbia d’Alessandro is represented by both its original and its revised version (Il zelo di Leonato), because these may be regarded as separate works; I trionfi del fato, on the other hand, is represented only by its revised version, because this replaced the original during its opening season. The information given in the ten columns is as follows: . The title of the opera/version concerned . The number of acts in the opera, including any prologue, ‘introduzione’, or afterpiece . The number of stage sets required . The number of scenes as labelled in librettos and scores and identified by characters’ entries and exits . The number of arias in the opera: with reference to strophic texts, if each strophe is sung to the same music, even by different characters, the setting is counted as one aria (aria in duetto); if the strophes are sung to different music, the settings are counted as two arias . The number of duets . The number of choruses for groups of unnamed characters (e.g., soldiers) . The number of trios and larger ensembles for groups of named principals . The number of orchestrally-accompanied recitatives . The number of sinfonias, i.e., short passages of orchestral music, including marches and incidental music but excluding overtures and sequences of dances at ends of acts



     . 

General Structural Analysis

Opera Marco Aurelio Servio Tullio Alarico il Baltha Niobe, regina di Tebe Henrico Leone La lotta d’Hercole La superbia d’Alessandro Il zelo di Leonato Orlando generoso Le rivali concordi La libertà contenta I trionfi del fato Baccanali Arminio Amor vien dal destino Tassilone a

Acts 3+ ‘Scenico spettacolo’ 3+ Prologue 3 3 3 1 3+ Prologue 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 3+ Introduzione 5

Sets 11 11 9 12 11 3 10 9 10 9 7 11 2 9 12 9

Scenes a

55 74d 53 56 48 21 56e 56 53 48 49 54 24 34 32i 39

Arias b

66 75 66 57 53 19 51 54 57 45 47 50.5g 24 40 49 43

Duets

Choruses

Other ensembles

Accompanied recitatives

Sinfonias

2 1 3 2 4 3 5 5 7.5f 11 6 6 3 3 4 3

— — 1 1 2 — — — — — — 1 — 2 1 4

1 1 — — 1 — 7 3 2 6 2 — 3 1 — —

— 2 — 2 1 — — — — — — 4 — — 3 —

1c 1 3 5 7 1 3 4 1 3 — 7 1h 2 — 2

The ‘scenico spettacolo’ is counted as five scenes (prologue plus four). Excluding the unfinished on-stage aria in I/, but including the one that is completed. c The overture to the ‘scenico spettacolo’. d The prologue is not divided into scenes, so is counted as one. The figures for Servio Tullio exclude the eight additional scenes and ten additional arias in the ‘aggiunta’ to the printed libretto, for which no music is known. e The prologue is not divided into scenes, so is counted as one. f The half is the da capo section of the strophic aria ‘Vive stelle, il sol dà loco’, which is set as a duet. g The half is the second section of ‘Bella dea, che Cipro adora’: the first half of this aria was omitted in revision. h This figure excludes the sequences of dances that occur during the course of the work, some of which are ritornellos to arias. i The ‘introduzione’ is not divided into scenes, so is counted as one. b





 

Table A.. The Accompaniment of Arias (a): Number of Instrumental Lines Table A. gives information on the scoring of Steffani’s aria accompaniments. The versions of the operas are the same as in Table A.. The first two columns give the number of arias in the opera and the number accompanied by continuo (Bc) only. The next three columns analyze the scoring in terms of the number of instrumental staves in the score: ‘Bc + ’ means that the aria is accompanied by an obbligato instrument or unison violins, while ‘Bc + ’ denotes a pair of obbligato instruments, orchestral violins in two parts, or a similar level of ensemble—in all cases with basso continuo. ‘Bc + ’ refers to accompaniments notated on four staves; this normally means orchestral strings and basso continuo, with or without doubling on oboes and bassoon. The next column denotes accompaniments in five or more parts, including those on four staves in which oboes (or recorders) and violins have divergent parts.  .

The Accompaniment of Arias (a): Number of Instrumental Lines Arias with instruments

Title of opera

No. of arias

Bc

Bc + 1

Bc + 2

Bc + 3

Bc + 4+

No.

%

Marco Aurelio Servio Tullio Alarico Niobe Henrico Leone La lotta Alessandro Leonato Orlando Le rivali La libertà I trionfi Baccanali Arminio Amor vien Tassilone

66 75 66 57 51 19 51 54 57 45 47 50.5 24 40 49 43

22 28 33 21 19 8 22 23 24 20 17 21.5 10 8 14 12

— — — — 1 1 — — — 2 1 2 — 2 3 —

4 4 5 6 4 1 5 6 5 5 5a 5 4 5e 4 5f

38 43 15 18 13 8 16 17 21 12 17b 15c 9d 15 20 13

2 — 13 12 14 1 8 8 7 6 7 7 1 10 8 13g

44 47 33 36 32 11 29 31 33 25 30 29 14 32 35 31

66.7 62.7 50.0 63.2 62.7 57.9 56.9 57.4 57.9 55.5 63.8 57.4 58.3 80.0 71.4 72.1

a Including ‘Chi

di te si può fidar’ (II/), in which a different pair of instruments is used in each strophe. amica al cieco dio’ (II/), marked ‘senza Cembali’. c Including ‘La bellezza è luce infida’ (I/), for ‘quinte de flutte’ (G), ‘viol:’ (G), ‘Basses’ (F), and ‘Cembalo’ (F). d Including ‘Cara pace, dolce calma’ (scene ), for oboe, violin, viola, and continuo. e Including ‘Malia possente di dolci lagrime’ (I/) for oboe, violin, lute, and continuo. f Including ‘Di ritrovar ristoro’ (I/) and ‘In faccia a queste pompe funeste’ (II/), both for oboe, violin, and bassoon, and ‘Già mi pento, già spavento’ (V/), for two oboes and bassoon—in all of which the bassoon merely doubles the continuo line. g Including ‘Piangerete, io ben lo so’ (III/) and ‘Sinor foste il mio tormento’ (IV/), in which a solo obbligato instrument accompanies the voice, and the orchestra, in four parts, provides a separate ritornello. b Including ‘Notte

  ’  The last two columns give, respectively, the number of arias with instruments per opera and the percentage that these represent of the total number of arias in the work. Similar calculations are to be found in Marles, ‘Music and Drama’,  – : the figures vary because of our differing treatment of type ‘c’ arias (see Table A., below), but the relative proportions are the same.

Table A.. The Accompaniment of Arias (b): Use of the Instruments Table A. gives information on the structure of those arias that are scored for instruments in addition to continuo. The first column of figures shows the number of arias with instruments in each opera. The remaining columns give the numbers and percentages of arias in each of four categories, depending on how the instruments are used. The ways in which the instruments are used inevitably have a bearing on structure. The four kinds of aria are as follows: Type a: Arias in which one or more instruments plus continuo are employed throughout Type b: Arias in which one or more instruments plus continuo are employed in one section only, usually the a section of a da capo aria Type c: Arias in which one or more instruments plus continuo (normally four-part orchestra) provide a ritornello, but the voice is accompanied by continuo only Type d: Arias in dance metre in which instruments alternate with (and occasionally accompany) the voice  .

The Accompaniment of Arias (b): Use of the Instruments

Opera

Instrumental arias

Marco Aurelio Servio Tullio Alarico Niobe Henrico Leone La lotta Alessandro Leonato Orlando Le rivali La libertà I trionfi Baccanali Arminio Amor vien Tassilone

44 47 33 36 32 11 29 31 33 25 30 29 14 32 35 31

Type a

Type b

Type c

Type d

No.

%

No. %

No.

%

No.

%

12 8 9 6 11 4 9 9 8 9 12 10 1 9 9 19

27.3 17.0 27.3 16.7 34.4 36.4 31.0 29.0 24.2 36.0 40.0 34.5 7.1 28.1 25.7 61.3

12 14 12 13 7 1 9 10 13 6 6 8 5 13 15 6

17 22 9 14 10 2 9 10 10 7 10 6 6 6 7 5

38.6 46.8 27.3 38.8 31.2 18.2 31.0 32.3 30.3 28.0 33.3 20.7 42.9 18.8 20.0 16.1

3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 3 2 5 2 4 4 1

6.8 6.4 9.0 8.3 12.5 36.4 7.0 6.4 6.1 12.0 6.7 17.2 14.3 12.5 11.4 3.2

27.3 29.8 36.4 36.1 21.9 9.1 31.0 32.3 39.4 24.0 20.0 27.6 35.7 40.6 42.9 19.4





 

Table A.. Ostinato and Da Capo Arias Table A. shows the total number of arias, the number of ostinato arias, and the percentage of da capo (including the few dal segno) arias in each of Steffani’s operas. The versions of the operas are the same as in Table A.. Only strict ostinatos are included: quasi-ostinatos (cf. Riemann, ‘Basso ostinato’) are not. For the purpose of this table, a da capo aria is defined as one in which the repeat is indicated by an instruction (‘da capo’ or ‘dal segno’), not written out in full. Since different sources of an opera may vary in their notation of repeats, and since the percentages for Alarico and Tassilone are based on modern editions (in which the notation of repeats may not be identical to that in the sources), these figures should be regarded as approximate.  .

Ostinato and Da Capo Arias

Opera

No. of arias

Ostinato arias (no.)

‘Da capo’ arias (%)

Marco Aurelio Servio Tullio Alarico il Baltha Niobe, regina di Tebe Henrico Leone La lotta d’Hercole La superbia d’Alessandro Il zelo di Leonato Orlando generoso Le rivali concordi La libertà contenta I trionfi del fato Baccanali Arminio Amor vien dal destino Tassilone

66 75 66 57 51 19 51 54 57 45 47 50.5 24 40 49 43

9 8 8a 4 2 2 2 2 1 3 5 4 1 1 1 2

36.4 74.7 83.3 80.7 64.7 31.6 45.1 44.4 65.0 53.3 44.7 35.6 37.5 60.0 61.2 83.7

identified ten ostinato arias in Alarico (DTB, no. , pp. xxiii–xxv), but two of these (‘Non ti voglio, no, no’, I/ and ‘Non sperar di me pietade’, II/) must be regarded as quasi-ostinatos.

a Riemann

Table A.. Recitative Table A. shows the following: . The number of sections of recitative per opera . The percentage of recitatives that modulate, in the sense that they begin in one key and end in another . The percentage of recitatives that end in the key of the following aria, duet, or other number (the few recitatives that are followed by a further section of recitative are omitted from this column)

  ’   .

Recitative

Opera

No. of recitatives

% of recitatives that modulate

% ending in key of following number

Marco Aurelio Servio Tullio Alarico il Baltha Niobe, regina di Tebe Henrico Leone La lotta d’Hercole Il zelo di Leonatoa Orlando generoso Le rivali concordi La libertà contenta I trionfi del fato Baccanali Arminio Amor vien dal destino Tassilone

70 83 65 65 60 25 64 73 58 54 71 30 49 55 49

74.3 50.6 55.4 56.9 56.7 56.0 51.6 60.3 48.3 55.5 49.3 66.7 65.3 50.9 69.4

72.1 92.2 82.8 87.9 92.3 100 89.1 94.9 98.0 93.8 94.7 95.8 100 100 81.8

a It

would be difficult to give separate, dependable figures for La superbia d’Alessandro because of the state of the sources (see Chapter , ‘Problems in the Revision of Alessandro’).



This page intentionally left blank

N




 . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . Bukofzer, Music in the Baroque Era, . . GB-Lbl, Hirsch IV. . . ‘The inclos’d paper contains a short account of the life of as great a musical genius as perhaps any age has produced[;] it was first drawn up for my own private satisfaction, and intended to be prefixed to my own collection of his works; but imagining it might afford some little entertainment to such as had the same taste with myself I thought proper to print a few copies for presents’: John Hawkins to James Harris,  August , in Burrows and Dunhill, Music and Theatre, . . John Hawkins, Life of Dr. Johnson, cited in Scholes, Sir John Hawkins, . . Schmitz, Geschichte der Solokantate and ‘Zur Geschichte des Kammerduetts’. Other publications mentioned in this introduction are listed in the bibliography. . See Timms, ‘What did Handel Learn?’ . See reviews in the Birmingham Post ( November), the Times ( November), the Independent ( November), Opera,  (), – , and Opera Now (May/June ), .

  . ‘Addi  luglio , Agostino, figlio del Signor Camilo de Stievani et della Signora Paolina sua consorte, è stato battezzato da me Padre Iseppo Bresolato Capelano, compadre al fonte messer Gherardo Gherardini, et alli esorcismi il S.or Domenigo Rubini; naque li  d[ett]o’: Untersteiner, ‘Agostino Steffani’, , and Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), , n. . . Castelfranco Veneto, Biblioteca comunale, MS : Melchiori, ‘Catalogo historico cronologico’,  – . A note of  February  in the manuscript states that the latter was copied from another in the archives of the Gradenigo family. Melchiori also compiled the MS ‘Vite dei pittori veneti’ (; I-Vnm): See Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker, eds., Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart,  vols. (Leipzig: E. A. Seemann, – ), xxiv. . . See Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Letter to Giacomo Antonio Stievani ()’. . Baxter, ‘Agostino Steffani’, . . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . ‘ d.  L’Illustrissima Signora Paolina Terzaga Steffani moglie del quondam Camillo Steffani d’anni  di morte naturale fù assistita dall’Ill.mo Padre Antonio Marchetti amalata giorni ii sotto la Parochia di Santa Soffia’: Padua, Archivio di Stato, Ufficio di Sanità, . . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. [i]. . Riccati, ‘Notizie’, . A local nobleman presumably aware of social distinctions, Riccati echoed the document in his phrase ‘di onesta condizione’ (‘Notizie’, ).





   ‒ . See Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Autobiography ()’, lines  – , and translation on p. . . ‘Registro alfabetico di molte famiglie, che furono, e sono benestanti nell’università de cittadini, et solite entrare nei consegli della Communità di Castelfranco’. . Melchiori, ‘Catalogo historico cronologico’, . . ‘ bre  L’Illustrissimo Signor Ventura Terzago d’anni  incirca amalato giorni  di febre maligna morto in Villa di Bruzene alli Arzerini visitato dall’ Reverendissimo Contarini condoto a Padova in Parochia di Santa Sofia’: Padua, Archivio di Stato, Ufficio di Sanità, . . See Chapter , ‘Problems in Padua’. . See Di Luca, ‘Pio Enea II Obizzi’. . ‘ . . . sotto que’ Precettori, che il Comune manteneva a beneficio della gioventù’: Riccati, ‘Notizie’, . . See Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Autobiography ()’, lines  – . . ‘Tanto più sensibile devo io essere ad una memoria si cara, che lo spazio di . anni, la distanza di mille miglia, e l’horrido Parapetto delle Alpi algenti non sono stati capaci di farmi perdere quella stima, di cui Vostra Signoria Illustrissima mi ha honorato nella mia più tenera adolescenza’: Steffani to Frigimelica Roberti,  December : I-Rscge, Archivio Storico, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . Frigimelica to Steffani,  March : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . See Chapter , ‘Retirement and Return’. . Billio D’Arpa, ‘Documenti inediti’, – , and Billio, ‘Contributo’, – . The interior of the basilica is shown in Durante and Petrobelli, Storia, between pp.  and , and in Grove, xviii. . . On the equestrian ballet or torneo, see discussion of Steffani’s Audacia e rispetto in Chapter . . Scores of Demetrio survive in I-MOe and Vnm. Pallavicino’s second opera, Aureliano, also included two ‘young’ roles, but since it was premièred on  February it is probably not the opera in which Steffani sang. . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. [i]. . See Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Autobiography ()’, lines – . . For details of the journey, see Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . Nor, probably, at San Marco: contrary to Caffi (Storia della musica, ed. Surian,  – ), there is no evidence that Steffani was a choirboy there. . See Chapter , n. .

  . See the chapters on Munich and Bavaria in Adamson, Princely Courts; Fenlon, Renaissance; and Buelow, Late Baroque; see also Horst Leuchtmann and Robert Münster, ‘Munich’, Grove, xvii. – , and Stephan Hörner et al., ‘München’, in Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, nd ed, ed. Ludwig Finscher (Kassel: Bärenreiter, –), Sachteil, vi.  – . . See Brunner, Hojer, and Seelig, Residence Munich; Brunner, Altes Residenztheater. . Julia Liebscher and Klaus J. Seidel, ‘Munich’, Opera Grove, iii. – ; BolongaroCrevenna, ‘L’arpa festante’; Rudhart, Geschichte der Oper; Schiedermair, ‘Anfänge’, – . . For synopses of all three, see Schone, ‘Grands fêtes’, – . . D-Mbsa, Kurbayern Hofzahlamt [KH] – ( – ). . Pez was appointed not in  (Grove, xix. ) but from  May , as a court and chamber musician (‘Hoff- und Cammer Musicus’) at  florins per annum (D-Mbsa, KH , f. v).

   ‒ . Münster and Schmid, Bayerische Musikgeschichte, – . . They are identified by the word ‘violist’ in the documents examined, but some of them must have been violinists (see n. ). . See, for example, ‘resolvirt, dero Hof- und Cammer Musico, Georg Alexander Hackh seinen bißhero gehebten Sold biß auf Neunhundertdreÿundneunzig gulden zuvermehren und ihn also anderen Musicanten di prima Classe, gleich zehalten . . . und darmit der anfang vom ersten Julÿ diß Jahrs gemacht werde . . . den . bris [Septembris] Anno ’: D-Mbsa, Fürstensachsen e [FS], f. . . D-Mbsa, FS, f. ; KH , f. v; KH , f. . On Hackh (or Hagge), see n. . . D-Mbsa, KH , f. ; FS, f. . . ‘ . . . Vnd für besaitung der Theorben und Gaigen’: D-Mbsa, KH , f. . . D-Mbsa, KH , f. v. . Bolongaro-Crevenna, ‘Italienische Oper’, . . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . D-Mbsa, FS, f. ; cited in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . ‘. . . dero Hof: und Cammer Musico Augustino Stephanj von dero Hofkeller teglich anderthalb Maß Wein sambt einen par brot gnedigst verwilliget . . . vnd darmit der anfang vom . diß Monats gemacht worden . . . den . Julÿ anno ’: D-Mbsa, FS, f. . . ‘Augustin Stephani Curfrl: Hof: vnd Cammer Musicus ist laut Ordinanz vom .. bris [Octobris] Anno . angeschafft worden, vnd Jerlichen fl. . . . . febr. Anno []’: D-Mbsa, KH , f. . . D-Mbsa, HR I Fasz. , Nr.  [HR], f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . Further drafts of the document are found in D-Mbsa, HR, f.  and FS, f. . . Cf. Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, ; Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), –. . Botstiber, ‘Beitrag’,  – . . D-Mbsa, HR, f. , dated ‘den ersten bris anno ’; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . Another draft of the document appears in D-Mbsa, FS, f. . . ‘Durchleüchtigster churfüersst, gnedigster Herr. Nach Eure churfrst: drtl: gdisten anbevelchen ist dero Cammer Musicus Augustin Stefani Anno  den ersten Octobris beÿ mir in die Kosst eingestanden, und er gang  zu anfang deß gemelten Monats von hier ab: nacher Rom Verraist, daselbs dero gdisten disposition und bevelch gemeß sich in seiner Kunsst mehrers zu perfectioniern . . . Münch den :n Jenner ’: D-Mbsa, HR, f. : partial citation in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, ; cf. Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), –. . D-Mbsa, HR, ff.  and  (two copies); cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . ‘Matheo Salviettj zu dero Cammer-Musico gnedigst an- und aufgenommen, und ihne sowol mit der besoldung, als anderen dero Camer Musicis di prima classe, gleichzuhalten, verwilliget . . . und darmit der anfang vom ersten Julij diß Jahrs gemacht werde . . . München den . Novembris Anno ’: D-Mbsa, FS, f. . . ‘Reverendissimo Padre. Godo che Vostra Paternità sia felicemente gionta à Roma; ove le desidero continoata salute e tutti quelli avenimenti felici, che medesima sà bramarsi acciò Io possa rivederla in buona sorte. Nel resto, comeche aggradisco particolarmente l’avviso ch’ella mi porge e a il profitto, et al core[?] d’Agostino Steffani, ne la ringratio cordialmente, e concorro co’l mio assenso acciò





   ‒ possa ritornarsene, come già ne hò scritto pur ad altri. Nel mentre sia memore della mia Elettorale Casa ne suoi sagrifici; e con volontà ben inclinato, resto’: D-Mbsa, Kasten schwarz [KS] , f.  (the date is a recently pencilled addition); partial quotation in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), –. . D-Mbsa, KS ; cited in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, – , and Della Corte, ‘Qualche lettera’, . . Aldo Stella, ‘Altieri (Paluzzi degli Albertoni), Paluzzo’, DBI, ii. – . . Gianturco, Alessandro Stradella, . . There is no evidence that Steffani was a pupil of Carissimi, as stated in Pratella Balilla, ‘Giacomo Carissimi’, . . Giazotto, ‘Da Congregazione ad Accademia’, and Pagano, ‘Congregazione’. On Steffani’s Cecilian compositions, see Chapter , ‘Early Manuscript Works’. . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . ‘. . . cuius stylum imitari non ex parte, sed totum glorior’. . Definitions: chiastic—from chiasmus, a figure by which the order of words in one clause is inverted in another; paronomasia—a playing on words that sound alike; polyptoton—the repetition of a word in different cases or inflexions in the same sentence; traductio—the close repetition of a word in a different sense. . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (),  –. . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), , n. . . D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . Bernabei was paid by Munich from the date of his resignation from St Peter’s (D-Mbsa, KH , f. ). He received the same salary and allowances as Kerll, and on  November  was also appointed a counsellor (Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, ). . D-Mbsa, FS, f. ; cited in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . Woker, ‘Tondichter’, . . According to the payment ledgers of the Hofzahlamt (see n. ), the organists were Hanns Ludwig Wendler to ; Georg Zellner from  October  to ; André Rauscher from  to at least ; and Vincenzo Bernabei and Dominio Deisel from  April  to at least . . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. ii. . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. [i]. . Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . D-Mbsa, FS, f. ; cited in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . Similar documents in D-Mbsa, HR, ff.  and ; cf. also KH , f. v. . D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . On Steffani’s family, see Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), – ; on Helena Perina, see Chapter , ‘Problems in Padua’. . ‘. . . Ventura Terzago, den Sie in gewissen compositionen gebrauchen lassen wollen, auf ein Jahr vom .. April negsthin Vierhundert Gulden zu Quartalen eingetailter verwilliget . . . Und kann man sich nach verschließung eines Jahrs auff weiteren verhaltswillen wider anfragen . . . München den .. Junij anno ’: D-Mbsa, FS, f. ; KH , f. v. . D-Mbsa, KH , f. . . Terzago ‘ist vom  Julij für ain geheimben Secretarj angeschafft’: D-Mbsa, KH , f. v. On f. , under ‘Gehaimbe Cannzleij’: ‘inhalt ordonanz Ventura Terzago anstatt Herrn Bignidelj vom  Julij diß Jars angeschafft worden dis mit Jerlichen fl. –’.

   ‒ . The following list is based on Sonneck, Catalogue; Stieger, Opernlexikon; Brockpähler, Handbuch; Over, ‘Costanza trionfante’; the sources cited in n. ; and examination of librettos. . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (),  – . . D-Mbsa, KH , f. . . D-Mbsa, FS, f. ; cited in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . ‘. . . tout Paris y estoit’, Le Nouveau Mercure Galant, contenant tout ce qui s’est passé de curieux au Mois de Janvier de l’Anneé  (Paris, ), . . See Chapter , ‘Canon and Chronology’. . ‘Registro / De Libri di Monsignor / Vescovo di Spiga / anno / ’ (Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Archivio della Nunziatura di Colonia, , ff. – v): ‘Essay de Montagne fol: Paris / ’ (f. ); ‘Scarron Virgile Travesti Tom. . / —— Oeuvres Tom . / —— Roman Comique : Paris / ’ (f. v). Steffani also owned an eightvolume ‘Oeuvres de Molière’, published in . . D-Mbsa, KS ; cited in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . Cardinal César d’Estrées ( –) had stopped in Turin on his way back to Paris from Munich, where he had been discussing the dauphin’s forthcoming marriage to Maria Anna Christina of Bavaria. . D-Mbsa, KS ; cited in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . Cf. Couvreur and Aelbrouck, ‘Gio Paolo Bombarda’, . The elector’s illegitimate son Maximilian Emanuel Franz Joseph, the ‘Chevalier de Bavière’, also played the bass viol: he is depicted with the instrument in a portrait () by Louis Silvestre the Younger in the Munich Residenz. . L’Ermione. Drama per musica nel giorno natalizio, e primo di maggiorità . . . di Massimiliano Emanuele . . . M.DC.LXXX. Posto in musica dal S. D. Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei; La Dori. Drama per musica ristampato, e rappresentato . . . agli augusti sponsali . . . di Mariana Christina, delfine di Francia, nata principessa elettorale di Baviera . . . posto in musica dal S. D. Giuseppe Antonio Bernabei; Il litigio del cielo e della terra . . . Torneamento festivo agli augusti sponsali . . . di Marianna Christina . . . Posto in musica dal S. Ercole Bernabei. . D-Mbsa, HR, f. . . D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . The treasury had trouble in adjusting to Steffani’s new salary. Although this was recorded correctly in  (D-Mbsa, KH , f. ), it was shown in  as fl.  plus allowance of fl.  kr.  and addition of fl.  kr.  (KH , f. v), and in  as fl.  kr.  plus allowance (KH , f. ). . The ill feeling continued: in the mid-s Bernabei petitioned the elector for the ‘grazie e vantaggi’ that Steffani had enjoyed (Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, ), and in  – their rivalry split the Düsseldorf Kapelle (Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), ). The Preysings were a large noble family of Bavaria. . See Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . For letters between Kühnel and Munich, see Johann Kaspar Kerll, Ausgewählte Werke, Erster Teil, ed. Adolf Sandberger, DTB, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ), pp. lxxxi–lxxxiii. . D-Mbsa, KH , f. . . D-Mbsa, KH . . Cf. D-Mbsa, KH , f. v, and HR, f.  (cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, ). . ‘ . . . dem Ersamben Priester, dero Hof- und Cammermusico und Organisten auch lieben getreuen, Augustin Steffani auß gewisen Ursachen und gnaden Zwelfhundert gulden’: D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . Gmeinwieser, ‘Altklassische Vokalpolyphonie’, – .





   ‒ . See F. Ragonesi, ‘Theatines’, CE, xiv. – ; A. Sagrera, ‘Theatines’, NCE, xiv. – ; A. Sagrera, ‘Cajetan, St. (Gaetano da Thiene)’, NCE, ii. . . Hüttl, Max Emanuel, – . . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (),  – . . Woker, ‘Tondichter’, , n. . . See n.  above and ( August ) ‘ . . . dem Ersamben Priester, dero CammerMusicDirectori, Augustino Steffani, Zu gewisem Ende, Eintausent gulden Zuverraichen’: D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . See Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Autobiography ()’, lines – ; discussion in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (),  – . . D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . Straub, Repraesentatio maiestatis, . . An Amsterdam () edition also includes the ‘amours’ of Socrates, Julius Caesar, Cato of Utica, Alcibiades, and some of the author’s compatriots. . ‘ . . . ho ridotto un famosissimo Savio della Grecia a venir calcar le Scene della Baviera in figura d’amante’: [Ventura Terzago], SOLONE. / Drama per Musica / Da rappresentarsi . . . NEL CARNOVALE / Del / M.DC.LXXXV. / Posto in Musica dal S. D. AGOSTINO STEFFANI / Direttore della Musica di Cam[er]a . . . / IN MONACO, / Per GIOVANNI JECKLINO, Stampatore / ELETTORALE, sig. Av. . ‘ . . . si conchiude con l’effettuazione del pressaggio, che in vano tenta l’arte umana d’opporsi ai decreti del Cielo, e che tanto piu è da temersi la passione amorosa, quanto che prende sopra di noi una forza superiore a quella d’ogn’altra’: [Terzago], Solone, sig. [A]. . See Colin Timms, ‘Tourney’, Grove, xxv. – . . AVDACIA e RISPETTO / Prerogative d’Amore / Disputate in Campo di Marte. / TORNEO / Celebrato tra i carneualeschi diverti- / menti . . . / Nell’Anno . / Posto in Musica dal S. D. AGOSTINO STEFFANI / Direttore della Musica di Cam[er]a . . . / IN MONACO, / Per GIOVANNI IECKLINO, Stampatore / ELETTORALE; extracts in DTB, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ), pp. xxviii–xxix. . ‘ . . . si vanno accostando uno all’incontro dell’altro i tre Carri, ed al loro moto s’accorda sinfonia strepitosa di Cembali, trombe, e taballi, e di quanti altri stromenti sà produrre in simili incontri l’ingegnosa armonia della Musica’: [Terzago], Audacia e rispetto, . . ‘Usciti della Lizza i tre Carri, resta alle due Squadriglie tutto intiero lo spazio del Campo, e cangiandosi ad un tempo la soaue armonia della Musica in solo strepito sonoro di trombe e timpani, s’accende vie più l’impazienza del marzial paragone così ben negli Audaci come nei Rispettosi Amanti’: [Terzago], Audacia e rispetto, . . D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . ‘ . . . dem Ersamben Priester, dero CammerMusic Directori und lieben getreuen, Augustino Steffani wegen seiner gemachten Zwayen Operen und Zur beyhülfe seiner nach Italia Zu Verrichtung einer BadeCur vorhabenden Raiss, Siben hundert fünffzig gulden gnedigst verraichet’: D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; partial quotation in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . If the phrase ‘quelle due cantatrici’ referred to males rather than females, the singers could have been Johann Baptist Granara and Giovanni Giacomo Rivardini, who were appointed from  March and  April , respectively (D-Mbsa, KH , f. v-). However, this would have been too late for them to sing in carnival , and Granara was immediately given leave of absence. . Riccati, ‘Notizie’, . . Chrysander, Händel, i. . . I-Rscge, Archivio Storico, Fondo Spiga, vol. , col. ; cf. also Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), .

   ‒ . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’,  – , where the date is given as  December . The letter must refer to : related documents are quoted in Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (),  – . . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . Cf. Seifert, Sig-prangende Hochzeit-Gott, – . The marriage was also celebrated in Rome with Carlo Sigismondo Capece’s L’amor vince fortuna (composer unknown): cf. Sonneck, Catalogue, i. . . Unless otherwise stated, the following account is based on Straub, Repraesentatio maiestatis, –, and Neisser, Servio Tullio. . Re  January : ‘ . . . e la gala fù così superba che non si era ancora veduta simile’: diary of Abbé Lantery,  January, cited in Straub, Repraesentatio maiestatis, –. . Reimer, Hofmusik, . . Cf. Grove, i. . . Re  January : ‘ . . . si fece l’opera per la prima volta, la quale è riuscita a meraviglia, essendo una cosa veramente magnifica in tutte le sue parti’: diary of Abbé Lantery,  January, cited in Straub, Repraesentatio maiestatis, . . Description in Straub, Repraesentatio maiestatis, – . . Untersteiner, ‘Agostino Steffani’, . . Rudhart, Geschichte der Oper, . Ernst and his brother Vicentio Lambert (or Lampert) were appointed from  January  (D-Mbsa, KH , f. v), along with Sone (or Sonne), Guthen, and Dens (KH , f. ). Ernst Lambert left on  October  (KH , f. ). . I found evidence of only one female singer at Munich while Steffani was there— ‘die Welschen Singerin Antonia Rivani, die Sie bei Dero Churfrlen Princessin angestellen lassen, Zu Jährlicher besoldung Dreihundert gulden gnedigst verordnet . . . und der anfang darmit von dato gemacht werde . . . München den .. Februarij Anno ’: D-Mbsa, FS, f. . Antonio, Lucia, and Paolo Rivani sang in Florence between  and : cf. Weaver and Weaver, Chronology, , and Opera Grove, iii.  – . Paolo also sang at Munich in , in Kerll’s L’Erinto: Sartori, Libretti, vii. . . Robert Münster, ‘Clementin’, Opera Grove, i. – . For a contemporary opinion of Hader’s singing, see Tarr and Walker, ‘Bellici carmi’, . . Sartori, Libretti, vii. . . Sartori, Libretti, vii. , , . . Cf. Fischer, Musik in Hannover, ; Sartori, Libretti, vii. –; Crowther, Oratorio,  (and private communication); and D-Mbsa, KH , f. v. According to Rudhart (Geschichte der Oper, ), Cottini was a soprano who sang at Munich up to . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . A singer named Navara was employed in the Hanover Schloßkapelle from at least  to  (D-HVsa, Cal. Br. , Nr.  []); Joann Francesco Navara was appointed at Munich on  August  (D-Mbsa, KH , f. ). . Sartori, Libretti, vii. . . See Appendix A, ‘Arrangements for Opera in Munich in ’, esp. lines –. . Lantery wrote on  January that the opera had been premièred on the th: Straub, Repraesentatio maiestatis, . . The wordbook of Diana amante (A-Wn) names Steffani as the composer, but the score is ascribed to Bernabei. . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), , n. . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, , and Della Corte, ‘Qualche lettera’, .





   ‒ . Cf. Weaver and Weaver, Chronology; Wiel, Teatri musicali; Durante, ‘Alcune considerazioni’, esp.  – . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, , and Della Corte, ‘Qualche lettera’, . . D-BNms, Ms Ec. . . ; cf. Marx-Weber, Katalog der Musikhandschriften, . ‘Bel tempo, addio’ is less likely to refer to Stradella’s aria of that name (cf. Gianturco and McCrickard, Alessandro Stradella, ). It is interesting to note, however, that Bernabei’s duet and Stradella’s aria begin with the same theme. Contrary to MGG, xii. , ‘Bel tempo, addio’ and ‘Crede ogn’un’ are not lost duets by Steffani. . D-Mbsa, KH , f. v; KH , f. ; KH , f. v. . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. ii. . See Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Autobiography ()’, lines –. . ‘ . . . la Corte di Baviera. Il torto che vi riceve la beata memoria del mio defonto fratello da chi riconosceva da me solo tutte le sue fortune, e tutte le sue grandezze, mi constrinse ad abbandonarla, anche per dir il vero, di assai mala grazia’: I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . The suggestion was made by Chrysander, Händel, i. , and refuted by Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Cf. Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, ; Leibniz, Correspondance, i. . . Einstein, ‘Briefe der Königin’, . . D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, , and Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . D-Mbsa, KH , ff. –v; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, , and Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol.  (). . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), – and –. . See Dubowy, ‘Ernst August’. . Untersteiner, ‘Agostino Steffani’, .

  . Cf. Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, and Hatton, George I. . Cf. Hauptmeyer, ‘Residenzstadt Hannover’. . Bodemann, ‘Herzogin Sophie’, . For Sophie’s letters, see Doebner, Briefe, and Einstein, ‘Briefe der Königin’,  – . . Cf. Pirro, ‘Remarques de quelques voyageurs’, . . Cf. the account in ‘Leben des berühmten Tonkünstlers’ (), – , which is based partly on Johannes Christoph Lünig, Codex Germaniae Diplomaticus (–). . See Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Autobiography ()’, lines – . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . [Hawkins], Memoirs, pp. iv–v. . Toland, Account, – . . Toland, Account, . . Fauchier-Magnan, Small German Courts, , n. . . Sophie complained of the pomposity and absence of intellectual conversation at Heidelberg: Bodemann, ‘Herzogin Sophie’, . Chrysander (Händel, i. ) described Hanover as possibly the cleverest society in Germany at the time. . Hatton, George I, ; Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii.  – ; Bodemann, ‘Herzogin Sophie’, .

   ‒ . The populations of Wolfenbüttel and Celle were less mixed; cf. Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii.  – . . ‘The Court in general is extremely polite, and even in Germany it is accounted the best, both for Civility and Decorum. The Vice of Drinking (for which the nation is so much branded) is so far from reigning here, that tho no body is abridg’d of his Pleasure in this respect, yet I never knew greater Sobriety, nor a more exact Government in a privat Family’: Toland, Account, . . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Vorkamp, ‘Das französische Hoftheater’. . See especially Fischer, Musik in Hannover; Wallbrecht, Theater; and Sievers, Musik in Hannover and Hannoversche Musikgeschichte. . A list of payments to members of the Kapelle between  and  is preserved in D-HVsa, Cal. Br. , Nr.  ( and ). . These works were found in some organ bellows in Hüpede in : cf. Sievers, Hannoversche Musikgeschichte, i. – . . Abbetmeyer, Zur Geschichte,  – . The manuscript (formerly D-HVl, MS IV. ) has been missing since . . See Chapter , n. . . Cf. Michael Talbot, ‘Venturini, Francesco’, Grove, xxvi. . . Mattheson, Der vollkommene Capellmeister, , § . . Cited in Sievers, Musik in Hannover, . . Sievers, Hannoversche Musikgeschichte, i. . . Sievers, Hannoversche Musikgeschichte, i.  –; Fischer, Musik in Hannover, – . . Schneider, ‘Unbekannte Handschriften’. . Cf. Dubowy, ‘Ernst August’, – , and Timms, ‘George I’s Venetian palace’, – . . Wallbrecht, Theater, – . A Wirtschaft at Munich is described by Menestrier, Représentations, – . . Cf. Wallbrecht, Theater, and Keppler, ‘Agostino Steffani’s Hannover Operas’. . Abbetmeyer, Zur Geschichte, ; Wallbrecht, Theater, –. . Keppler, ‘Agostino Steffani’s Hannover Operas’, – . . The following biography is based mainly on the Nouvelle biographie générale, xxxiv. , and Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . ‘Mais c’est un très bon Prince [i.e., Ernst August], qui aime le repos et les Muses; l’amitié qu’il a pour Signor Hortance Mauro, qu’il a tiré dans son service, en est un signe esvidant’: Bodemann, Briefwechsel der Herzogin Sophie, . . ‘ Sept. [] obiit pie in Domino omnibus sacramentis munitus perillustris Bartholomaeus Hortensius Mauro, oriundus Verona, Regiae Majestatis Britt. Consiliarius et celeberrimus poëta, sepultus  e.m. infra eccles. S. Clementis hic in memoria aeterna erit justus, quia ecclesiae et pauperibus in vivis et post mortem benefecit’: Woker, Geschichte,  and . . Lindgren, ‘Musicians and Librettists’, ,  – ; Stefano Benedetto Pallavicini, Opere (Venice: Giambatista Pasquali, ), iv.  (‘In morte dell’Abate Ortensio Mauro’). . Quadrio, Della storia, iii. pt. , ; however, the libretto is attributed in Stieger, Opernlexikon, I. i. , to O. (or C.) d’Arles. . Einstein, ‘Briefe der Königin’, . Einstein was wrong, however, to suppose that ‘Le fantôme amoureux’ was identical with La fede ne’ tradimenti: cf. James L. Jackman and Dennis Libby, ‘Ariosti, Attilio’, Grove, i. – .





   ‒ . ‘L’abbé Ortense a donné une espésse de sérénade à la petite principoté. Piniatto y représentait Bacus, le fils de Justine Cuppidon et Mr. Grunemeier Vénus. Je m’imagine que la musique éttoit proportionnée à leure beauté’: Bodemann, Briefwechsel der Herzogin Sophie, . . Io non ti voglio, Amor, no; Dimmi crudele, e quando; Cor mio, so che non vuoi; Quando lungi è il mio Fileno; Non era lungi dall’occaso; Va girando Amor; Su, pensieri, all’armi, and Ninfe, piangete il buon Melampo (on the death of a pet dog): I-Bc, MS Mart. .. The manuscript also includes three duets by Pietragrua of which the words are not ascribed: Ben talora in ciel minaccia; Lontan dal suo bene, and Se ti colgo un’altra volta. . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. iii. . Bodemann, Briefwechsel der Herzogin Sophie, , where Böhmer’s first name is erroneously given as Johann. . Johann Tobias Roenick, ed., Recentiorum poetarum germanorum carmina latina selectiora,  vols. (Helmstedt: C. F. Weygand, , ); Joseph Anton Weissenbach, ed., Carmina latina Hortensii Mauri, abbatis, nunc primum seorsim emissa. In usum scholarum (Basel: Emanuel Thurneisen, ). . On Hanover theatres, cf. Wallbrecht, Theater; Werner, ‘Agostino Steffanis Operntheater’; and Boeck, ‘Hannovers barockes Opernhaus’. See also Richter, Johann Oswald Harms, – . . Westermann, ‘Brand Westermann’, , , and . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Chrysander, Händel, i.  –. . ‘Vous sçaurez sans doute qu’a cause du bastiment susdit de l’OpernHauss on a esté obligé d’ouvrir et de transferir la Bibliotheke’: Otto Grote to Leibniz, / May [], cited in Luppi, Specchio, . The collection was stored temporarily in a nobleman’s residence on the Leinestraße, before being moved in  into the house in the Schmiedestraße where Leibniz rented a flat: Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii. . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Cf. Penther, Anleithung zur Bürgerlichen Bau-Kunst, iv. –  and plates – . . Werner, ‘Agostino Steffanis Operntheater’, . . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii. . . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii. ; Hauptmeyer, ‘Residenzstadt Hannover’, . Cf. Wallbrecht, Theater, plates – . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, , suggested that Steffani visited Hanover in early , but the composer was evidently busy in Munich with Niobe (cf. Appendix A, ‘Arrangements for Opera in Munich in ’). . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . ‘Dem Capellmeister Stephani für Papier zu Opern  Thlr.  Gr.’: Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . D-HVsa, Cal. Br. , Nr.  (); edited in Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Cf. Keppler, ‘Agostino Steffani’s Hannover Operas’,  – . . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii. . . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii. . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, – . . Wallbrecht, Theater, . Leibniz’s research came to fruition in his Scriptores rerum Brunsvicensium (Hanover: Nicolaus Förster, –). . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Leibniz, Correspondance, i.  – . Who chose the subject is made clear in the Gantz kurtzer Bericht, []: ‘Was denn endlich die gegenwärtige Opera zu Hannover anlanget, so hat es Ihr. Hoch-Fürstl. Durchl. gnädigst gefallen, den Inhalt derselben, aus einer Geschichte, so sich mit den tapffern, und mehr als Löwen-Muht begabten, Hertzog Heinrich, mit dem

   ‒ Zunahmen der Löwe herzunehmen’. On the political significance of Henrico Leone, see Reese, Rolle der Historie, – . . Luin, ‘Antonio Giannettini’, . It is not clear whether this Giuseppe Galloni was the one employed by Ernst August in Venice in . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Luin, ‘Antonio Giannettini’, . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Croll, ‘Agostino Steffani: Enrico Leone’, . . Librettos entitled Heinrich der Loewe by Heinrich Gottlieb Schmieder () and Bernhard Heinrich Carl Reinhard () are cited in Sonneck, Catalogue, i.  – . . Cf. Sievers, Hannoversche Musikgeschichte, i.  – . . Gantz kurtzer Bericht, [– ]. . Harms did, however, design Hamburg or Brunswick productions of four of them, including Heinrich der Löwe: cf. Richter, Johann Oswald Harms, ,  –, – , , and plates DE  – , , and . . The overture, but not the chorus, is edited in DTB, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ), – ; the chorus is in Marles, ‘Music and Drama’,  – ; see also Croll, ‘S’alza la tenda’, –. A ‘sinfonia avanti l’alzar della tenda’ had opened Giovanni Varischino’s Odoacre (Venice, ): see score in Dubowy, Arie und Konzert, . . Edited in Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, – . Riemann (in DTB, no. , –) transposed the soprano parts of Henrico and his servant (Lindo) to alto and tenor. . Riemann, ‘Bibliographie’, p. viii. For discussion of the opera, see Marles, ‘Opera as Instrumentum regni’. . Wallbrecht, Theater, – . . Cf. the dedication of Marc’Antonio Ziani’s L’inganno regnante (Venice, ), in which he had appeared: Sonneck, Catalogue, i. . . Sartori, Libretti, vii. ; Wiel, Teatri musicali, . . Termini, ‘Singers at San Marco’, . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . See Table .. . Sartori, Libretti, vii.  –. . D-Mbsa, KH , f. ; his name also appears in KH – . . Wallbrecht, Theater,  – . . Sartori, Libretti, vii. . . Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, – . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Sartori, Libretti, vii. ; Weaver and Weaver, Chronology, . . Dean and Knapp, Handel’s Operas, . . Winton Dean, ‘Nicolini’, Grove, xvii. – . . Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, – . . Carlo Vitali, ‘Borosini, Antonio’, Opera Grove, i. ; Sartori, Libretti, vii. . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . The Hanoverian agent in Venice gave him  thalers for travelling expenses: cf. Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Facsimile of score and libretto, ed. John H. Roberts, Handel Sources: Materials for the Study of Handel’s Borrowing (New York: Garland, ), ix. . Leibniz, Correspondance, i. . . Keppler, ‘Agostino Steffani’s Hannover Operas’, , – . . Mattheson, Der musicalische Patriot, .





   ‒ . This was: Der / Siegende / ALCIDES. / In einem / Singe⫽Spiel / Auff dem / Hamburgischen / Schau⫽Platz / vorgestellet. / HAMBURG / Gedruckt bey Nicolaus Spiering / . There are copies of the libretto in A-Wn; B-Br; D-B, Hs, and WRz. The text, in five acts, is an anonymous revision of Johann Wolfgang Franck’s Alceste of  (after Quinault); the composer is not named. . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . See Chapter , ‘Problems in the Revision of Alessandro’. . ‘On representera icy deux Opera, sçavoir celui de l’année passée qui est Alessandro il Grande, et un autre nouveau intitulé Orlando’: Wallbrecht, Theater, . . ‘L’Abbé Hortensio Mauro excellent poete en Italien, François et Latin en [of Orlando] est l’auteur’: Wallbrecht, Theater,  – . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Ebert, Attilio Ariosti, . . Luppi, Specchio, – ; for more on Chiaravalle, cf. Fischer, Musik in Hannover, ; Wallbrecht, Theater, – ; Sartori, Libretti, vii. ; and Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, – . . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. ii. . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Explication des scènes de l’opéra des Rivales unies pour les dames and Erklärung des Sing-Spiehls von den vereinigten Mitbuhlern und Inhalt. . Doebner, Briefe, – ; see also Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Cf. Hauptmeyer, ‘Residenzstadt Hannover’, . . Cf. Robinson, Opera before Mozart, –  and – . . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii.  – . . Die alten Teutschen in einer Wirtschafft vorgestellet Auff der Churfürstl. Braunschweigis. Lüneburgis. Residence Im Jenner Monath : cf. Wallbrecht, Theater,  –. . Malortie, Der hannoversche Hof, . . Malortie, Der hannoversche Hof, . . Keppler, ‘Agostino Steffani’s Hannover Operas’, . . Ibid. . ‘Plutarchi opera .o tom: : / Argentorati ’: ‘Registro De Libri’, f. . . Cf. Caroline Wood, ‘Campistron, Jean Galbert de’, Opera Grove, i. . Alcibiade was printed in various editions of his Oeuvres. . Sartori, Libretti, i. . . Werner, ‘Agostino Steffanis Operntheater’, . . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Robert Münster, ‘Clementin’, Opera Grove, i. – . . Schnath, Königsmark Briefwechsel, letter . Fischer (Musik in Hannover, ) described Clementino as an ‘abate’. . Steffani also visited Padua in , presumably on hearing news of the death of his mother. . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii. , n. . In  –, , and  she sang in Italy: Sartori, Libretti, vii.  (sub voc. ‘Di Chateauneuf ’). . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . ‘. . . car le Carnaval d’icy, qui a ésté une joye pour tout le monde, a ésté bien plus agréable que le Vostre’ ( February/ March ): Wallbrecht, Theater, .

   ‒ . Hatton, George I, – ; Croll, ‘Zur Chronologie’, ; Keppler, ‘Agostino Steffani’s Hannover Operas’, . . The Königsmarck affair is one of the great tragic romances of ‘modern’ times. His sister’s Memoirs of the Love and State-Intrigues of the Court of H[anover] from the Marriage of the Princess of Z[elle], to the Death of Count K[önigsmarc]k were published in . The affair has spawned a play (Carl von Reitzenstein, Graf Königsmark, ), four novels (by Frederick Chamier, ; Sophie Bolander, ; Pierre Benoit, []; Alfred Edward Woodley Mason, ), an opera (Giuseppe Apolloni’s Il conte di Königsmark, Florence, ), and a historical study (William Henry Wilkins, The Love of an Uncrowned Queen, rev. ed, ). The letters of Königsmarck and Sophie Dorothea have been edited by Gaston du Boscq de Beaumont [], Georg Schnath (), and Paul Morand (). . Riemann, ‘Bibliographie’, p. xvi. . The subtitle [p. ] reads as follows: ‘Risposta di D. A. Steffani Abbate di Lepsing Protonotario della San. Sede Apostolica ad una lettera del S.r March.e A. G. in difesa d’una proposizione sostenuta da lui in una assemblea. Hannovera Sett. ’. . Feldkamp, ‘Nachlass’, . . ‘La Musica dunque è ordinata à muovere, à corregere, à cangiare, à sedare le Passioni dell’Animo; Mà per qual forza? O questo è il Punto! Per forza dell’Harmonia. Hora, Come senza Intervallo non è Harmonia, e non è Intervallo senza Suono; Vediamo primieram[ent]e ciò che sia Suono, e come il Musico lo consideri . . . Hora il Musico non considera il Suono cosi, mà come principio di Consonanza, ò d’ogn’altro Intervallo Musicale: onde la vera, e buona Definizione del suono Musico è sonus est vocis casus, cantui aptus[,] in unam tensionem’: Quanta certezza,  –. Steffani then cites the following authorities: ‘Euclid. Introduc. Harmon. Aristox. Harmonic. Elementa, l. I. Gaudenti Harm. Introd.’ His definition stems from the Greek of Aristoxenus (Elements of Harmonics, I. xv. f ) but resembles the Latin of Boethius (‘Sonus igitur est vocis casus emmeles, id est aptus melo, in unam intensionem’: De Musica, i. ). . ‘. . . e credo certo, che chiunque ha voglia d’esser Musico, non contentandosi d’esser Compositore, Cantore, ò Suonatore possa sperimentarlo con grandissima facilità: Il che sia detto per’ animare la Gioventu à non lasciar miseramente perire questa mirabile Scienza, & à non appagarsi di possederne la superficie’: Quanta certezza, . . Godwin, ‘Golden chain’, . . ‘Et sane praestantissimam Mathematicarum esse quis negabit, cujus varios animi motus excitare, sedare, supprimere, moderari, uno verbo, regere, & gubernare peculiarissimum est’. . Cf. Appendix B, section E; the  edition was reviewed in Marpurg, Historischkritische Beyträge, v. Drittes Stück (), – . See also Butt, Music Education, . . Cannon, Johann Mattheson,  – ; George J. Buelow, ‘Buttstett, Johann Heinrich’, Grove, iv.  – . . For Leibniz’s views on music, see Luppi, Specchio; Wallbrecht, Theater, – ; and Sievers, Hannoversche Musikgeschichte, i. – . . Cf. J. P. Kirsch, ‘Prothonotary Apostolic’, CE, xii. . . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Wallbrecht, Theater, . The libretto is in D-HVl, op. , – , . . I trionfi del fato o Le glorie d’Enea: D-HVl, op. , – , . . Journal de Hambourg,  (), ; cf. Timms, ‘The Fate’, –. . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii. . . Act III, scene . Cf. Giovanni Battista Guarini, Il pastor fido, trans. Richard Fanshawe (), ed. John Humphreys Whitfield (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ), .





   ‒ . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Marles, ‘Opera as Instrumentum regni’, . Cf. also Leibniz’s Lettre sur la connexion des maisons de Brunsvic et d’Este (Hanover: S. Ammon, ). . Malortie, Der hannoversche Hof, – , gives the date as / November; Luin, ‘Antonio Giannettini’, –  (quoting the Hamburger Chronik) as  November; and Wallbrecht, Theater,  (quoting Redecker’s ‘Aufzeichnungen’) as  November. . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Malortie, Der hannoversche Hof, – . . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Winton Dean and John Rosselli, ‘Pellegrini, Valeriano’, Grove, xix. ; Celani, ‘I cantori’ (), . . Winton Dean, ‘Scarabelli, Diamante Maria’, Grove, xxii. . . Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, ; Sartori, Libretti, vii. – . . See above, n. . . Cf. Eleanor Selfridge-Field, ‘Fedeli, Ruggiero’, Grove, viii. – . The letters are in I-Rscge, Archivio Storico, Fondo Spiga, vols.  and . . Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, , – . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, ; Wallbrecht, Theater, ; Marles, ‘Music and Drama’,  – . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . On Palmieri, see Crescimbeni, Notizie istoriche, ii. –  and L’istoria, v. –. For details of the libretto, see Riemann, ‘Bibliographie’, p. xiii. . See Timms, ‘Steffani’s Solo Cantatas’, – . . Cf. Luin, ‘Antonio Giannettini’, – . . Ward, Electress Sophie, , n. . ‘. . . e parleremo di Londra, d’Hannovera, di Modana (ove ho la buona sorte d’essere conosciuto) e poi, per corolario, anche di Roma’: Steffani to Giuseppe Riva,  May , discussed in Lindgren and Timms, ‘The Correspondence’, letter . . ‘Poesia da Sigr Conte Palmieri, Musica dell’ Sigr Pietro Torri’: GB-Lbl, Add. MS . . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, – . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Ibid. . ‘Favola Pastorale Per Musica Rappresentata Alla Corte Elettorale d’Hannover Negl’ozzi dell’Estate L’Anno ’: GB-Lbl, RM . h. . For confirmation of the composer, see Keppler, ‘Agostino Steffani’s Hannover Operas’, , . . Riemann, ‘Bibliographie’, p. xv. . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Wallbrecht, Theater,  – . . Toland, Account,  –. . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, ; Wallbrecht, Theater, . . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii.  – . . Hawkins, General History (), ii. , n. . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, . . Cf. Telemann’s autobiography in Mattheson, Grundlage, . . Bromley, Rise of Great Britain, , ; Hatton, George I. . See Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Autobiography ()’, lines  – .

   ‒ . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii. ; Bittner and Gross, Repertorium, i. . I am grateful to Eddy Bénimédourène for sight of his unpublished paper ‘Agostino Steffani in Brussels: Power and Music’, read at the conference ‘Six siècles de vie musicale à Bruxelles’ in October . . ‘Abbé Steffani den ietzigen abgeordneten nach Brussel’; ‘Auf Commissionen und Verschickungen’: Keppler, ‘Agostino Steffani’s Hannover Operas’, . . D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c. Nr.  (– ). On Holste ( – ) and Barckhausen (died ), see Lampe, Aristokratie, ii.  and , respectively. . ‘. . . kümmerliche Herberge’: Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii. . The following summary takes no account of Kaufold’s Musiker als Diplomat. . Cf. Bromley, Rise of Great Britain, esp. chapters  and . See also Kirkendale, ‘War of the Spanish Succession’. . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . The following dates are given in Bittner and Gross, Repertorium, i. , , and : Cologne—first audience  May , last dispatch  July ; Düsseldorf—credentials  May /  June , recredentials  July ; Trier—first audience  January , recredentials  July . . Cf. Bothmer and Schnath, Aus der Erinnerungen, . . Couvreur and Aelbrouck, ‘Gio Paolo Bombarda’, . On the cultural life of the Bavarian court, see Couvreur and Aelbrouck,  – , and Schmidt, ‘Geographical Spread’,  – . . See Chapter . Violanta Beatrice’s letters to Steffani are in I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; extracts in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, – , and Della Corte, ‘Qualche lettera’, – . . Marx, ‘Musik am Hofe’, . . ‘Dall’Imperiale. . bre. . Sig.r Abbate Io non voglio lasciare in dietro la risposta alla sua lettera, con tutto che l’applicazione al componimento d’una mia Commedia tenti stasera di distormene. S’ella fosse piu vicina le farei serrare un luogo per sentirmela recitare privatamente colle mie Dame d’onore: ma la distanza le invidia il trovarsi spettatore a questa rappresentazione, che mi fa sperare una riuscita plausibile. Ella dunque ci stia presente collo spirito, e col desiderio, mentre per finire il terzo Atto, lascio di scrivere; ma non gia d’essere Affezionata La principessa di Toscana’: I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol.  (not in Loschelder or Della Corte). . Cf. Yorke-Long, Music at Court, –, and Sievers, Hannoversche Musikgeschichte, i. –. . The libretto is discussed in Sievers, Hannoversche Musikgeschichte, i. – . . Ariosti’s La festa del Himeneo (with Karl Friedrich Rieck; libretto by Mauro; ), Atys, o L’inganno vinto dalla costanza (Mauro; ), La fede ne’ tradimenti (Gerolamo Gigli; ), Le fantôme amoureux (), and Mars und Irene (Christian Reuter; ); and Bononcini’s Cefalo (Anastasio Guidi; ) and Polifemo (Ariosti; ). . Sophie Charlotte’s letters to Steffani are in Hanover, Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Cal. Br. c, Nr. , and were published in Doebner, Briefe, – . Many of them give no year of writing. Dates were suggested by Doebner, but for some letters alternative dates were proposed by Einstein (‘Briefe der Königin’). I adopt Einstein’s suggestions. Steffani’s letters to Sophie Charlotte were reported to be in the Hausarchiv, Charlottenburg, when edited by Ebert (‘Briefe Agostino Steffanis’). . Doebner, Briefe, –. . Singakademie manuscripts of Steffani duets are currently on deposit in the Music Department of the Staatsbibliothek in Berlin. For discussion of this manuscript (SA ), see Einstein, ‘Briefe der Königin’,  – .





   ‒ . This inscription is taken from US-AA, MS M..SD. . For the revision of the duets, see Chapter . . Leibniz, Correspondance, iii. – . . Ebert, Attilio Ariosti,  – . . Hawkins, General History, ii. – . . According to Donald Burrows (‘Handel and Hanover’, , n. ), if Hawkins was wrong in reporting Handel’s age as ‘under twenty’, the passage could refer to . Although it could conceivably do so, the references to the elector’s children and their marriages would still make better sense in relation to .

  . On the history of Düsseldorf, cf. Lau and Most, Geschichte, and Lau, ‘Regierungskollegien’. . Cf. Kühn-Steinhausen, ‘Briefwechsel’ and Letzte Medicäerin. . Cf. Haskell, Patrons and Painters; – ; Knox, Antonio Pellegrini; and West, Italian Culture. . See Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Autobiography ()’, lines – . . Unless otherwise stated, the following account is based on Woker, Aus den Papieren. . D-DÜha, Jülich-Berg III R Landrentmeisterei Nr.  and . . His ‘Journal. De la Haye’ for the period  June to  July  is in D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr. , ff.  – (recte  – ). . Cf. Weisert, Verfassung, – ,  –, . . Feldkamp, ‘Nachlass’, – . . Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Autobiography ()’, lines – . . He also contemplated leading an army to Armenia to free Armenian Christians and take the royal crown: cf. Heigel, ‘Über den Plan’. . Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’,  – . . The citation is given in Riccati, ‘Notizie’, . . The letter is quoted in Riccati, ‘Notizie’, . . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. iv. . Martini, Esemplare, ii. . . Hawkins, General History (), ii. . . Ritzler and Sefrin, Hierarchia catholica, . . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. iv, n. . Cf. Bittner and Gross, Repertorium, i. . . Sophie’s letters to Steffani are in D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr.  and . . Feldkamp, ‘Nachlass’, . . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii. . . Ward, Electress Sophie,  – . . In addition to Woker, cf. Bromley, Rise of Great Britain, chapters  and ; Frey and Frey, Treatises; and Dickinson and Hitchcock, War of the Spanish Succession. . Steffani to Count Antonio Maria Fede,  September : I-Rscge, Archivio Storico, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . Bittner and Gross, Repertorium, i. : credentials  September ; recredentials  October. . D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr. , f. ; cited in Doebner, Briefe, – . . Ritzler and Sefrin, Hierarchia catholica, . The brief is dated  February: Feldkamp, ‘Nachlass’, , n. .

   ‒ . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . P. C. van Lierde, ‘Assistants to the Pontifical Throne’ and ‘Domestic Prelate’, NCE, i.  –  and iv. . . D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr. ; German version in Lipsius, Musikerbriefe, i. – . . The painting cannot be identified. The elector palatine owned several works that were thought to be by Carracci: cf. Catalogue des tableaux qui se trouvent dans les galleries du palais de S. A. S. E. Palatine a Dusseldorff (Mannheim, [?]) and Nicolas de Pigage, La galérie electorale de Dusseldorff ou Catalogue raisonné et figuré de ses tableaux (Basel: C. de Mechel, ). A ‘Portrait of a Man’ that is known to have been in Düsseldorf before , and then in Munich, is catalogued in Posner, Annibale Carracci, ii. , no. [R]. The dimensions of this painting are similar (but not identical) to those of two portraits attributed to Carracci in the eighteenthcentury catalogues. Posner argues that the surviving portrait is by Agostino Caracci, not Annibale. . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, . . Ed. Kühn-Steinhausen, Rapparini-Handschrift; cf. Croll, ‘Musikgeschichtliches’. . Kühn-Steinhausen, Rapparini-Handschrift, . . Cf. Walter, Geschichte; Einstein, ‘Italienische Musiker’; Zobeley, ‘Zur Hofmusik’; Brockpähler, Handbuch, – . . ‘. . . il m’a paru comme une charette mal graissée et il faut bien que l’electeur n’aime pas la musique’: Sophie Charlotte to Steffani,  December []: D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr. , ff.  – ; cited in Doebner, Briefe, . . Zobeley, ‘Zur Hofmusik’, . . Michael Talbot, ‘Corelli, Arcangelo’, Grove, vi. . . Einstein, ‘Italienische Musiker’,  –. . Einstein, ‘Italienische Musiker’, . . Einstein, ‘Italienische Musiker’, . . ‘Combien de fois, estant à l’Opera, n’avons nous pas dit l’un à l’autre: Oh! Madame l’Electrice pourquoy n’est elle pas icy? Vous la verriez, luy disois-je, faire ce que fay: Et quoy? chanter l’Opera d’un bout à l’autre. Il est vray, Madame, que ce Ministre peut dire d’avoir Opera devant luy, et Opera à costé’: Ebert, ‘Briefe Agostino Steffanis’, . . Cf. Sibylle Dahms, ‘Pallavicino, Stefano Benedetto’, Grove, xix. –; see also Lindgren and Timms, ‘The Correspondence’. . See Chapter , n. . . Cf. Gottron, ‘Joseph Paris Feckler’. . Ibid., – . . Zobeley, ‘Zur Hofmusik’, –. . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. v. . Cf. Timms, ‘Gregorio Piva’. . Steffani to Fedeli,  November : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Riccati, ‘Notizie’, , and Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, . . A wordbook survives (cf. Croll, ‘Musik und Politik’, ), but my enquiries failed to turn it up; the libretto is not in Pallavicini’s posthumous Opere (). . See Chapter , ‘Arminio: Apologia pro Pasticcio’. . See above, pp. – . According to Walter, Geschichte, , Amor vien dal destino was repeated at Düsseldorf in : no evidence of this has been found. . Timms, ‘Gregorio Piva’, –. . Cf. Croll, ‘Vorwort’.





   ‒ . Cf. Agostino Steffani, Tassilone, ed. Gerhard Croll, Denkmäler rheinischer Musik, no.  (Düsseldorf: Schwann, ), . Zobeley (‘Musik’, ) claimed that Tassilone was ready in , but did not adduce any evidence. . Tassilone, ed. Croll, p. vi. . See above, p. . . Sartori, Libretti, vii. . . Winton Dean and John Rosselli, ‘Pellegrini, Valeriano’, Grove, xix. . . Sartori, Libretti, vii. . . Sartori, Libretti, vii. – ; Weaver and Weaver, Chronology, p. vi; Wiel, Teatri musicali. . See (respectively) Lindgren, ‘Musicians and Librettists’, , and Rosselli, ‘Castrati’, . . Winton Dean, ‘Baldassari, Benedetto’, Grove, ii. – . . Einstein, ‘Italienische Musiker’, . . Wiel, Teatri musicali, . . Roland Würtz and Paul Corneilson, ‘Santorini, Lorenz’, Grove, xxii. . . Sartori, Libretti, vii. . . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. vii. . See above, p. . . Woker, Aus den Papieren,  – . . Deutsch, Handel, . . Fischer, Musik in Hannover, .

  . Unless otherwise stated, the following account is based on Woker, Agostino Steffani; Metzler, Die apostolischen Vikariate; Pastor, History of the Popes; Tüchle, ‘Mitarbeiter und Probleme’; and Feldkamp, ‘Nachlass’, – . . Tibus, Geschichtliche Nachrichten,  – ; Gatz and Janker, Bischöfe, , – . Tibus (p. ) also lists Steffani as suffragan of Paderborn from  to . . Cf. his death certificate, cited by Riccati (‘Notizie’,  – ), translated below (p. ). . He was still addressed as ‘Ministre d’Etat de S. A. E. Palatine’ on  February : I-Rscge, Archivio Storico, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . Woker, ‘Der apostolische Vikar’, . . On the Catholic community in Hanover, see Woker, Geschichte. . Gottron, ‘Joseph Paris Feckler’, – . . Haug, ‘Propsteikirche’. The church was destroyed by bombing in  but rebuilt in – . . Knox, Antonio Pellegrini, – . Steffani commissioned the paintings in ; see n. , below. . Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, . . Hiltebrandt, Preussen und die römische Kurie, . . Einstein, ‘Italienische Musiker’, . . Cf. Woker, Aus norddeutschen Missionen. . Zobeley, ‘Zur Hofmusik’, . . The itinerary survives in I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , and is published in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’,  – . For Steffani’s account of his visit to Brandenburg and his memorandum on the state of religion there and in Brunswick (both ), see Wittichen, ‘Zur Geschichte’,  – . . Hiltebrandt, Preussen und die römische Kurie, , n. .

   ‒ . ‘Pro Memoria toccante le spese d’un Vicario Apostolico’, dated Padua,  May to  July : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols.  – . . The names and signatures of some of his staff appear in his register of ordinations: cf. Feldkamp, ‘Nachlass’, , n. . . ‘. . . un Paese [Hanover], nel quale invincibilmente si spende più in tre Mesi, che nella mia Patria in un anno’: Steffani to [Pietro(?)] Pariati,  December : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols.  – . . Woker, ‘Der apostolische Vikar’, . . Hiltebrandt, Preussen und die römische Kurie, . . Woker, ‘Der apostolische Vikar’, . . Hiltebrandt, Preussen und die römische Kurie, . . Cf. Hiltebrandt, Preussen und die römische Kurie, . . Unless otherwise stated, the following account is based on Woker, ‘Der apostolische Vikar’ and Agostino Steffani, – . . Woker, ‘Der apostolische Vikar’, . . Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Autobiography ()’, lines – . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . Ibid. . Ibid. Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’,  – , gives the beginning and end of this letter. . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol.  (). In  Checati, or Checcati, received statements from Mori about the finances of Carrara, and on  December he informed Steffani that he had been approached by Lazzara and Frigimelica Roberti: D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c. Nr. . . Signora Franchini’s maiden name was apparently Cittadella: she signed herself (in ) as Paola Emilia Cittadella Franchini (cf. D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c. Nr. , ff. , , , , ). She perhaps was related to the count Cittadella mentioned in Steffani’s letter of  July  to Ortensio Mauro (see above, pp. ‒). . Woker, ‘Tondichter’, . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol.  (). . D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr. , f. . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , f. . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol.  (). . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; extract in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, . . D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr. , ff.  and . . Woker, Agostino Steffani, . Cf. also Ceoldo, Memorie, – , where Steffani’s predecessor is wrongly given as Cosimo III De’ Medici. . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; for extract in German, see Kühn-Steinhausen, ‘Briefwechsel’, – . . D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr. , f. . This file (Nr. ) contains regular reports from Mori to Steffani, from August  to December . . Woker, ‘Tondichter’, –. . Castelfranco Veneto, Biblioteca comunale, MS : Melchiori, ‘Catalogo historico cronologico’, . . Frigimelica Roberti to Steffani,  January : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol.  (). . Ceoldo, Memorie, . . See n. .





   ‒ . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; most of the letter is cited in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’,  – . The Venetian Count Eustachio Mocenigo had been captain of the horse of the dragoon guard at Celle: Feldkamp, ‘Nachlass’, . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol.  (). . Ceoldo, Memorie,  – . . A document on the financial arrangements between Steffani and his successor refers to ‘la prima rata del . Tempo in cui segui la rassegna dell’Abadia’ and to ‘la p.ma rata, che cadeva in Giugno dell’anno scorso ’: I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ,  January . . Melchiori, ‘Catalogo historico cronologico’, . . Hiltebrandt, Preussen und die römische Kurie, , n. . . Woker, Agostino Steffani, . . The evidence consists of: () letters of Abbate Sebastiano Mattei, auditor of the nuncio of Venice, dated  December  to  June  (I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cf. Riccati, ‘Notizie’,  –  (the volume was numbered  when Riccati saw it)); () a ‘Pro memoria’ by Steffani, dated  November , and other papers relating to Carrara (D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr. ). Steffani stated that his pension stood at , scudi per annum. . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . I-Fc, MSS D. , , and . . Melchiori, ‘Catalogo historico cronologico’, . . Frigimelica Roberti to Steffani,  February : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol.  (). . See Chapter , n. . . Woker, Agostino Steffani, . . Steffani to Lazzara,  August : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . The letters are in I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cf. Feldkamp, ‘Nachlass’, , . Bossis’s first name appears in a copy of a letter to him, dated  October , from Abbate Giovanni Troisio, Steffani’s agent in Rome: Fondo Spiga, vol. . . Cf. Symcox, Victor Amadeus II, – . . Steffani to Frigimelica Roberti,  and  April : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols.  and . . Steffani to Mauro,  August : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , col. . . Steffani to Frigimelica Roberti,  November : ‘In due parole; io esco da Cà Frigimelica, e ritorno al mio primo Quartiere in Cà Contarini’; then on  December : ‘ . . . il mio passaggio dal suo Palazzo à Cà Contarini . . . che son uscito da Casa sua, e mi sono privato delle sue generose grazie’: I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols. – and  – . . Cf. Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Letter to Giacomo Antonio Stievani ()’. ‘Sant’Anar’ was presumably the colloquial contraction for Sant’Annunziata nell’Arena, which later became known as the church of the Madonna dell’Arena. . Steffani to Mauro,  July : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols. – . . Steffani to Mauro,  February : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols. – . . Melchiori, ‘Catalogo historico cronologico’, . . For Steffani’s letter to Stievani, see Appendix A. . ‘Dunque Io son partito senza Intentione di ritornare . . . Ella naturalmente mi domanderà, perche dunque non havendo Intentione di ritornare à Hannovera, hò colà sempre nodrita la speranza del mio ritorno. Ed Io risponderò che l’hò fatto, perche temevo, che quando questa speranza svanisse, lo stato della Religione peggiorasse’: Steffani to Giuseppe Sorosina,  August : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols.  – . . Woker, Agostino Steffani, . Unless otherwise stated, the following account is based on Woker, Agostino Steffani,  –  and ‘Der apostolische Vikar’,  – .

   ‒ . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols.  – . . Steffani to Mauro,  September : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols. – . . See Chapter , n. . . Lindgren and Timms, ‘The Correspondence’, Letter . . Talbot, Vivaldi,  – . . Pietragrua to Steffani,  September : ‘ . . . non ò mancato di parlare al Signore Pellegrini circa i due quadri per la di lei bella chiesa . . . se però Vostra Signoria Illustrissima puole aspettare egli promette di servirla al principio d’inverno senza fallo’: I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; see Lindgren and Timms, ‘The Correspondence’, Letter J. . German translation in Woker, ‘Der apostolische Vikar’, . . ‘Pro Memoria. Le ragioni, per le quali Monsignor Vescovo di Spiga deve naturalmente giudicare, che il suo soggiorno in Hannovera sia inutile’: I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , col. . The document, undated, is found between letters of  and  February . . Hiltebrandt, Preussen und die römische Kurie,  – ,  – , and . . Gottron, ‘Joseph Paris Feckler’, . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . ‘Kaman’ was possibly ‘N. Kaminski’, ‘Serenissimi organifex’ at Düsseldorf in or from  (cf. Lau, ‘Regierungskollegien’, ); his name is not in Boalch, Makers of the Harpsichord and Clavichord. . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, – . . Cf. Theil and Rohr, Libretti, . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, – . . Ibid. . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, . . D-BFb, Sign. C-ha ; the piece is ascribed to Steffani but not identified. . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . Ibid. . See below, p. . . Steffani to Fedeli,  November : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, . . Fedeli to Steffani,  December : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, . . Steffani to Fedeli,  January : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . Lau, ‘Regierungskollegien’, ; see also Lindgren, ‘Carriera di Gaetano Berenstadt’. . Zedler, Universal Lexicon, xxiii. . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . German translation in Loschelder, ‘Agostino Steffani’, . . Winton Dean, ‘Pilotti-Schiavonetti, Elisabetta’, Grove, xix. ; Dean and Knapp, Handel’s Operas, . . ‘Questo è l’ultimo che fece nel  essendo Prelato e lo fece ad Herten Feudo dei Signori Conti di Nesselrod in Vesfalia vicina a Vesels’: I-Fc, MS D. , p. . . Cf. MGG, xii.  – ; Lindgren, ‘Count Rudolf Franz Erwein von Schönborn’; Zobeley, Die Musikalien. . Knox, Antonio Pellegrini, – . . I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; for extracts concerning music, see Lindgren and Timms, ‘The Correspondence’, Letters A–K. Only one of Steffani’s replies survives (see n. ). . ‘ . . . che li duetti sono in pieno lavoro p[er] essere copiati’: Steffani to Schönborn,  April : Wiesentheid, Graf von Schönborn’sches Archiv, Johann Philipp Franz, .





   ‒ . ‘ . . . la cascettina coi duetti, che sento istradata a questa volta, mi sarà di gran dilettamento doppo il mio ritorno da questi boschi, dove stò divertendomi colla caccia de’ cervi’: Schönborn to Steffani,  September : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . ‘ . . . devo communicar a Vostra Signoria Illustrissima la notizia ricevuta da Roma dal Bencini di due castrati, l’uno soprano, l’altro contr’alto, che cantano all’anima. Crede questo, che tutti due accettarebbero il partito. Se dunque il contr’alto di V.a S.a Ill.ma non volesse risolversi, la prego d’avvisarmelo quanto prima per potermi valer della congiontura a pigliar il contr’alto detto di Roma’: Schönborn to Steffani,  October : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . The incident was reported to Steffani by Franz Ludwig Fichtl, secretary and councillor to Johann Philipp Franz von Schönborn, in a letter dated  March : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . Twenty-eight letters from Steffani to Riva are extant in Modena, twenty-one from Riva to Steffani in Hanover: cf. Lindgren and Timms, ‘The Correspondence’, and Timms, ‘Music and Musicians’. . See Deutsch, Handel, – . . Cf. Timms, ‘George I’s Venetian Palace’. . Riccati, ‘Notizie’, . . Cf. Barbieri, ‘Calegari, Vallotti, Riccati’. . Hawkins, General History (), ii.  and . . Both forms of the text are found in early printed sources of the work. . Cf. the original minute-book (GB-Lbl, Add. MS ), and Timms, ‘Steffani and the Academy’. . Hawkins, Account of the Institution, in Scholes, Life and Activities, . . Hawkins, General History (), ii. . . The copy in GB-DRc, MS E., p. , is headed: ‘Abbas Stephano— Voc: Sent to our Academy at ye Crown Tavern ’. . Timms, ‘Music and Musicians’, – . . ‘. . . Abbatem Steffani, Spigae episcopum, qui dum nomen suum nostris tabulis inscribi rogavit, praeses unanimi omnium consensu est electus’: [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. v. . For Galliard’s description, see Timms, ‘Music and Musicians’,  – ; for discussion, see Timms, ‘Italian Church Music’,  – . . Cf. Timms, ‘Steffani and the Academy’, . . Timms, ‘Gregorio Piva’, – . . Chrysander, Händel, i. ; Sievers, Hannoversche Musikgeschichte, i.  – ; Marx-Weber, ‘Domenico Scarlattis Stabat Mater’, , n. . . Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, . One wonders whether Steffani’s contact was the Jesuit Philipp Bauer, professor of theology at Mainz University in : cf. Zedler, Universal Lexicon, Supplement, ii. . . ‘Registro / De Libri di Monsignor / Vescovo di Spiga / anno / ’: Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Archivio della Nunziatura di Colonia, , ff.  – v. . Riccati, ‘Notizie’,  – . . Cf. her letters of the cited dates, I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . ‘. . . da una molesta flussione, e da un continuo giro di testa’: D-Mbsa, HR, f. ; cited in Maier, ‘Archivalische Excerpte’, . . ‘La mia oppressione di cuore, et intermittenza di polso troppo mi tormenta da qualche giorni in qua per non sperare che Vostra Signoria Illustrissima non prenda in mala parte che io m’astenga di scrivere di proprio pugno’: Steffani to Paolo Emilia Franchini,  April : D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr. , f. .

   ‒ . Steffani to Paola Emilia Franchini,  February : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . It seems likely that he suffered from what is now known as Seasonal Affective Disorder. . D-HVsa, Cal. Br. c, Nr. , f. . . ‘Rimedi sperimentati contro il male di calcoli’: I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . The document, undated, is preserved between letters of  October and  November . . ‘. . . pour ne pas manquer dans une chose qui n’est pas de petite consequence, puisqu’il s’agit des yeux, je vous supplie de m’éclaircir là dessus pour savoir ce que je dois prendre pour meler avec l’oeuf ’: Steffani to Count Nesselrode-Reichenstein,  May : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. , cols. – . . Count Nesselrode-Reichenstein to Steffani,  January : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. . . For the Latin original, cf. Riccati, ‘Notizie’, – . . The following account is based on Feldkamp, ‘Nachlass’,  – ; see also Einstein, ‘Notiz’. . ‘ . . . et sedulo injunximus, ut tabulas et acta omnia antedicti Episcopi [Spigacensis] recipiat, atque ad Sacram Congregationem negotiis Propagandae Fidei prepositam transmittat’: Benedict XIII to Lothar Franz von Schönborn,  May : Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Epistolae ad Principes (Benedictus XIII, anno ), cii.  – . . Riccati, ‘Notizie’, . . Woker, ‘Der apostolische Vikar’, . . Cf. Metzler, Die apostolischen Vikariate. . Roberts, Diary of Viscount Percival, i. .

  . Cf. Alexander Ringer, ‘Education in Music, IV: –’, The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie,  vols. (London: Macmillan, ), vi. –. . Roche, ‘Liturgical Music’, . . For nine concertos and a discussion of Kerll and his works, see DTB, no. . . Ed. Albert C. Giebler, Recent Researches in the Music of the Baroque Era, no.  (New Haven: A-R Editions, ). . Bernabei’s posthumous Sacrae modulationes for five voices, two violins, and continuo (Munich, ) are probably too late to have influenced Steffani in Rome. . Borgir (Performance of Basso Continuo, ) challenges the use of the term ‘basso seguente’ for a continuo line that duplicates the lowest sounding part, and proposes the term ‘dependent bass’. . GB-Lbl, Add. MS ; ed. Rudolf Ewerhart, Cantio sacra, no.  (Cologne: Edmund Bieler, ). . Cf. Heinrich Schütz, Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke, v (Kassel: Bärenreiter, ), pp. vi–vii. . Gmeinwieser, ‘Altklassische Vokalpolyphonie’, . . On seventeenth-century Roman vespers, see Heyink, ‘Al decoro della Chiesa’. . ‘In the course of his studies he had composed several masses, motets, kyries, magnificats, and other essays in the church style, which he thought proper now to exhibit; and accordingly they were occasionally performed in the chapel at Munich’: [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. ii. . Martini, Esemplare, ii. , . . Patrizio Barbieri, ‘Chiavette’, Grove, v. – , and Barbieri, ‘“Chiavette”’, esp. at  and  – . . Cf. Bradshaw, Falsobordone. . Smith, ‘Liturgical Music’, .





   ‒ . The manuscript was given to the Fitzwilliam Museum in  by a Miss Emily Gregg, who had bought it, according to a note inside, ‘at the sale of Bartleman’s library’; it was lot  (cf. A Catalogue of the very Valuable and Celebrated Library of Music Books, late the property of James Bartleman Esq [London, ], ). Miss Gregg also bought the manuscript score of the twelve motets in Steffani’s Sacer Ianus quadrifrons (GB-Lcm, MS ) that had belonged to the Academy of Vocal Music. . Cf. Timms, ‘Gregorio Piva’, – . . Lauda Jerusalem is in E minor and in chiavi naturali, Triduanas a Domino in C major and in chiavette. . The organ is required throughout, but the score provides a bass line for it only in verses  (where the instrument is named), , and . . The duets are marked ‘soli’ and the full portions ‘tutti’. ‘Soprano’ is used in this book to mean the highest vocal part, whether sung by a boy, falsettist, castrato, or woman. . Farmer, Oxford Dictionary of Saints, . In the Liber usualis, however, the feast is allocated to  July. . On the aria cavata, see below, pp.  and  ‒ . . Cusins, ‘Steffani’, . . Psalmodia vespertina survives in D-Mbs; I-Bc, PIp (CI and BI only), Rli, Rsg (two copies, one lacking AI), and Rsmt. . ‘ . . . Te fidei propugnaculum, Imperii Clypeum, Germaniae Decus, Bavariae delicium, subditorum Patrem, Musicorum mecaenatem amplissimum’: Sacer Ianus quadrifrons, dedication, [– ]. . Einstein, ‘Agostino Steffani’ (), . . DTB, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ), – . . DTB, no. , . . DTB, no. , – . . See below, pp.  ‒ . . Smith, ‘Liturgical Music’, . . Kümmerling, Katalog der Sammlung Bokemeyer; see also George J. Buelow, ‘Bokemeyer, Heinrich’, Grove, iii.  –. . See Lindren and Timms, ‘The Correspondence’, letters , , , A, and B. . For Galliard’s letter to Riva ( July ), and fuller discussion, see Timms, ‘Music and Musicians’, –  and ‘Italian Church Music’, – . . See Lindgren and Timms, ‘The Correspondence’, letter . . Cusins, ‘Steffani’, . . For sources (and editions), see Appendix B, section A/I/; there are also nineteenth- or twentieth-century copies in D-B, Hs, HVs, Mbs, and GB-Lcm (fragment). No trace has been found of the copy that Eugène Ligniville sent to Padre Martini in  (cf. Schnoebelen, Padre Martini’s Collection, letter no. ). . The existence of two complementary bass parts in D-Hs, M B/, possibly the earliest source, suggests that this was intended. . F. G. Holweck, ‘Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary’, CE, xiv. – . Cf. also John Caldwell and Malcolm Boyd, ‘Stabat mater dolorosa’, Grove, xxiv.  – . . Cf. Williams, ‘Stabat Mater’, ; Marx-Weber, ‘Domenico Scarlattis Stabat Mater’, . . Talbot, ‘New Light’, – ; Talbot, Sacred Vocal Music,  – . . Ed. Eusebius Mandyczewski, Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Oesterreich, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ; Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, ),  – . The beginning is quoted in Smith, ‘Liturgical Music’, . . Cf. Appendix B, section A/III.

   ‒ . Cusins, ‘Steffani’, . . Cf. Weber, Rise of Musical Classics. Some of Steffani’s works were adapted to English words: cf. Appendix B, section A/IV, and Timms, ‘Italian Church Music’, –. . ‘Scheint autograph Part. zu sein’. . Crosby, Catalogue, p. xix–xx. . Cf. De Gregorio, ‘Il tempo, la morte e la bellezza’. . See n. .

  . Cf. Grout, Short History; Bianconi, Music; Bianconi and Pestelli, Storia; Rosand, Opera. . Cf. Freeman, ‘Apostolo Zeno’s Reform’; Strohm, Dramma; Brian Trowell, ‘Libretto (ii), § II, – ’, Opera Grove, ii. –. . See Chapter , n. , and Croll, ‘Musik und Politik’. . Mattheson, Kern melodischer Wissenschaft, . . Cf. Bianconi and Walker, ‘Production’; Bianconi and Pestelli, Storia, iv. . Chrysander, Händel, i. ; Riemann, ‘Agostino Steffani’, p. xi. . Referring to Steffani by means of a mathematical riddle, Kuhnau wrote that he ‘distinguished himself in an admirable way’: cf. preface to Musicalische Vorstellung einiger Biblischer Historien in . Sonaten auff dem Klaviere zu spielen (Leipzig: Immanuel Tietz, ; reprint Leipzig: Peters, ), sig. B. . Praz, Studies, –. . Celletti, Bel Canto, – . . For more on the cavata, see below, pp.  ‒ . For examples a due, see Steffani’s Le rivali concordi, Italian Opera –, [no. ], ed. Howard Mayer Brown (New York: Garland, ),  –  and . . See Appendix C, Table A.. . See Appendix C, Table A.. . DTB, no. , p. xxii. . ‘ . . . echte Lieder von einfacher Haltung’: Riemann, ‘Agostino Steffani’, p. ix. . Termini, ‘Transformation of Madrigalisms’. . Riemann, ‘Basso ostinato’. . E.g., ‘De tuoi pregi homai risuona’ (Alarico, I/), ‘Le tue glorie, o gran regnante’ (III/ult.), and ‘Dove mai senza riposo’ (II/), respectively. . Dent, Alessandro Scarlatti, . . For further details of Italian metrics, see Spongano, Nozioni, and Elwert, Italienische Metrik. . Cf. ‘Donne a torto, vi pregiate’ (Le rivali concordi, II/) and ‘Tolsi a Colco il vello d’oro’ (III/). . See Appendix C, Table A.. . Cf. ‘Che folgori il cielo’ (Le rivali concordi, I/) and ‘Deh tornate, occhi stellanti’ (Act II), later setting (p. ). . Riemann, ‘Agostino Steffani’, pp. xix–xxi. . Carse, Orchestration,  and – . . Arminio: D-WD, MS ; Tassilone: GB-Lbl, RM . i.  – . . RM . f. , f. v. . Bacchus enters ‘sopra il suo Carro . . . preceduto da Piferi’; the music consists of a ‘Marche pour l’orqueste, et les haub: sur la scene’ (RM . f. , f. v). . E.g., ‘Tutta l’Orchestra eccettuati gl’Instromenti da Fiato’ (Amor vien dal destino, II/: RM . h. , f. v).





   ‒ . ‘Deve esser accompagnato Fauno da un Concerto Intiero di Chalumeaux sopra la Scena scoperti; da due Fagotti nascosti dietro le Ali; e da due Teorbe nella Orchestra, le quali però non suonino che le note segnalate .|.’ (RM . h. , f. v). Since Amor vien dal destino was composed for Hanover and performed at Düsseldorf, the chalumeau players must have been available at both courts. . Lawson, Chalumeau,  – . . Carter, ‘String Tremolo’. . DTB, no. , . . Cf. the recitative ‘Di regia salma’ (Fig. .) and the aria ‘Notte, amica al cieco dio’ (La libertà contenta, II/), which is marked ‘senza Cembali’ in the autograph score (RM . h. , f. ). . Cf. Appendix C, Table A.. . Cf. Appendix C, Table A.. . Cf. Appendix C, Table A.. . Cf. Appendix C, Table A.. . Termini, ‘Stylistic and Formal Changes’, , after Francesco Caffi, ‘Storia della musica teatrale in Venezia’ (I-Vnm, Cod. It. IV. –), i. . . See Mattheson, Der vollkommene Capellmeister, , § . . Cf. DTB, no. , which includes nearly all of Steffani’s overtures. . Cf. Anthony, French Baroque Music, – . . RM . i. , f. v. . RM . k. , pp.  –  (at the end of Act II). . Cesti’s Argia may have been given a French overture in Venice in : cf. George Gow Waterman and James R. Anthony, ‘French overture’, Grove, ix.  – . . Anthony, French Baroque Music, ,  – . . Cf. Alm, ‘Operatic Ballroom Scenes’. . Cf. Timms, ‘Dissemination’. . ‘Es ist dieses Stück wegen der vortrefflichen Composition des Herrn Stephani unter die Italiänische Music gesetzt, daher Verständige es nicht übel deuten werden, dass die Worte gezwungen und der Styl bissweilen nicht zum besten ist’: preface to the Hamburg () libretto, cited by Chrysander, Händel, i. . . A-Wn, MS : cf. DTB, no. , p. xii, and, for list of contents, Mantuani, Tabulae codicum manuscriptorum. DTB also mentions selected items in tablature in B-Bc, MSS  and . . D-HVl, MS IV. . . In Boivin’s Ier Recueil contenant XXIV des plus beaux duo [sic] . . . disposés en trio (Paris, []). . Cf. Timms, ‘Steffani’s Solo Cantatas’, –. . Herissone, ‘Magdalene College Partbooks’. The amount of Steffani’s music in these partbooks suggests that Charles was the ‘Babel’ listed as an ‘oboist’ at Hanover in ; according to Hawkins, a bassoonist was the father of the harpsichordist William Babell (ca.  –). . Schneider, ‘Amsterdam Editions’, . . King, ‘Composition and Reception’, esp. chapter . . Cf. John H. Roberts, ed., Handel Sources, ix; Timms, ‘What Did Handel Learn?’. . D-B, Mus. ms. Bach ; cf. J. B. Bach, Vier Ouvertüren (Stuttgart: Carus, ). Riemann regarded the ‘Roger’ version of Steffani’s overture as the earlier and the ‘Bach’ version as the later, but the order of composition is uncertain.

   ‒   . Sartori, Libretti, i. ; Brockpähler, Handbuch, . On the Dresden () Alarico, see Dubowy, ‘Italienische Opern’, – . Brockpähler also cites German-language versions performed in Nuremberg (), Stuttgart (), and Hamburg (). . Sartori, Libretti, i. . One wonders whether the dedicatee was related to Steffani’s former schoolfriend Abbot Angelo Maria De’ Lazzara. . DTB, no. . . Della Corte, ‘Qualche lettera’,  and . . For a more sympathetic account of the work, by Giorgio Pestelli, see Barblan and Basso, Storia dell’opera, i/, – . . See Appendix C, Table A.. . See Appendix C, Tables A. and A.. . The score in Munich (D-WINtj, MS ) was not examined for this study. Like those of Servio Tullio and Niobe (MSS  and , respectively), it once belonged to Max Emanuel’s brother, Joseph Clemens, elector-archbishop of Cologne, and agrees by and large with the corresponding manuscript in A-Wn: cf. Haberkamp and Zuber, Die Musikhandschriften, . . See Appendix C. . Ovid, The Metamorphoses, trans. Mary M. Innes (Harmondsworth: Penguin, ), – . . Ed. in DTB, no. , – . . ‘I Cembali, e le Teorbe tacciano tutta la Scena’: A-Wn, MS , i. . . DTB, no. , – . . DTB, no. , – . . DTB, no. , – . . DTB, no. , ; the aria is on pp. – . . DTB, no. , ff. Riemann labelled this movement ‘recitativo accompagnato’, but the poetry and music are those of an aria. . ‘Gli  Instromenti che concertano mettino le sordine e suonino conciso’: A-Wn, MS , iii. ; see also DTB, no. , . . ‘ . . . un sol tiro d’arco’: DTB, no. , . . Compare ‘Sfere amiche’, ‘Come padre’, and ‘Tra bellici carmi’ (Niobe) with ‘Notte, amica al cieco dio’, ‘Qual ecclisse’, and ‘Svenati, struggiti’ (La libertà contenta). On Hader, see above pp.  and . . D-Mbs, MS ; cf. Gordana Lazarevich, ‘Torri, Pietro’, Grove, xxv. . . On Rolli and Handel’s indebtedness to Mauro and Steffani, see King, ‘Composition and Reception’, esp. chapter . . For the list of scenes and machines in Alessandro, see Chapter , ‘Subject and Spectacle’. . ‘Di tanti Nemici, ch’Alessandro hebbe à combattere, il più pericoloso fù la sua continua prosperitá. Quel gran cuore invitto ne’ più terribili incontri si lasciò corrompere a’ Vezzi lusinghieri della fortuna, e se portò l’armi vittoriose sino à gli ultimi confini del mondo, non potè arrivar al più difficil, e più importante punto dell’humana felicità, ch’è il saper moderarsi’: [Ortensio Mauro], LA SUPERBIA d’ALES- / SANDRO DRAMA / Da recitarsi nel Theatro / d’HANNOVER / L’Anno M DC XC, ‘Dichiaratione del Soggetto dell’Opera per le Dame’, []. . ‘ . . . il merito, e la bellezza d’una Dama vezzosa può facilmente vincer et incatenar quegli Animi, che passano in ogni altra occasione per invincibili’: [Mauro], La superbia d’Alessandro, [].





   ‒ . One copy of the libretto of Alessandro (D-LEu, Ästh. u. KG. m) contains two additional manuscript insertions—a duet (‘Vendetta, si, si, chi rupe la fede’) for Lisaura and Rosane in I/, and an aria (‘Tu sei temerario’), with surrounding recitative, for Alessandro in I/. . ‘Il zelo generoso, col quale Leonato Generale nell’essercito d’Alessandro si esponeva ad ogni pericolo per la gloria, e per la salute del suo Rè, non poteva abbassarsi alle somissioni [sic] servili, et alle adorationi profane, ch’Alessandro corrotto dalla fortuna, e dall’adulator Cleone essigeva da’ suoi, non ancora accostumati a’ vili ossequij de Persi’: [Ortensio Mauro], IL ZELO / DI LEONATO. / DRAMA / Per il Theatro d’Hannover / M DC XCI, ‘Argomento’, sig. A. . In the wordbook the first line of the aria reads ‘Armano il braccio mio’. . Cf. Timms, ‘Gregorio Piva’, – . It appears that scribe B was a German: in bar  of ‘Cara pace, dolce calma’ (Baccanali, scene ) he wrongly wrote c instead of B; having tried to correct the mistake on the stave, he wrote ‘h’ (i.e., B natural) above. . Cf. Timms, ‘The Fate’, –. . Whatever happened, I cannot agree that Cleone was a soprano in  and an alto in , as argued in Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, – . . On ‘Dramaturgy in Orlando generoso’, see Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, – . . Cf. Rosand, ‘Orlando’, and Marles, ‘Music and Drama’. . ‘Registro De Libri di Monsignor Vescovo di Spiga anno ’, f. . He also had a copy of Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato (Venice, ). . I am grateful to Elizabeth Dunstan, author of ‘Così fan tutte: The Third Ferrarese Libretto of Lorenzo Da Ponte’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Birmingham, ), for examining Mauro’s libretto in the light of Orlando furioso and sharing her findings with me. . ‘Sono così noti i Personaggi, e gli accidenti, ch’entrano nel Drama, che per farli meglio conscere [sic] non v’è bisogno d’altra dichiarazione’: [Ortensio Mauro], ORLANDO / GENEROSO. / Drama per il / Theatro d’Hannover / M DC XCI, sig. A. . ‘Explication du sujet de l’Opéra pour les DCP. DMA’: DTB, no. , p. x. The meaning of the initials is unknown. . ‘Per dar luogo alle Machine è convenuto impiegar gl’incanti, mutar di paese, e figurar nuove favole: In esse più ch’il verisimile s’hà da riguardar il morale; e particolarmente in Orlando, mentre ritorna in se stesso, e generosamente si stacca dalle sue debolezze amorose, si può considerare che Se delira . . . ’: [Mauro], Orlando generoso, sig. A. . The beginning is edited in Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, . . The aria is in Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, . . The scene is in Romagnoli, ‘Fra catene’, – . The first aria is in Marles, ‘Music and Drama’, – , but called an arioso. . See Appendix C. . Cf. Timms, ‘Dissemination’, – . . Lesure, Bibliographie, . . Cusins, ‘Steffani’, . . Riemann, ‘Bibliographie’, p. xv. . Riemann, ‘Agostino Steffani’, p. xvi. No edition of Arminio was published. . Croll, ‘Zur Chronologie’,  –. . The Geography of Strabo, trans. H. C. Hamilton and W. Falconer,  vols. (London: G. Bell,  –), i. . The inventory of Steffani’s library includes several editions of, and commentaries on, Tacitus: ‘Registro De Libri’, ff. – v. . Weaver and Weaver, Chronology,  – , and Strohm, Dramma per musica, .

   ‒ . Jean Galbert de Campistron, preface to Arminius: Oeuvres . . . nouvelle édition,  vols. (Paris: Compagnie des Libraires, ), i. p. xlvi. . Kirkendale, ‘War of the Spanish Succession’, – . . Cf. Sartori, Libretti, and Francesco Giuntini, ‘Salvi, Antonio’, Opera Grove, iv. . . Croll, ‘Zur Chronologie’. Arminio was also invoked as a symbol of Emperor Joseph I (reigned  –), one of whose birthdays was marked by an anonymous ‘poemetto drammatico per musica’ entitled Arminio (A-Wn, B. E. V. W. . I. M, pp.  –). . The set of parts in D-WD also includes a role for a soldier (bass) who does not appear in the score: cf. Zobeley, Die Musikalien, I, ii: Handschriften, MS . . Denkmäler rheinischer Musik, no. . On the background to the opera, see Croll, ‘Vorwort’ and ‘Musik und Politik’, – . . Cf. Lang’s review, MQ ,  (), –. . Cf. Timms, ‘Gregorio Piva’. . ‘. . . vi è un Duetto di Vostra Signoria Illustrissima nell’Opera di Düsseldorff che dice già brama il mio core, poi morire, morire, morire, credo già che l’habbiamo fatto milliara di volte vi è il Lapis Filosophorum in tutte le di Lei Virtuose compositioni’: Fedeli to Steffani,  November : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Riccati, ‘Notizie’, –, and Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, – . . ‘. . . Lei mi parla di Opere di Düsseldorff; Io non so haverne fatte; ma sono Opere del Signor Gregorio Piva. Comunque siasi, io hò inteso con grandissimo compiacimento che quelle bagatelle divertiscano il Serenissimo Sig.r Landgravio’: Steffani to Fedeli,  November : I-Rscge, Fondo Spiga, vol. ; cited in Riccati, ‘Notizie’, , and Loschelder, ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit’, . . See Lindgren and Timms, ‘The Correspondence’, letters , A, and . . Della Corte, ‘Qualche lettera’, – . . Celletti, Bel Canto, . . Della Corte, ‘Qualche lettera’, .

  . Berardi, Ragionamenti,  – . . Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato, Historia della S. R. M. di Christina Alessandra Regina di Svetia (Rome: Rev. Camera Apostolica, ), cited in Luppi, Specchio, , n. . . Crescimbeni, L’istoria della volgar poesia, i. – . . See Chapter , n. . . Bukofzer, Music in the Baroque Era, . . Schmitz, Geschichte der Solokantate,  – . . Cf. Appendix B, sections C/III–IV. . Ed. in Werner and Einstein, ‘Musikhandschriften’, – ; the title ‘Il pianto di Lucinda’ was added by Einstein. See also Timms, ‘Steffani’s Solo Cantatas’,  –. . Cf. Mies, ‘Behandlung der Frage’. . Cf. Timms, ‘Steffani’s Solo Cantatas’, , Ex. .. . Cf. Timms, ‘Steffani’s Solo Cantatas’, – ; facsimile in Colin Timms, ed., Cantatas by Agostino Steffani ( –), The Italian Cantata in the Seventeenth Century, no.  (New York: Garland, ), – . . Whenham, Duet and Dialogue, i. ,  – . . Robinson, Opera before Mozart, . . Facsimile in Robert Lamar Weaver, ed., Cantatas by Alessandro Melani (–), Atto Melani ( –), The Italian Cantata in the Seventeenth Century, no.  (New York: Garland, ), – ; for sources, cf. Jander, Wellesley Edition, viii–ix, Atto Melani, no. .





   ‒ . Cf. Timms, ‘Steffani’s Solo Cantatas’, –. . Punctuation and capitals are editorial; for ‘m’entra’ (line ) the source has ‘mentre’. . Example in Timms, Cantatas, . . Chrysander, Händel, i. – . . Ausgewählte Werke, Erster Teil, ed. Albert Einstein and Adolf Sandberger, DTB, no. . . Schmitz, ‘Zur Geschichte des Kammerduetts’, – . . On the history of the chamber duet, see also Whenham, Duet and Dialogue, and Marx, ‘Solo Song and Duet’. On the continuo madrigal, see Schmitz, ‘Zur Geschichte des Continuo-madrigals’; Saville, ‘“L’abate” Clari’; and Rose, ‘Polyphonic Italian Madrigals’. . Mann, Study of Fugue, – . . Klenz, Giovanni Maria Bononcini, . . E.g., Op.  (), nos.  and : Klenz, Giovanni Maria Bononcini, Supplement, , . . Cf. Newman, Sonata. . Mattheson, Der vollkommene Capellmeister, , §§ – ; English translation adapted from Harriss, . . Burney, General History, iii. ; ed. Mercer, ii. . . Cf. Appendix B, sections C/I, II, and VI(a). For fuller discussion of the canon, see Timms, ‘Chamber Duets’, chapter  and ‘Postscript: Duets of Doubtful Authenticity’, and Timms, ‘Gregorio Piva’, – . . See Chapter , ‘Coda’. . See Chapter , n. . . Carissimi: E pur vuole il cielo and Vittoria, mio core; Rossi: Deh, soffri, mio cuore and Fanciulle, tenete: cf. Jander, Wellesley Edition, iii and v. Van Geertsom’s Scelta di motetti, also , consists overwhelmingly of music by Roman composers. . A further indication is the similarity between the first lines of some of his duets and those of Tenaglia’s cantatas: compare, for example, Cangia pensier, mio cor, No, no, no, mai nol dirò, and Siete il più bizzarro umore with Tenaglia’s Cangia, mio cor, cangia pensiero, No, che mai lo dirò, and Oh, che bizzarro humor. The texts may diverge after their first lines, but their openings point to common roots. . Cf. Timms, ‘Brigida Bianchi’s poesie musicali’. . [Hawkins], Memoirs, pp. [iii–iv]. Hawkins mistakenly identified the electress of Brandenburg as Sophia Dorothea, and his statement that Stradella was a harpist is not corroborated. . See Einstein, ‘Briefe der Königin’, ; Grove, xxii.  –  and iii.  –; Sartori, Libretti, vi. . . See above, pp. – . . See Riemann, ‘Bibliographie’, p. xiii, and Chapter , n. . . Einstein, ‘Italienische Musiker’, . . Schnath, Geschichte Hannovers, iii.  – . . Woker, ‘Tondichter’, – , n. ; Grove, iii. . . Cf. Harris S. Saunders, ‘Averara, Pietro d’’, Opera Grove, i. . . Chrysander, Händel, i. . Alternatively, the ascription could conceivably refer to the Paduan scientist, mathematician, translator, and poet ‘abbate’ Antonio Conti (–), who arbitrated between Leibniz and Newton and visited Hanover in  –: cf. Dorris, Paolo Rolli, – ; DBI, xxviii. – . . Cf. Gianturco and McCrickard, Alessandro Stradella,  – , , . . Cf. Mainwaring, Memoirs, : ‘Soon after his return to Hanover he made twelve chamber Duettos for the practice of the late Queen, then electoral Princess. The character of these is well known to the judges in Music. The words for them were written by the Abbate

   ‒ MAURO HORTENSIO, who had not disdained on other occasions to minister to the masters of harmony’. . See Chapter , n. . . Cf. Agostino Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, ed. Colin Timms, Recent Researches in the Music of the Baroque Era, no.  (Madison: A-R Editions, ), pp. xx, –. . The narrative was added when the duet was revised: see below, ‘Revisions’. The revised version is edited in Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, pp. xviii, – . . Cf. Timms, Cantatas, – , . . Cf. Timms, Cantatas, – , . . Riccati, ‘Notizie’, –. . Riccati, ‘Notizie’, . . Cf. Timms, Cantatas,  (systems – ), , and  (systems – ), respectively. . Cf. Timms, Cantatas,  and . . Crudo Amor: cf. Timms, Cantatas, . . Cf. ‘Ch’io riveli quello strale’ in Pria ch’io faccia (Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, ) and ‘Ho per vela’ in Forma un mare (Timms, Cantatas, ). . Cf. Timms, ‘Revisions’, – . . Bukofzer, Music in the Baroque Era, . . Klenz, Giovanni Maria Bononcini, . . Selfridge-Field, Venetian Instrumental Music, –. . Cf. Timms, Cantatas, . For a comparison of French and Italian styles, see Tunley, Eighteenth-Century French Cantata, – . . In Giovanni Maria Bononcini’s opp.  and , respectively: cf. Klenz, Giovanni Maria Bononcini, ; Schenk, ‘Beobachtungen’, . The Roman fashion for things French was at its peak from  to : cf. Lionnet, ‘“Mode française”’. . E.g., Che sarà di quel pensiero and Tu m’aspettasti: cf. Timms, Cantatas,  (top system) and  – . . Cf. DTB, no. , – . . Cf. DTB, no. , – . . Timms, Cantatas,  –, . . Timms, Cantatas, ; DTB, no. , – . . Timms, Cantatas, ; DTB, no. , . . E.g., Che sarà di quel pensiero and Cangia pensier: Timms, Cantatas,  (bottom system) and  (system ). . E.g., Quanto care, bars , : Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, –. . Both composers catered separately for a bass: in his Cantate e canzonette, op.  (Bologna, ) Legrenzi published twelve works for soprano or tenor, six for alto, and six for bass; Gaffi’s Cantate da camera (Rome, ) comprises ten cantatas for soprano, alto, or tenor, and two for bass. . Caluori, Cantatas of Luigi Rossi, i. – ; Rose, ‘Cantatas of Carissimi’, ; Eisley, ‘Secular Cantatas of Mario Savioni’, ; Cavalli, ‘Cantate . . . di Francesco Gasparini’, . . Riemann, ‘Basso ostinato’, –; see also Timms, ‘Bass Patterns’. . Cf. Timms, Cantatas, – . . See n. . . Donington, Interpretation,  – . . Whenham, Duet and Dialogue, i. , –,  – . . Of the duets by Carlo Caproli, Virgilio Mazzocchi, Carlo Rainaldi, Luigi Rossi, Mario Savioni, and others in MSS Q. – , three-quarters are for two sopranos and continuo. My notes on Q.  are incomplete, and Q.  is devoted to sacred works.





   ‒ . Jander, Wellesley Edition, i and iv; Gianturco and McCrickard, Alessandro Stradella, – . . See above, pp. – , , and ‒. . Cf. Che sarà di quel pensiero: Timms, Cantatas,  (top system); Quanto care: Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets,  – (bars  – ). . DTB, no. ,  – . . As in Crudo Amor, bars – and  – : cf. Timms, Cantatas, – . . Cf. Timms, ‘Chamber Duets’, ii. ; John Alexander Fuller Maitland, Duetti da camera: Italian Chamber Duets by Various Masters of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,  vols. (London: Joseph Williams, ), i (transposed). . Cf. Timms, Cantatas, – . . Cf. Timms, ‘Chamber Duets’, ii. – . . Cf. Timms, Cantatas,  – ; Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, –. . Cf. the beginning of Cangia pensier: Timms, Cantatas, – . . Cf. DTB, no. ,  and  (systems  –  on both pages). . DTB, no. ,  (system ). . E.g., Ah! che l’ho sempre detto: Timms, Cantatas,  (last system), ; E perchè non m’uccidete: Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, . . E.g., Che sarà di quel pensiero: Timms, Cantatas, –. . Timms, Cantatas, ; Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, . . E.g., Io voglio provar, in Timms, ‘Chamber Duets’, ii. –. . On the history of the cavata, see Timms, ‘Cavata’. . Cf. Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, – ,  – ,  – , – , –,  –, and . . Timms, Cantatas, . . Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, –. . Newman, Sonata,  –. . Cf. DTB, no. , . . Cf. DTB, no. , . . Dir che giovi, Mi voglio far intendere, Oh! che voi direste bene, and Sia maledetto Amor; the first and last are in Timms, Cantatas, , . . E.g., both duet movements in Aure, voi che volate: Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, – . . E.g., Gelosia, che vuoi da me (): DTB, no. , /; Io mi parto: Timms, ed., Cantatas,  –/ –. . Timms, Cantatas, – : compare p. , system , with p. , system , bar . . Timms, Cantatas, – . . On Torna a dar vita, see Timms, ‘Brigida Bianchi’s poesie musicali ’, – . . Cf. Caluori, Cantatas of Luigi Rossi, i. . . See above, p. . . E.g., Cangia pensier: Timms, Cantatas, – , . . Cf. Timms, ‘Brigida Bianchi’s poesie musicali ’, . . Cf. DTB, no. , pp. xli–xlii and – . . See Timms, ‘Brigida Bianchi’s poesie musicali ’. . See above, pp. – , and Timms, ‘Chamber Duets’, i.  – . . Cf. Timms, ‘Revisions’. . Earlier version in Timms, ‘Chamber Duets’, ii. –; revision in Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, pp. xvi, –. . In the revised version these lines are conflated as ‘Deggio al nuovo desire / opporre il vostro gelo / o pur morire?’ . See above, pp.  ‒ .

   ‒ . The revised duet is in Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets, – , the earlier version in I-Vnm, Cod. It. IV.  (MS ), and the aria in Le rivali concordi, Italian Opera –, [no. ], . . Earlier version in Timms, ‘Chamber Duets’, ii. – ; revision in Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets,  – . . Earlier version in Timms, ‘Chamber Duets’, ii. –; revision in Steffani, Twelve Chamber Duets,  –. . Earlier version in Timms, ‘Chamber Duets’, ii. – ; revision in Timms, Cantatas, – . . Earlier version in Timms, ‘Chamber Duets’, ii. – ; revision in Timms, Cantatas, – . . Cf. Timms, ‘Steffani’s Influence’. . Woker, Aus den Papieren, . . Letter of August  from Paolo Rolli in Richmond to Giuseppe Riva in Hanover: Lindgren, ‘Musicians and Librettists’, . . Deutsch, Handel, – . . Tosi, Opinioni, trans. Galliard as Observations, – . . Petrobelli, ‘Anton Raaff ’, . . Martini, Esemplare, ii. –. . Riccati, ‘Notizie’,  –. . Giordano Riccati, Lettera I . . . intorno al risorgimento della musica all’ornatissimo Padre D. Giovenale Sacchi Professore di Eloquenza nel Collegio Imperiale di Milano [– ], . . Burney, General History, iii. ; ed. Mercer, ii. . . Burney, General History, iii. ; ed. Mercer, ii. . . Robinson, Naples and Neapolitan Opera, . . ‘Bald intonierte ich so zart, als ich es vermochte, eine jener heiligen Kanzonen des Abbate Steffani. In den wehmutsvollen Klängen des: Ochi, perchè piangete—erwachte Seraphine aus düstern Träumen, und horchte mild lächelnd, glänzende Perlen in den Augen, mir zu’: E. T. A. Hoffmann, Das Majorat (), ed. in Fantasie- und Nachtstücke (Munich: Winkler, ), . . ‘Nun sangen beide Schwestern jene ernste tief gehaltene Duetten vom Abbate Steffani. Teresinas volltönender himmlisch reiner Alt drang mir durch die Seele. Nicht zurückhalten konnte ich meine innere Bewegung, mir stürzten die Tränen aus den Augen’: Hoffmann, Die Fermate ( – ), ed. in Die Serapions-Brüder, i (Munich: Winkler, ), . . Burney, ‘Steffani’. . See above, p. . . GB-Lbl, Add. MS , f. iiiv. . See Chapter , n. . Cf. edition by Colin Timms (London: Novello, ). . See Chapter , penultimate paragraph. . Riccati, ‘Notizie’, . . Fétis, Biographie universelle, viii. . . Erich Schenk, review of Nagels Musik-Archiv, ZMw,  (– ), .

  . Appendix A, ‘Steffani’s Letter to Giacomo Antonio Stievani ()’. . Pallavicini’s letters to Steffani are preserved in I-Rscge, Archivio storico, Fondo Spiga, vols.  and . . Cf. Lindgren and Timms, ‘The Correspondence’, esp. letters , , and . . Kühn-Steinhausen, Rapparini-Handschrift, , and medals  and .





   ‒ . [Hawkins], Memoirs, pp. vii–viii. . Cf. Kohl, ‘Ein unbekanntes Porträt’. Kohl rejects as unreliable two later images of Steffani—the lithograph by Winter () in MGG, xii.  and New Grove (), xviii. , and a profile given in Zobeley, ‘Die Musik’, ; the latter was taken from an engraving of forty-five composers (from Gesualdo to Cimarosa) designed by Luigi Scotti (Florence: Bettelini, [–]), since reproduced in Muraro, Venezia e il melodramma, fig.  (following p. ). . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. v. . Kielmannsegg, Briefe des Herzogs, . It is impossible to identify the ‘Baron Sickingen’ mentioned in the quotation, because there were several men of that name in Steffani’s orbit at the time: see Zedler, Universal Lexicon, xxxvii.  ‒ . . Neue und Curieuse Relation von einem Reisenden (), cited in Fischer, Musik in Hannover,  – , and Lampe, Aristokratie, i. , n. . . [Hawkins], Memoirs, p. viii.

B




Music is excluded: sources and editions of Steffani’s works are given in Appendix B; those of music by other composers are cited in the notes. M   Hanover, Niedersächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (D-HVsa) Cal. Br. c, Nr. –  The collection of Steffani’s papers left in Hanover after his death, previously known, without historical justification, as the ‘Registratur des Bischofs von Spiga’ and currently out-housed and consulted at Pattensen, southwest of the city. It relates mainly to his activities as a Hanoverian diplomat (–), as a Palatine minister ( – ), and as apostolic vicar of north Germany ( – ), but also includes over seventy letters from Giuseppe Riva in the s. Cf. Woker (several studies, – ), Kaufold (), Timms (), and Lindgren and Timms (forthcoming). Munich, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv (D-Mbsa) Kurbayern Hofzahlamt – : Bavarian court payment ledgers (– ) HR I Fasz.  Nr. : documents relating to Steffani ( – ) Fürstensachen e: documents on Bavarian court music Kasten schwarz  and : Steffani’s benefice at Löpsingen Kasten schwarz , , , and : brief letters and reports Kasten blau /: correspondence ( –); /: correspondence (); /: mission to Hanover (); /–: mission to Rome (– ); /: mission to The Hague (); /–: correspondence (); /: correspondence (). The collections relate mainly to Steffani’s periods in Munich (– ) and Düsseldorf ( – ). Cf. Maier () and Einstein (–  and ). Rome, Sacra Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione seu de Propaganda Fide, Archivio Storico (I-Rscge) Fondo Spiga, vols. –  The bulk of the papers that Steffani had with him in Frankfurt when he died. Most of these papers date from the period  –  and are concerned with his role as a Palatine minister or as apostolic vicar of north Germany, his campaign for income from the provostship of Seltz or his relations with the Curia. A few, however, dating from as far back as , relate to musical or personal matters. Inventoried by Feldkamp ().





      Castelfranco Veneto, Biblioteca comunale MS : Nadal Melchiori, ‘Catalogo historico cronologico, cioè Copiosa raccolta che contiene l’origine di Castelfranco’ (dated  – ) MS : Nadal Melchiori, ‘Famiglie che compongono il più purgato Consiglio della Communità di Castel Franco’ (dated – ) MS : Bartolomeo Scapinelli, ‘Storia di Castelfranco’ (undated; another copy, MS ; third copy in Venice, Civico Museo Correr, MS Cicogna ) Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano Archivio della Nunziatura di Colonia, , ff. – v: Registro De Libri di Monsignor Vescovo di Spiga anno  Venice, Biblioteca nazionale marciana Cod. It. VI. : Nadal Melchiori, ‘Memorie di Castelfranco’ (undated) Cod. It. VI. : [Anon.], ‘Memorie storiche di Castelfranco’ (undated) Würzburg, Graf von Schönborn’sche Hauptverwaltung, Archiv Bestand Johann Philipp Franz von Schönborn, Nr. , ,  – : thirty-seven letters between Schönborn and Steffani, mostly dated –  but one dated , plus several other documents. Full reference is given in the course of the book to other manuscript material consulted.

P W Sections  and  exclude most music dictionaries, encyclopaedias, bibliographies, catalogues, and other standard reference works. The following additional abbreviations are used: Acta AnMc BRMg EM GHB HJbM JAMS KJb ML MQ MR NOHM PRMA RIM RMARC RMI SIMG SMw ZIMG ZMw

Acta Musicologica Analecta Musicologica Beiträge zur rheinischen Musikgeschichte Early Music Göttinger Händel-Beiträge Hamburger Jahrbuch für Musikwissenschaft Journal of the American Musicological Society Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch Music and Letters Musical Quarterly Music Review New Oxford History of Music Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association Rivista italiana di musicologia Royal Musical Association Research Chronicle Rivista musicale italiana Sammelbände der Internationalen Musik-Gesellschaft Studien zur Musikwissenschaft Zeitschrift der Internationalen Musik-Gesellschaft Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft

 . :    Baxter, William Hubbard Jr. ‘Agostino Steffani: A Study of the Man and His Work’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, ). Billio, Nicoletta. ‘Contributo sugli inizi di carriera di Agostino Steffani, Antonio Draghi e Carlo Pallavicino, musicisti al Santo di Padova’, in Musica, scienza e idee nella Serenissima durante il Seicento: Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Venezia, Palazzo Giustinian Lolin, – dicembre , ed. Francesco Passadore and Franco Rossi (Venice: Fondazione Levi, ), – . Billio D’Arpa, Nicoletta. ‘Documenti inediti su Agostino Steffani, cantore soprano tra Padova e Venezia ( –)’, Rassegna veneta di studi musicali, –  (– ), – . Burney, Charles. ‘Steffani’, in The Cyclopaedia, or Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences and Literature, ed. Abraham Rees (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown,  – ). Croll, Gerhard. ‘Agostino Steffani: Enrico Leone (Hannover )’, sleeve-note with recording of extracts from the opera on CAL- (Munich: Calig, ). ———. ‘Agostino Steffani ( –): Studien zur Biographie, Bibliographie der Opern und Turnierspiele’ (Habilitationsschrift, University of Münster, ) [unavailable]. ———. ‘Musikgeschichtliches aus Rapparinis Johann-Wilhelm-Manuskript ()’, Musikforschung,  (), – . ———. ‘Musik und Politik: Steffani-Opern in München, Hannover und Düsseldorf ’, in Il melodramma italiano in Italia e in Germania nell’età barocca: Atti del V Convegno internazionale sulla musica italiana nel secolo XVII, Loveno di Menaggio (Como),  –  giugno , ed. Alberto Colzani, Norbert Dubowy, Andrea Luppi, and Maurizio Padoan (Como: Antiquae Musicae Italicae Studiosi, ),  – . ———. ‘Steffani, Agostino’, MGG, xii. –. ———. ‘Vorwort’ to Agostino Steffani: Tassilone, ed. Gerhard Croll, Denkmäler rheinischer Musik, no.  (Düsseldorf: Schwann, ). ———. ‘Zur Chronologie der “Düsseldorfer” Opern Agostino Steffanis’, Festschrift Karl Gustav Fellerer zum . Geburtstag, ed. Heinrich Hüschen (Regensburg: Bosse, ),  – . Cusins, William George. ‘Steffani, Agostino’, in A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (A.D. – ), ed. George Grove, st ed. (London: Macmillan, – ), iii. – ; slightly longer entry in reprint (). Della Corte, Andrea. ‘Qualche lettera e qualche melodramma di Agostino Steffani’, Rassegna musicale,  (), – . De Rensis, Raffaello. ‘Un musicista diplomatico del Settecento: Agostino Steffani’, Musica d’oggi,  (), – . Ebert, Alfred. ‘Briefe Agostino Steffanis an die Königin Sophie Charlotte von Preussen’, Die Musik,  (–), –. Einstein, Alfred. ‘Agostino Steffani’, Neue Musik-Zeitung,  (), –. ———. ‘Agostino Steffani’, in Essays on Music, rev. ed. (London: Faber, ), – . ———. ‘Agostino Steffani. Biographische Skizze, I: Münchener Zeit,  –’, KJb,  (), – . ———. ‘Die Briefe der Königin Sophie Charlotte und der Kurfürstin Sophie an Agostino Steffani’, ZIMG,  (–), – . ———. ‘Ein unbekanntes Duett von Agostino Steffani?’, ZMw,  (– ), –. ———. ‘Kritischer Kommentar, A: Quellen in alphabetischer Reihenfolge der Fundorte; B: Thematisches Verzeichnis der Kammerduette und Scherzi des Agostino Steffani’, in DTB, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ; ), pp. viii–xxvi.





 ———. ‘Notiz über den Nachlass Agostino Steffani’s im Propaganda-Archiv zu Rom’, ZIMG,  ( – ), –. Feldkamp, Michael F. ‘Der Nachlass des Komponisten, Diplomaten und Bischofs Agostino Steffani ( –) im Archiv der Propaganda Fide’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,  (),  – . [Hawkins, John]. Memoirs of the Life of Sig. Agostino Steffani, some time Master of the Electoral Chapel at Hanover, and afterwards Bishop of Spiga [London: For the Author, ca. ]; reprint in The Gentleman’s Magazine,  (), – . Jenkins, Newell. ‘Gerhard Croll, Agostino Steffani and “Clarion Concerts”’, in De Editione Musices: Festschrift Gerhard Croll zum . Geburtstag, ed. Wolfgang Gratzer and Andrea Lindmayr (Laaber: Laaber Verlag, ), – . Kaufold, Claudia. Ein Musiker als Diplomat: Abbé Agostino Steffani in hannoverschen Diensten (– ) (Bielefeld: Verlag für Regionalgeschichte, ). Keppler, Philip. ‘Agostino Steffani’s Hannover Operas and a Rediscovered Catalogue’, in Studies in Music History: Essays for Oliver Strunk, ed. Harold S. Powers (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, ), – . Kohl, Walter. ‘Ein unbekanntes Porträt des Barockmusikers Agostino Steffani ( –)’, in Museum- und Kulturgeschichte: Festschrift für Wilhelm Hansen, ed. Martha Bringemeier, Paul Pieper, Bruno Schier and Günter Wiegelmann (Münster: Aschendorff, ), – . Lang, Paul Henry. Review of Agostino Steffani, Tassilone, ed. Gerhard Croll, in MQ,  (), -. ‘Leben des berühmten Tonkünstlers Agostino Steffani’, Der Zufriedene,  (Nuremberg, ),  – . ‘Leben des berühmten Tonkünstlers Agostino Steffani’, Hamburgisches Journal,  (Hamburg, ),  – . Lindgren, Lowell, and Colin Timms. ‘The Correspondence of Agostino Steffani and Giuseppe Riva,  ‒, and Related Correspondence with J. P. F. von Schönborn and S. B. Pallavicini’, RMARC (forthcoming). Loschelder, Josef. ‘Agostino Steffani und das Musikleben seiner Zeit: Nach römischen Quellen dargestellt’, in . Niederrheinisches Musikfest, ed. Kuratorium des Niederrheinischen Musikfests (Düsseldorf, ), – . ———. ‘Aus Düsseldorfs italienischer Zeit: Römische Quellen zu Agostino Steffanis Leben’, BRMg,  (), – . Lualdi, Adriano. ‘Agostino Steffani diplomatico per forza’, in Musiche italiane rare e vive, ed. Adelmo Damerini and Gino Roncaglia, Settimane musicali senesi, no.  (Siena: Accademia Musicale Chigiana, ), – . Marles, Candace Ann. ‘Music and Drama in the Hanover Operas of Agostino Steffani ( –)’ (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, ). ———. ‘Opera as Instrumentum regni: Agostino Steffani’s Enrico Leone’, Opera Quarterly,  (),  –. ‘Memoirs of Agostino Steffani, Giovanni-Carlo-Maria Clari, and Francesco Durante’, Harmonicon, n.s.,  (), – . Neisser, Arthur. Servio Tullio: Eine Oper aus dem Jahre  von Agostino Steffani (Leipzig: C. G. Röder, ). Neumann, Friedrich-Heinrich. Review of Agostino Steffani, Tassilone, ed. Gerhard Croll, in Musikforschung,  (), – . Porter, Andrew. ‘Transformations’, in Music of Three More Seasons (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ), – . Raridon, Charles Wade. ‘Soprano-Tenor Chamber Duets of Agostino Steffani and a Pre-

 pared Performance Edition of Steffani’s Chamber Duet E così mi compatite’ (D.M.A. diss., University of Iowa, ) [not seen]. Riccati, Giordano. ‘Notizie di Monsig. Agostino Steffani’, Nuova raccolta d’opuscoli scientifici e filologici,  (), – . Riemann, Hugo. ‘Agostino Steffani als Opernkomponist’, in DTB, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ; ), pp. vii–xxiii. ———. ‘Bibliographie der in Handschriften und Drucken nachweisbaren  Bühnenwerke von Agostino Steffani’, in DTB, no.  (Jahrgang , Band ; ), pp. vii–xvi. ———. ‘Wann machte Händel die Bekanntnis Steffanis?’, Der Merker,  (), – . Rovatkay, Lajos. ‘Eröffnungsoper für das Grosse Schlosstheater: Agostino Steffanis “Enrico Leone”’, in Hammer, ed., Oper in Hannover (q.v.), – . Smolec, Elizabeth Helen, ‘Dramatic Convention and Musical Style in Agostino Steffani’s Le rivali concordi ()’ (M.Mus. diss., University of Alberta, ) [not seen]. Stephan, Hans. ‘Agostino Steffani  –’, Niedersächsische Lebensbilder,  (), –. Timms, Colin. ‘Bass Patterns in Steffani’s Chamber Duets’, in Studi corelliani, iv: Atti del quarto congresso internazionale ( Fusignano,  – settembre ), ed. Pierluigi Petrobelli and Gloria Staffieri (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, ),  –. ———. ‘Brigida Bianchi’s poesie musicali and Their Settings’, I Quaderni della Civica Scuola di Musica, , nos. –  (Milan: Comune di Milano, Ripartizione Educazione, ),  – . ———. ‘The Chamber Duets of Agostino Steffani ( –): With Transcriptions and Catalogue’,  vols. (Ph.D. diss., University of London, ). ———. ‘The Dissemination of Steffani’s Operas’, in Colzani, Dubowy, Luppi, and Padoan, eds., Relazioni musicali (q.v.), – . ———. ‘The Fate of Steffani’s I trionfi del fato’, in Sundry Sorts of Music Books: Essays on the British Library Collections Presented to O. W. Neighbour on His th Birthday, ed. Chris Banks, Arthur Searle and Malcolm Turner (London: British Library, ), –. ———. ‘Gregorio Piva and Steffani’s Principal Copyist’, in Source Materials and the Interpretation of Music: A Memorial Volume to Thurston Dart, ed. Ian Bent (London: Stainer & Bell, ), – . ———. ‘Handel and Steffani: A New Handel Signature’, Musical Times,  (),  –. ———. ‘Italian Church Music in Handel’s London: The Sacred Works of Agostino Steffani’, Händel-Jahrbuch,  (), –. ———. ‘Music and Musicians in the Letters of Giuseppe Riva to Agostino Steffani (– )’, ML,  (), – . ———. ‘Revisions in Steffani’s Chamber Duets’, PRMA,  (–),  – . ———. ‘Steffani and the Academy of Ancient Music’, Musical Times,  (), – . ———. ‘Steffani’s Influence on Handel’s Chamber Duets’, in Handel Tercentenary Collection, ed. Stanley Sadie and Anthony Hicks (London: Macmillan, ), – . ———. ‘Steffani’s Solo Cantatas’, in ‘Con che soavità’: Studies in Italian Opera, Song, and Dance,  –, ed. Iain Fenlon and Tim Carter (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), – . ———. ‘What Did Handel Learn from Steffani’s Operas?’, GHB,  (), -. Untersteiner, Alfredo. ‘Agostino Steffani’, RMI,  (),  – . Werner, Theodor Wilhelm. ‘Agostino Steffanis Operntheater in Hannover’, Archiv für Musikforschung,  (), –. Werner, Theodor Wilhelm, and Alfred Einstein. ‘Die Musikhandschriften des Kestnerschen Nachlasses im Stadtarchiv zu Hannover’, ZMw,  (–), – . Witt, Franz. ‘Historisches und Ästhetisches’, KJb,  [= Caecilienkalendar, ] (), – . Woker, Franz Wilhelm. Agostino Steffani, Bischof von Spiga i.p.i., apostolischer Vikar von Norddeutschland  – , Vereinsschriften der Görresgesellschaft, no.  (Cologne: J. P. Bachem, ).





 ———. Aus den Papieren des kurpfälzischen Ministers Agostino Steffani, Bischofs von Spiga, spätern apostolischen Vicars von Norddeutschland . . .  –, Vereinsschriften der Görresgesellschaft, no.  (Cologne: J. P. Bachem, ). ———. ‘Der apostolische Vikar des deutschen Nordens Agostino Steffani, Bischof von Spiga, und die Abtei Selz’, Der katholische Seelsorger,  (), – , –,  – . ———. ‘Der Tondichter Agostino Steffani’, Der Katholik,  (),  – , – .

.  :   Abbetmeyer, Theodor. Zur Geschichte der Musik am Hofe in Hannover vor Agostino Steffani – : Ein Bild künstlerischer Kultur im . Jahrhundert (Hanover: Emil Homann, ). Alm, Irene. ‘Operatic Ballroom Scenes and the Arrival of French Social Dance in Venice’, Studi musicali,  (),  –. Anthony, James R. French Baroque Music from Beaujoyeulx to Rameau, rev. ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, ). Arnold, Denis. ‘The Solo Motet in Venice (–)’, PRMA,  ( – ),  – . Barbieri, Patrizio. ‘Calegari, Vallotti, Riccati e le teorie armoniche di Rameau: priorità, concordanze, contrasti’, RIM,  (), – . ———. ‘“Chiavette” and Modal Transposition in Italian Practice (c. –)’, Recercare,  (),  –. Baur, Uwe. ‘Studien zur Arieneinleitung in der Oper des . Jahrhunderts’, SMw,  (), – . Berardi, Angelo. Ragionamenti musicali (Bologna: Giacomo Monti, ). Berend, Fritz. Nicolaus Adam Strungk ( –): Sein Leben und seine Werke mit Beiträgen zur Geschichte des Theaters in Celle, Hannover und Leipzig (Hanover: Emil Homann, ). Bernardini, Alfredo. ‘The Oboe in the Venetian Republic’, EM,  (),  – . Bianconi, Lorenzo. Music in the Seventeenth Century, trans. David Bryant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Bianconi, Lorenzo, and Giorgio Pestelli, eds. Storia dell’opera italiana, iv-vi (Turin: EDT/ Musica, – ). Bianconi, Lorenzo, and Thomas Walker. ‘Production, Consumption and Political Function of Seventeenth-Century Opera’, Early Music History,  (), – . Boalch, Donald Howard. Makers of the Harpsichord and Clavichord,  –, nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). Boeck, Urs. ‘Hannovers barockes Opernhaus’, in Hammer, Das Opernhaus in Hannover (q.v.), –. Bolongaro-Crevenna, Hubertus. ‘L’arpa festante’: Die Münchener Oper – (Munich: Georg D. W. Callwey, ). ———. ‘Die italienische Oper in München’, in Münster and Schmid, eds., Bayerische Musikgeschichte (q.v.),  – . Borgir, Tharald. The Performance of the Basso Continuo in Italian Baroque Music (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, ). Botstiber, Hugo. ‘Ein Beitrag zu J. K. Kerll’s Biographie’, SIMG,  (– ),  – . Bourdelot, Pierre. Histoire de la musique et de ses effets (), reprint of the Amsterdam, , edition (Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, ). Boyd, Malcolm. Domenico Scarlatti, Master of Music (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ). ———. ‘Form and Style in Scarlatti’s Chamber Cantatas’, MR,  (), – . Boyden, David Dodge. The History of Violin Playing from Its Origins to  (London: Oxford University Press, ).

 Bradshaw, Murray C. The Falsobordone: A Study in Renaissance and Baroque Music (NeuhausenStuttgart: Hänssler, ). Braun, Werner. Vom Remter zum Gänsemarkt: Aus der Frühgeschichte der alten Hamburger Oper (– ) (Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, ). Brockpähler, Renate. Handbuch zur Geschichte der Barockoper in Deutschland (Emsdetten: Lechte, ). Buelow, George J. ‘Hamburg Opera during Buxtehude’s Lifetime: The Works of Johann Wolfgang Franck’, in Church, Stage and Studio: Music and Its Context in Seventeenth-Century Germany, ed. Paul Walker (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, ), – . ———, ed. The Late Baroque Era: From the s to , Man and Music (later Music and Society), no.  (Basingstoke: Macmillan, ). ———. ‘The Loci topici and Affect in Late Baroque Music’, MR,  (), –. Buelow, George J., and Hans Joachim Marx, eds. New Mattheson Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Bukofzer, Manfred. ‘Allegory in Baroque Music’, Journal of the Warburg Institute,  ( – ), – . ———. Music in the Baroque Era: From Monteverdi to Bach (New York: W. W. Norton, ). Burkley, Francis. ‘Priest-Composers of the Baroque: A Sacred-Secular Conflict’, MQ,  (), – . Burney, Charles. A General History of Music from the Earliest Ages to the Present Period,  vols. (London: For the Author, – ); ed. with critical and historical notes by Frank Mercer,  vols. (London: G. T. Foulis, ). Burrows, David. ‘The Cantatas of Antonio Cesti’ (Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, Waltham, Mass., ). Burrows, Donald. ‘Handel and Hanover’, in Bach, Handel, Scarlatti: Tercentenary Essays, ed. Peter Williams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ), – . ———, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Handel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Burrows, Donald, and Rosemary Dunhill. Music and Theatre in Handel’s World: The Family Papers of James Harris,  – (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ). Butt, John. Music Education and the Art of Performance in the German Baroque (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Caffi, Francesco. Storia della musica sacra nella già cappella ducale di San Marco di Venezia dal  al ,  vols. (Venice: G. Antonelli,  – ; reprint Bologna: Arnaldo Forni, ); new annotated ed. by Elvidio Surian (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, ). Caluori, Eleanor. The Cantatas of Luigi Rossi: Analysis and Thematic Index,  vols. (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, ). Cannon, Beekman C. Johannes Mattheson: Spectator in Music (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, ). Carse, Adam. The History of Orchestration (London: Kegan Paul, ). Carter, Stewart. ‘The String Tremolo in the th Century’, EM,  (),  – . Cavalli, Alberto. ‘Le cantate opera prima di Francesco Gasparini’, Chigiana,  (n.s., ) (), – . Celani, Enrico. ‘I cantori della cappella pontificia nei secoli XVI–XVIII’, RMI,  (),  –, – ;  (),  –. Celletti, Rodolfo. A History of Bel Canto, trans. Frederick Fuller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). Chrysander, Friedrich. G. F. Händel,  vols. (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, – ).





 ———. ‘Geschichte der Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttelschen Capelle und Oper vom XVI. bis zum XVIII. Jahrhundert’, Jahrbuch für musikalische Wissenschaft,  (), – . Collins, Michael, and Elise K. Kirk, eds. Opera and Vivaldi (Austin: University of Texas Press, ). Colzani, Alberto, Norbert Dubowy, Andrea Luppi, and Maurizio Padoan, eds. Relazioni musicali tra Italia e Germania nell’età barocca: Atti del VI Convegno internazionale sulla musica italiana nei secoli XVII–XVIII, Loveno de Menaggio (Como), – luglio  (Como: Antiquae Musicae Italicae Studiosi, ). Colzani, Alberto, Andrea Luppi, and Maurizio Padoan, eds. Seicento inesplorato. L’evento musicale tra prassi e stile – un modello di interdipendenza: Atti del III Convegno internazionale sulla musica in area lombardo-padana del secolo XVII, Lenno-Como,  –  giugno  (Como: Antiquae Musicae Italicae Studiosi, ). Corrigan, Beatrice. ‘All Happy Endings: Libretti of the Late Seicento’, Forum Italicum,  (),  – . Couvreur, Manuel, and Jean-Philippe van Aelbrouck. ‘Gio Paolo Bombarda et la création du Grand Théâtre de Bruxelles’, in Le Théâtre de la Monnaie au XVIIIme siècle, ed. Manuel Couvreur (Brussels: Université Libre de Bruxelles, ), – . Croll, Gerhard. ‘“S’alza la tenda”: Annotazioni sulla “Sinfonia avanti l’opera”’, in Giovanni Legrenzi e la Cappella Ducale di San Marco: Atti dei Convegni internazionali di Venezia e Clusone , ed. Francesco Passadore and Franco Rossi (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, ), –. Crosby, Brian. A Catalogue of Durham Cathedral Music Manuscripts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ). Crowther, Victor. The Oratorio in Modena (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). Cudworth, Charles. ‘“Baptist’s vein”: French Orchestral Music and Its Influence from  to ’, PRMA,  ( – ),  – . Daub, Peggy. ‘Queen Caroline of England’s Music Library’, in Music Publishing and Collecting: Essays in Honor of Donald W. Krummel, ed. David Hunter (Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, ), – . Dean, Winton. Handel’s Dramatic Oratorios and Masques (London: Oxford University Press, ). ———. ‘Rossane: Pasticcio or Handel Opera?’, GHB,  (), – . Dean, Winton, and John Merrill Knapp. Handel’s Operas  – (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). Degrada, Francesco. ‘Giuseppe Riva e il suo Avviso ai compositori ed ai cantanti’, AnMc,  (), – . Dent, Edward J. Alessandro Scarlatti: His Life and Works, new impression, ed. Frank Walker (London: Edward Arnold, ). Deutsch, Otto Erich. Handel: A Documentary Biography (London: Adam and Charles Black, ). Di Luca, Claudia. ‘Pio Enea II Obizzi, promotore di spettacoli musicali fra Padova e Ferrara’, in Colzani, Luppi, and Padoan, eds., Seicento inesplorato (q.v.), – . Donington, Robert. The Interpretation of Early Music, new enlarged ed. (London: Faber, ). Dorris, George E. Paolo Rolli and the Italian Circle in London –  (The Hague: Mouton, ). Dubowy, Norbert. Arie und Konzert: Zur Entwicklung der Ritornellanlage im . und frühen . Jahrhundert, Studien zur Musik, no.  (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, ). ———. ‘Ernst August, Giannettini und die Serenata in Venedig (/)’, AnMc, , no.  (), – . ———. ‘Italienische Opern in mitteldeutschen Theater am Ende des . Jahrhunderts:

 Dresden und Leipzig’, in Barockes Musiktheater im mitteldeutschen Raum im . und . Jahrhundert, ed. Friedhelm Brusniak, Arolser Beiträge zur Musikforschung, no.  (Cologne: Studio, ),  – . ———. ‘Markgraf Georg Friedrich, Pistocchi, Torelli: Fakten und Interpretationen zu Ansbachs “Italienischer Periode”’, in Italienische Musiker und Musikpflege an deutschen Höfen der Barockzeit, ed. Friedhelm Brusniak, Arolser Beiträge zur Musikforschung, no.  (Cologne: Studio, ), – . ———. ‘Pollarolo e Ziani a Verona: Annotazioni in margine a tre partiture ritrovate’, in Colzani, Luppi, and Padoan, eds., Seicento inesplorato (q.v.), – . Durante, Sergio. ‘Alcune considerazioni sui cantanti di teatro del primo Settecento e la loro formazione’, in Antonio Vivaldi: Teatro musicale, cultura e società,  vols., ed. Lorenzo Bianconi and Giovanni Morelli (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, ), ii. – . Durante, Sergio, and Pierluigi Petrobelli. Storia della musica al Santo di Padova (Vicenza: Neri Pozza, ). Duron, Jean. ‘Repères bibliographiques: Un fonds lorrain à découvrir?’, Bulletin de l’Atelier d’études sur la musique française des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles,  (), –. Ebert, Alfred. Attilio Ariosti in Berlin (–) (Leipzig: Giesecke & Devrient, ). Edwards, Owain. ‘The Response to Corelli’s Music in Eighteenth-Century England’, Studia Musicologica Norvegica,  (), – . Einstein, Alfred. ‘Italienische Musiker am Hof der Neuburger Wittelsbacher  –’, SIMG,  (– ), – . Eisley, Irving Robert. ‘The Secular Cantatas of Mario Savioni (–)’ (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Los Angeles, ). Feininger, Laurentius. ‘Die katholische Kirchenmusik in Rom zwischen  und : Eine unfassbare Lacune in der Musikgeschichte’, in Bericht über den internationalen musikwissenschaftlichen Kongress Kassel , ed. Georg Reichert and Martin Just (Kassel: Bärenreiter, ), – . Fellerer, Karl Gustav. Geschichte der katholischen Kirchenmusik, ii: Vom Tridentinum bis zur Gegenwart (Kassel: Bärenreiter, ). Fenlon, Iain, ed. The Renaissance: From the s to the End of the th Century, Man and Music (later Music and Society), no.  (Basingstoke: Macmillan, ). Fétis, François-Joseph. Biographie universelle des musiciens et bibliographie générale de la musique, nd ed. (Paris: Firmin-Didot, – ). Fischer, Georg. Musik in Hannover (Hanover: Hahn, ). Forkel, Johann Nikolaus. Musikalischer Almanach für Deutschland auf das Jahr  – , ; reprint (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, ). Fortune, Nigel. ‘From Madrigal to Duet’, in The Monteverdi Companion, ed. Denis Arnold and Nigel Fortune (London: Faber, ), – . ———. ‘Solo Song and Cantata’, in NOHM, iv: The Age of Humanism (–), ed. Gerald Abraham (London: Oxford University Press, ),  – . Freeman, Robert. ‘Apostolo Zeno’s Reform of the Opera Libretto’, JAMS,  (), – . ———. Opera without Drama: Currents of Change in Italian Opera, – (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, ). Freitäger, Andreas. ‘Carlo Luigi Pietragrua d. Ä. (ca. –): Studien zur Biographie eines “Vor-Mannheimers”’, Musik in Bayern,  (), – . ———. ‘Händels Beziehungen zum Düsseldorfer Hof des Kurfürsten Johann Wilhelm von der Pfalz’, GHB,  (),  – . Fuld, James J. The Book of World-Famous Music: Classical, Popular and Folk (New York: Crown Publishers, ).





 Gianturco, Carolyn. Alessandro Stradella ( –): His Life and Music (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). Gianturco, Carolyn, and Eleanor McCrickard. Alessandro Stradella ( – ). A Thematic Catalogue of His Compositions (New York: Pendragon, ). Giazotto, Remo. ‘Da Congregazione ad Accademia: Momenti, aspetti, progetti e personaggi’, Studi musicali,  (),  – . ———. Quattro secoli di storia dell’Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia (Rome: Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia, ). Gmeinwieser, Siegfried. ‘Die altklassische Vokalpolyphonie Roms in ihre Bedeutung für den kirchenmusikalischen Stil in München: Eine Untersuchung über die Bestände des Musikarchivs der Theatinerkirche St. Kajetan in München’, AnMc,  (),  – . Godwin, Joscelyn. ‘The Golden Chain of Orpheus: A Survey of Musical Esotericism in the West, II’, Temenos,  (), – . Gottron, Adam. ‘Joseph Paris Feckler. Kurmainzer Hofkapellmeister  –’, Archiv für Musikwissenschaft,  –  ( – ), – . Grout, Donald Jay, with Hermine Weigel Williams. A Short History of Opera, rd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, ). Haberkamp, Gertraut, and Barbara Zuber. Die Musikhandschriften Herzog Wilhelms in Bayern, der Grafen zu Toerring-Jettenbach und der Fürsten Fugger von Babenhausen: Thematischer Katalog (Munich: G. Henle, ). Hammer, Sabine. Das Opernhaus in Hannover: Architektur und Theatergeschichte (Hanover: Schlüter, ). ———, ed. Oper in Hannover:  Jahre Wandel in Musiktheater einer Stadt (Hanover: Schlüter, ). Harris, Simon. ‘Lully, Corelli, Muffat and the Eighteenth-Century Orchestral String Body’, ML,  (), – . Harriss, Ernest Charles. Johann Mattheson’s ‘Der vollkommene Capellmeister’: A Revised Translation with Critical Commentary (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, ). Harris-Warwick, Rebecca. ‘A Few Thoughts on Lully’s Hautbois’, EM,  (), –. Hawkins, John. An Account of the Institution and Progress of the Academy of Ancient Music (London, ). ———. A General History of the Science and Practice of Music,  vols. (London: Payne & Son, ); nd ed.,  vols. (London: Novello, ; reprint ). Haynes, Bruce. ‘Lully and the Rise of the Oboe as seen in Works of Art’, EM,  (),  – . Herissone, Rebecca. ‘The Magdalene College Partbooks: Origins and Contents’, RMARC,  (), – . Heyer, John Hajdu, ed. Jean-Baptiste Lully and the Music of the French Baroque: Essays in Honor of James R. Anthony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Heyink, Rainer. ‘Al decoro della Chiesa, & à lode del Signore Iddio’: I vespri concertati nella Roma del Seicento (Rome: Istituto Storico Germanico, ). Hicks, Anthony. ‘Handel’s Early Musical Development’, PRMA,  (–),  – . Hiller, Johann Adam. Lebensbeschreibungen berühmter Musikgelehrten und Tonkünstler neuerer Zeit (Leipzig: Dyk, ; reprint Frankfurt: C. F. Peters, ). Jander, Owen. ‘Alessandro Stradella and His Minor Dramatic Works’ (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, ). ———. ‘The Cantata in Accademia: Music for the Accademia de’ Dissonanti and Their Duke, Francesco II D’Este’, RIM,  (), – . ———. ‘Concerto Grosso Instrumentation in Rome in the s and s’, JAMS,  (),  – .

 ———, ed. Wellesley Edition Cantata Index Series (Wellesley, Mass.: Wellesley College,  – ): i: Antonio Cesti, ed. David Burrows (); ii: Mario Savioni, ed. Irving Eisley (); iii: Luigi Rossi, ed. Eleanor Caluori (); iv: Alessandro Stradella, ed. Owen Jander (); v: Giacomo Carissimi, ed. Gloria Rose (); [vi-vii: not published]; viii-ix: Alessandro Melani, Atto Melani, ed. Robert Lamar Weaver (). Johnstone, Harry Diack, ed. The Eighteenth Century: The Blackwell History of Music in Britain, iv (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ). Katzbichler, Emil. Über das Leben und die weltlichen Vokalwerke des Ercole Bernabei, –, Hofkapellmeister in München von  – (Munich: Katzbichler, ). King, Alec Hyatt. ‘Frederick Nicolay, Chrysander, and the Royal Music Library’, Monthly Musical Record,  (),  – . ———. ‘The Royal Music Library: Some Account of Its Provenance and Associations’, Book Collector,  (), – . ———. Some British Collectors of Music, c. – (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). King, Richard Glenn. ‘The Composition and Reception of Handel’s Alessandro’ (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, ). Kirkendale, Ursula. ‘The War of the Spanish Succession Reflected in the Works of Antonio Caldara’, Acta,  (), – . Klenz, William. Giovanni Maria Bononcini of Modena: A Chapter in Baroque Instrumental Music (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, ). Kremer, Katharina. ‘Pietro Torri und seine Kammermusikwerke’ (Inaugural-Diss., University of Munich, ). Kümmerling, Harald. Katalog der Sammlung Bokemeyer, Kieler Schriften zur Musikwissenschaft, no.  (Kassel: Bärenreiter, ). La Borde, Jean-Benjamin-François de. Essai sur la musique ancienne et moderne (Paris: P. D. Pierres, ; reprint Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, ). La Gorce, Jérôme de. ‘Some Notes on Lully’s Orchestra’, in Heyer, ed., Jean-Baptiste Lully (q.v.),  –. LaRue, C. Steven. Handel and His Singers: The Creation of the Royal Academy Operas, – (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). Lawson, Colin. The Chalumeau in Eighteenth-Century Music (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, ). Leich, Karl. Girolamo Frigimelica Robertis Libretti ( –): Ein Beitrag insbesondere zur Geschichte des Opernlibrettos in Venedig (Munich: Katzbichler, ). Lenneberg, Hans. ‘Johann Mattheson on Affect and Rhetoric in Music’, Journal of Music Theory,  (), – , – . Leopold, Silke. ‘Über die Inszenierung durch Musik: Einige grundsätzliche Überlegungen zur Interaktion von Verhaltensnormen und Personendarstellung in der Barockoper’, Basler Jahrbuch für Historische Musikpraxis,  (), – . Lesure, François. Bibliographie des éditions musicales publiées par Estienne Roger et Michel-Charles le Cène (Paris: Société Française de Musicologie, ). Libby, Dennis. ‘Interrelationships in Corelli’, JAMS,  (), – . Liebscher, Julia. Das italienische Kammerduett (ca. –) (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, ). Lindgren, Lowell. ‘Count Rudolf Franz Erwein von Schönborn (–) and the Italian Sonatas for Violoncello in His Collection at Wiesentheid’, in Colzani, Dubowy, Luppi, and Padoan, eds., Relazioni musicali (q.v.),  – . ———. ‘La carriera di Gaetano Berenstadt, contralto evirato (ca. –)’, RIM,  (), –.





 ———. ‘Musicians and Librettists in the Correspondence of Gio. Giacomo Zamboni (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MSS Rawlinson Letters –)’, RMARC,  () [whole volume]. Lionnet, Jean. ‘Une “mode française” à Rome au XVIIe siècle’, Revue de musicologie,  (),  – . Lipsius, Ida Maria (‘La Mara’). Musikerbriefe aus fünf Jahrhunderten (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, ). Luin, Elisabetta J. ‘Antonio e Francesco Borosini: Due celebri cantanti del XVIIo secolo’, RMI,  (), – . ———. ‘Antonio Giannettini e la musica a Modena alla fine del secolo XVII’, Atti e memorie della R. deputazione di storia patria per le provincie modenesi, th series, vol.  (– ),  – . ———. ‘Repertorio dei libri musicali di S. A. S. Francesco II d’Este nell’Archivio di Stato di Modena’, La bibliofilia: Rivista di storia del libro,  (),  – . Luppi, Andrea. Lo specchio dell’armonia universale: Estetica e musica in Leibniz (Milan: Franco Angeli, ). Maier, Julius Joseph. ‘Archivalische Excerpte über die herzoglich bayerische Hofkapelle’, KJb,  (),  – . Mainwaring, John. Memoirs of the Life of the Late George Frederic Handel (London: R. & J. Dodsley, ; reprint New York: Da Capo, ). Mangani, Marco. Il repertorio vocale profano nelle raccolte a stampa del secolo XVII (Rome: Torre d’Orfeo, ). Mann, Alfred. The Study of Fugue, nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, ). Mantuani, Joseph. Tabulae codicum manuscriptorum praeter Graecos et Orientales in Bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensi asservatorum, ix-x: Codicum musicorum (Vienna: Caroli Geroldi Filius, – ; reprint Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, ). Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. Historisch-kritische Beyträge zur Aufnahme der Musik, iv-v (Berlin: Gottlieb August Lange,  – ; reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms, ). Martini, Giovanni Battista. Esemplare o sia Saggio fondamentale pratico di contrappunto fugato sopra il canto fermo,  vols. (Bologna: Lelio dalla Volpe,  –; facsimile Ridgewood, N.J.: Gregg Press, ). ———. Storia della musica,  vols. (Bologna: Lelio dalla Volpe,  [recte ] to ; reprint Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, ). Marx, Hans Joachim. ‘Die Musik am Hofe Pietro Kardinal Ottobonis unter Arcangelo Corelli’, AnMc,  (),  –. ———. Johann Mattheson (–): Lebensbeschreibung des Hamburger Musikers, Schriftstellers und Diplomaten nach der ‘Grundlage einer Ehrenpforte’ und den handschriftlichen Nachträgen des Verfassers (Hamburg: Karl Dieter Wagner, ). ———. ‘Solo Song and Duet in Italy and Germany,  –’, in NOHM, vi: Concert Music (–), ed. Gerald Abraham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), –. Marx, Hans Joachim, and Dorothea Schröder. Die Hamburger Gänsemarkt-Oper: Katalog der Textbücher (–) (Laaber: Laaber Verlag, ). Marx-Weber, Magda. ‘Domenico Scarlattis Stabat Mater’, KJb,  (), – . ———. Katalog der Musikhandschriften im Besitz des Musikwissenschaftlichen Seminars der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn, BRMg,  () [whole volume]. Massip, Catherine. ‘Airs français et italiens dans l’édition française, –’, Revue de musicologie,  (),  – . Mattheson, Johann. Critica musica . . . Erstes Stück (Hamburg: Auf Unkosten des Autoris, ) and Zweyter Band (Hamburg: Thomas von Wierings Erben, ); reprint (Amsterdam: Frits A. M. Knuf, ).

 ———. Das neu-eröffnete Orchestre (Hamburg: Benjamin Schillers Wittwe, ). ———. Der musicalische Patriot (Hamburg: Mattheson, ). ———. Der vollkommene Capellmeister (Hamburg: Christian Herold, ; reprint Kassel: Bärenreiter, ); trans. Ernest Charles Harriss (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, ). ———. Grundlage einer Ehrenpforte (Hamburg: In Verlegung des Verfassers, ; reprint Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, ). ———. Kern melodischer Wissenschaft (Hamburg: Christian Herold, ). Menestrier, Claude-François. Des représentations en musique anciennes et modernes (Paris: R. Guignard, ). Mies, Paul. ‘Über die Behandlung der Frage im . und . Jahrhundert: Beiträge zur musikalischen Figurenlehre’, ZMw,  (– ), – . Münster, Robert. ‘Neu aufgefundene Opern, Oratorien und szenische Kantaten von Pietro Torri’, Musik in Bayern,  (),  – . Münster, Robert, and Hans Schmid, eds. Bayerische Musikgeschichte: Überblick und Einzeldarstellungen (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, ). Münster, Robert, Hans Schmid, and Folker Göthel, eds. Musik in Bayern,  vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, ). Muraro, Maria Teresa, ed. Venezia e il melodramma nel Settecento (Florence: L. S. Olschki, ). Newman, William S. The Sonata in the Baroque Era, rev. ed. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, ). Over, Berthold. ‘La costanza trionfante: Eine Vivaldi-Oper in München?’, in Colzani, Dubowy, Luppi, and Padoan, eds., Relazioni musicali (q.v.), – . Pagano, Sergio M. ‘La Congregazione di S. Cecilia e i Barnabiti: Pagine inedite della prima attività ceciliana’, Nuova rivista musicale italiana,  (),  – . Petrobelli, Pierluigi. ‘The Italian Years of Anton Raaff ’, Mozart-Jahrbuch  – (),  –. Pirro, André. ‘Remarques de quelques voyageurs sur la musique en Allemagne et dans les pays du nord, de  à ’, in Riemann-Festschrift. Gesammelte Studien: Hugo Riemann zum sechzigsten Geburtstag, ed. Carl Heinrich Mennicke (Leipzig: Max Hess, ), – . Pratella Balilla, Francesco. ‘Giacomo Carissimi ed i suoi oratori’, RMI,  (), – . Reimer, Erich. Die Hofmusik in Deutschland,  –: Wandlungen einer Institution (Wilhelmshaven: Florian Noetzel, ). Riccati, Giordano. Saggio sopra le leggi del contrappunto (Castelfranco: G. Trento, ). Riemann, Hugo. ‘Basso ostinato und Basso quasi ostinato’, in Festschrift zum . Geburtstage des . . . Rochus Freiherrn von Liliencron (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, ), – . Ritter, Ernst. ‘Musiker am kurbayerischen Hof zu München (–)’, Archiv für Sippenforschung, , no.  (), – . Robinson, Michael F. Naples and Neapolitan Opera (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). ———. Opera before Mozart, nd ed. (London: Hutchinson, ). Roche, Jerome. ‘Liturgical Music in Italy, – ’, in NOHM, v: Opera and Church Music ( –), ed. Anthony Lewis and Nigel Fortune (London: Oxford University Press, ),  –. Romagnoli, Angela. ‘Fra catene, fra stili e fra veleni . . .’, ossia Della scena di prigione nell’opera italiana ( –) (Lucca: Libreria Musicale Italiana, ). Rosand, Ellen. ‘Barbara Strozzi, Virtuosissima Cantatrice: The Composer’s Voice’, JAMS,  (), – . ———. Opera in Seventeenth-Century Venice: The Creation of a Genre (Berkeley: University of California Press, ).





 ———. ‘Orlando in Seicento Venice: The Road Not Taken’, in Collins and Kirk, eds., Opera and Vivaldi (q.v.), –. Rose, Gloria. ‘The Cantatas of Carissimi’ (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, ). ———. ‘The Cantatas of Giacomo Carissimi’, MQ,  (),  –. ———. ‘The Italian Cantata of the Baroque Period’, in Gattungen der Musik in Einzeldarstellungen: Gedenkschrift Leo Schrade, ed. Wulf Arlt, Ernst Lichtenhahn, and Hans Oesch (Bern: Francke, ),  –. ———. ‘Polyphonic Italian Madrigals of the Seventeenth Century’, ML,  (), – . Rosow, Lois. ‘Paris Opéra Orchestration, –: Deciphering the Code in the Orchestral Parts’, in Dance and Music in French Baroque Theatre: Sources and Interpretations, ed. Sarah McCleave (London: King’s College Institute of Advanced Musical Studies, ), – . Rosselli, John. ‘The Castrati as a Professional Group and a Social Phenomenon,  –’, Acta,  (),  –. Rudhart, Franz Michael. Geschichte der Oper am Hofe zu München (Freising: F. Datterer, ). Sartori, Claudio. I libretti italiani a stampa dalle origini al : Catologo analitico con  indici,  vols. (Cuneo: Bertola & Locatelli, – ). Saville, Eugenia. ‘“L’abate” Clari and the continuo madrigal’, JAMS,  (),  – . Scheibe, Johann Adolph. Critischer Musikus (Leipzig: Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf, ; reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms, ). Schenk, Erich. ‘Beobachtungen über die modenesische Instrumentalmusikschule des . Jahrhunderts’, SMw,  (), – . Schiedermair, Ludwig. ‘Die Anfänge der Münchener Oper’, SIMG,  ( – ),  – . ———. Künstlerische Bestrebungen am Hofe des Kurfürsten Ferdinand Maria von Bayern (Freising: F. P. Datterer, ). Schmidt, Carl B. ‘The Geographical Spread of Lully’s Operas during the Late Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries: New Evidence from the Livrets’, in Heyer, ed., JeanBaptiste Lully (q.v.), – . Schmidt, Gustav Friedrich. Die frühdeutsche Oper und die musikdramatische Kunst Georg Caspar Schürmanns,  vols. (Regensburg: Bosse, – ). ———. Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der Musik und des Theaters am herzoglichen Hofe zu BraunschweigWolfenbüttel. Erste Folge: Chronologisches Verzeichnis (Munich: W. Berntheisel, ). Schmitz, Eugen. Geschichte der weltlichen Solokantate (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, ; reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms, ); nd ed. (). ———. ‘Zur Geschichte des italienischen Continuo-madrigals im . Jahrhundert’, SIMG,  (), – . ———. ‘Zur Geschichte des italienischen Kammerduetts im . Jahrhundert’, Jahrbuch der Musikbibliothek Peters,  (), – . Schneider, Herbert. ‘The Amsterdam Editions of Lully’s Orchestral Suites’, in Heyer, ed., Jean-Baptiste Lully (q.v.),  – . ———. ‘Structures métriques du menuet au XVIIe et au début du XVIIIe siècle’, Revue de musicologie,  (), – . ———. ‘Unbekannte Handschriften der Hofkapelle in Hannover: Zum Repertoire französischer Hofkapellen in Deutschland’, in Aufklärungen, ii: Studien zur deutsch-französischen Musikgeschichte im . Jahrhundert – Einflüsse und Wirkungen, ed. Wolfgang Birtel and Christoph-Hellmuth Mahling, Annales Universitatis Saraviensis, Reihe Philosophische Fakultät, no.  (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, ), – . Schnoebelen, Anna, ed. Padre Martini’s Collection of Letters in the Civico museo bibliografico musicale in Bologna: An Annotated Index (New York: Pendragon, ).

 Scholes, Percy A. The Life and Activities of Sir John Hawkins (London: Oxford University Press, ). Scholz, Hans. Johann Sigismund Kusser (Cousser): Sein Leben und seine Werke (Leipzig: C. G. Röder, ). Schone, Günter. ‘Les grands fêtes de Munich en ’, Baroque: Revue internationale,  (), – . Schrewe, Hans, and Friedrich Schmidt. ‘Das Hannoversche Hof- und Opern-Orchester und seine Mitglieder’, Hannoversche Geschichtsblätter, n.s.,  (), –. Schulze, Walter. Die Quellen der Hamburger Oper ( –) (Hamburg: G. Stalling, ). Seifert, Herbert. Die Oper am Wiener Kaiserhof im . Jahrhundert (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, ). Selfridge-Field, Eleanor. Music of Benedetto and Alessandro Marcello: A Thematic Catalogue with Commentary on the Composers, Repertory, and Sources (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). ———. Venetian Instrumental Music from Gabrieli to Vivaldi (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, ). Sievers, Heinrich. Die Musik in Hannover (Hanover: Sponholtz, ). ———. Hannoversche Musikgeschichte: Dokumente, Kritiken und Meinungen,  vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, ). Sittard, Josef. Zur Geschichte der Musik und des Theaters am Württembergischen Hofe: Nach Originalquellen,  vols. (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer,  – ). Smith, Julian. ‘Carlo Pallavicino’, PRMA,  (–), –. Smith, Peter. ‘Liturgical Music in Italy, –’, in NOHM, v: Opera and Church Music ( –), ed. Anthony Lewis and Nigel Fortune (London: Oxford University Press, ), – . Sonneck, Oscar G. T. Catalogue of Opera Librettos Printed before ,  vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, ). Steffen, Gerhard. ‘Johann Hugo von Wilderer ( bis ), Kapellmeister am kurpfälzischen Hofe zu Düsseldorf und Mannheim’, BRMg,  () [whole volume]. Stieger, Franz. Opernlexikon,  vols. (Tutzing: Hans Schneider,  – ). Strohm, Reinhard. Dramma per Musica: Italian Opera Seria of the Eighteenth Century (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, ). ———. Essays on Handel and Italian Opera (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Talbot, Michael. ‘New Light on Vivaldi’s Stabat Mater’, Informazioni e studi vivaldiani,  (),  – . ———. The Sacred Vocal Music of Antonio Vivaldi (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, ). ———. Vivaldi, The Master Musicians (London: Dent, ). Tarr, Edward H., and Thomas Walker. ‘“Bellici carmi, festivo fragor”: Die Verwendung der Trompete in der italienischen Oper des . Jahrhunderts’, HJbM,  (), – . Termini, Olga. ‘Singers at San Marco in Venice: The Competition between Church and Theatre (c. –c. )’, RMARC,  (),  – . ———. ‘Stylistic and Formal Changes in the Arias of Carlo Francesco Pollarolo (ca.  – )’, Current Musicology,  (), – . ———. ‘The Transformation of Madrigalisms in Venetian Operas of the late Seventeenth Century’, MR,  (),  – . Theil, Eberhard, and Gisela Rohr, eds. Libretti: Verzeichnis der bis  erschienenen Textbücher, Kataloge der Herzog-August-Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, no.  (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, ). Timms, Colin. ‘The Cavata at the Time of Vivaldi’, in Nuovi studi vivaldiani: Edizione e cronologia critica delle opere,  vols., ed. Antonio Fanna and Giovanni Morelli (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, ), i. –.





 Tomek, Otto. ‘Das Strukturphänomen des verkappten Satzes a tre in der Musik des . und . Jahrhunderts’, SMw,  (), –. Tosi, Pier Francesco. Opinioni de’ cantori antichi, e moderni (Bologna: Lelio dalla Volpe, ; reprint Bologna: Arnaldo Forni, ); trans. John Ernest Galliard as Observations on the Florid Song (London: J. Wilcox, ; nd ed. ; reprint London: William Reeves, ). Tunley, David. The Eighteenth-Century French Cantata (London: Dennis Dobson, ). Ursprung, Otto. Münchens musikalische Vergangenheit von der Frühzeit bis zu Richard Wagner (Munich: Bayerlandverlag, ). Wallbrecht, Rosenmarie Elisabeth. Das Theater des Barockzeitalters an den welfischen Höfen Hannover und Celle (Hildesheim: August Lax, ). Walter, Friedrich. Geschichte des Theaters und der Musik am kurpfälzischen Hofe (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, ). Weaver, Robert Lamar, and Norma Wright Weaver. A Chronology of Music in the Florentine Theater  – (Detroit: Information Coordinators, ). Weber, William. The Rise of Musical Classics in Eighteenth-Century England: A Study in Canon, Ritual, and Ideology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). Whenham, John. Duet and Dialogue in the Age of Monteverdi,  vols. (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, ). Wiel, Taddeo. I teatri musicali veneziani del Settecento (Venice: Visentini, ; reprint Bologna: Arnaldo Forni, ). Williams, Hermine H. ‘The Stabat Mater Dolorosa: A Comparison of Settings by Alessandro Scarlatti and Giovanni Battista Pergolesi’, Studi pergolesiani,  (),  – . Witzenmann, Wolfgang. ‘Die italienische Kirchenmusik des Barocks. Ein Bericht über die Literatur aus den Jahren –, Teil II: Mittel- und Spätbarock’, Acta,  (),  – . Wolff, Helmut Christian. Die Barockoper in Hamburg (–) (Wolfenbüttel: Möseler, ). Worsthorne, Simon Towneley. Venetian Opera in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). Yorke-Long, Alan. Music at Court: Four Eighteenth-Century Studies (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ). Zelm, Klaus. ‘Die Sänger der Hamburger Gänsemarkt-Oper’, HJbM,  (), –. ———. ‘Zur Verarbeitung italienischer Stoffe auf der Hamburger Gänsemarkt-Oper’, HJbM,  (), –. Zobeley, Fritz. ‘Die Musik am Hofe des Kurfürsten Johann Wilhelm von der Pfalz’, Neues Archiv für die Geschichte der Stadt Heidelberg und der Kurpfalz,  (), – . ———. Die Musikalien der Grafen von Schönborn-Wiesentheid. Thematischer-bibliographischer Katalog, I: Das Repertoire des Grafen Rudolf Franz Erwein von Schönborn (-), i: Drucke aus den Jahren  bis ; ii: Handschriften, ed. F. Dangel-Hofmann (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, , ). ———. ‘Zur Hofmusik des Kurfürsten Johann Wilhelm’, BRMg,  (), –.

.    :   Adamson, John, ed. The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture under the Ancien Régime,  – (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ). Arkell, Ruby L. Caroline of Ansbach, George the Second’s Queen (London: Oxford University Press, ). Bittner, Ludwig, and Lothar Gross, eds. Repertorium der diplomatischen Vertreter aller Länder seit dem Westfälischen Frieden (), i: – (Oldenburg: G. Stalling, ).

 Bodemann, Eduard, ed. Briefwechsel der Herzogin Sophie von Hannover mit ihrem Bruder, dem Kurfürsten Karl Ludwig von der Pfalz, und des letzteren mit seiner Schwägerin, der Pfalzgräfin Anna, Publicationen aus den Königlichen Preussischen Staatsarchiven, no.  (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, ). ———, ed. Der Briefwechsel des Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in der Königlichen Öffentlichen Bibliothek zu Hannover (Hanover: Hahn, ). ———. ‘Herzogin Sophie von Hannover: Ein Lebens- und Kulturbild des . Jahrhunderts’, in Historisches Taschenbuch, Folge , Jahrgang , ed. Wilhelm Maurenbrecher (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, ), – . Boll, Walter, ‘Zur Geschichte der Kunstbestrebungen des Kurfürsten von Mainz, Lothar Franz von Schönborn’, Neues Archiv für die Geschichte der Stadt Heidelberg und der Kurpfalz,  (),  – . Bothmer, Karl, and Georg Schnath, eds. Aus der Erinnerungen des Hans Kaspar von Bothmer: Lehrund Wanderjahre eines hannoversch-englischen Staatsmannes um  (Hildesheim: August Lax, ). Bromley, J. S., ed. The Rise of Great Britain and Russia, –: New Cambridge Modern History, vi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Brunner, Herbert, ed. Altes Residenztheater in München (Cuvilliés-Theater) (Munich: Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, ). Brunner, Herbert, Gerhard Hojer, and Lorenz Seelig, eds. Residence Munich (Munich: Bayerische Verwaltung der staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, ). Ceoldo, Pietro. Memorie della chiesa ed abbazia di S. Stefano di Carrara nella diocesi di Padova (Venice: Antonio Zatta qu[ondam] Giacomo, ). Chambers, Ephraim, ed. Cyclopaedia: or, An Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences,  vols. (London: James and John Knapton and others, ). Crescimbeni, Giovanni Mario. L’istoria della volgar poesia, rd ed.,  vols. (Venice: Lorenzo Basegio,  – ). ———. Notizie istoriche degli Arcadi morti,  vols. (Rome: A. De Rossi, – ). [D’Artis, Gabriel, ed.] Journal de Hambourg: Contenant divers memoires curieux & utiles, sur toute sorte de sujets,  vols. (Hamburg: Henry Heus,  – ). De Gregorio, Vincenzo. ‘Il tempo, la morte e la bellezza nella lirica barocca’, Studi secenteschi,  (), – . Dickinson, William Calvin, and Eloise R. Hitchcock: The War of the Spanish Succession, – : A Selected Bibliography (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, ). Doebner, Richard, ed. Briefe der Königin Sophie Charlotte von Preussen und der Kurfürstin Sophie von Hannover an hannoversche Diplomaten, Publicationen aus den Königlichen Preussischen Staatsarchiven, no.  (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, ). Elwert, Wilhelm Theodor. Italienische Metrik (Munich: Hueber, ); nd ed. as Versificazione italiana dalle origini ai giorni nostri (Florence: Le Monnier, ). Farmer, David Hugh. The Oxford Dictionary of Saints, nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ). Fauchier-Magnan, Adrien. The Small German Courts in the Eighteenth Century, trans. Mervyn Savill (London: Methuen, ). Feind, Barthold. Deutsche Gedichte . . . Sammt einer Vorrede von dem Temperament und GemüthsBeschaffenheit eines Poeten, und Gedancken von der Opera (Stade: Hinrich Brummer, ). Frey, Linda, and Marsha Frey. The Treatises of the War of the Spanish Succession: An Historical and Critical Dictionary (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, ). Gatz, Erwin, and Stephan Janker, eds. Die Bischöfe des Heiligen Römischen Reiches  bis . Ein biographisches Lexikon (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, ).





 Gottsched, Johann Christoph. Nöthiger Vorrath zur Geschichte der deutschen dramatischen Dichtkunst, oder Verzeichnis aller Deutschen Trauer- Lust- und Sing-Spiele, die in Druck erschienen, von  bis zur Hälfte des jetzigen Jahrhunderts,  vols. (Leipzig: Johann Michael Teubner, , ; reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms, ). Haskell, Francis. Patrons and Painters: A Study in the Relations between Italian Art and Society in the Age of the Baroque, rev. and enlarged ed. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, ). Hatton, Ragnhild. George I, Elector and King (London: Thames & Hudson, ). Haug, Hans. ‘Die Propsteikirche zu Sankt Clemens: Ein venezianischer Kirchenbau in Hannover’, Hannoversche Geschichtsblätter,  (),  – . Hauptmeyer, Carl-Hans. ‘Die Residenzstadt Hannover: Hannover um ’, in Hammer, ed., Oper in Hannover (q.v.),  –. Heigel, Karl Theodor von. ‘Über den Plan des Kurfürsten Johann Wilhelm von der Pfalz die armenische Königskrone zu gewinnen ( –)’, Sitzungsberichte der PhilosophischPhilologischen und der Historischen Classe der Königlich-Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, Jahrgang , Band  (Munich, ),  – . Hiltebrandt, Philipp. Preussen und die römische Kurie, i: Die vorfriderizianische Zeit (–) (Berlin: Bath, ). Hsia, R. Po-chia. The World of Catholic Renewal, – (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Hüttl, Ludwig. Max Emanuel: Der blaue Kurfürst, –: Eine politische Biographie, rd ed. (Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, ). Johns, Christopher M. S. Papal Art and Cultural Politics: Rome in the Age of Clement XI (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Kielmannsegg, Erich von, ed. Briefe des Herzogs Ernst Augustus zu Braunschweig-Lüneburg an Johann Franz Diedrich von Wendt, aus den Jahren  bis  (Hanover: Hahn, ). Knox, George. Antonio Pellegrini,  – (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). Kroll, Maria. Sophie, Electress of Hanover: A Personal Portrait (London: Gollancz, ). Kühn-Steinhausen, Hermine. ‘Der Briefwechsel der Kurfürstin Anna Maria Luise von der Pfalz’, Düsseldorfer Jahrbuch,  (), – . ———. Die letzte Medicäerin: Eine deutsche Kurfürstin (Anna Maria Luisa von der Pfalz, –) (Düsseldorf: Lintz, ). ———, ed. Die Rapparini-Handschrift der Landes- und Stadt-Bibliothek Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf: August Bagel, ). Lampe, Joachim. Aristokratie, Hofadel und Staatspatriziat in Kurhannover. Die Lebenskreise der höheren Beamten an den kurhannoverschen Zentral- und Hofbehörden  – (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ). Lau, Friedrich. ‘Die Regierungskollegien zu Düsseldorf und der Hofstaat zur Zeit Johann Wilhelms ( –)’, Düsseldorfer Jahrbuch,  (),  –  and  (), – . Lau, Friedrich, and Otto Most. Geschichte der Stadt Düsseldorf,  vols. (Düsseldorf: A. Bagel, ). Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von. Correspondance de Leibniz avec l’électrice Sophie de BrunswickLunebourg, ed. Onno Klopp,  vols. (Hanover: Klindworth, ). Levin, Theodor. ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kunstbestrebungen in dem Hause PfalzNeuburg’, Beiträge zur Geschichte des Niederrheins,  (), –  and  (), – . Malortie, Carl Ernst von. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Braunschweig-Lüneburgischen Hauses und Hofes,  vols. (Hanover: Hahn,  –). ———. Der hannoversche Hof unter dem Kurfürsten Ernst August und der Kurfürstin Sophie (Hanover: Hahn, ). Melville, Lewis. The First George in Hanover and England,  vols. (London: Pitman, ).

 Metzler, Johannes. Die apostolischen Vikariate des Nordens: Ihre Entstehung, ihre Entwicklung und ihre Verwalter (Paderborn: Bonifacius, ). Pastor, Ludwig von. The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, ed. Frederick Ignatius Antrobus,  vols. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, –). Penther, Johann Friedrich von. Erster (-Vierter) Theil einer (der) ausführlichen Anleithung zur Bürgerlichen Bau-Kunst,  vols. (Augsburg: Johann Andreas Pfeffel,  – ). Pieper, Anton. Die Propaganda Congregation und die nordischen Missionen im siebzehnten Jahrhundert: Aus den Akten des Propaganda Archivs und des Vatikanischen Geheimarchivs dargestellt, Vereinsschriften der Görresgesellschaft, no.  (Cologne: J. P. Bachem, ). Posner, Donald. Annibale Carracci: A Study in the Reform of Italian Painting around  (London: Phaidon, ). Praz, Mario. Studies in Seventeenth-Century Imagery, nd ed. (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, ). Puppati, Lorenzo. Degli uomini illustri di Castelfranco Brevi Nozioni (Castelfranco: Gaetano Longo, ). Quadrio, Francesco Saverio. Della storia e della ragione d’ogni poesia,  vols. (vol. : Bologna: Ferdinando Pisarri, ; vols.  – : Milan: Francesco Agnelli, – ). Reese, Armin. Die Rolle der Historie beim Aufstieg des Welfenhauses – (Hildesheim: August Lax, ). Reinhardstöttner, Karl von. ‘Über die Beziehungen der italienischen Literatur zum bayrischen Hofe und ihre Pflege an demselben’, Jahrbuch für Münchener Geschichte,  (),  –. Richter, Horst. Johann Oswald Harms: Ein deutscher Theaterdekorateur des Barock (Emsdetten: Lechte, ). Ritzler, Remigius, and Pirminus Sefrin, eds. Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi, v: A pontificatu Clementis PP. IX () usque ad pontificatum Benedicti PP. XIII () (Padua: Typis librariae ‘Il Messaggero di S. Antonio’, ). Roberts, Richard Arthur, ed. Diary of Viscount Percival, afterwards First Earl of Egmont,  vols., Historical Manuscripts Commission, no.  (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office,  – ). Scherf, Andreas. Johann Philipp Franz von Schönborn, Bischof von Würzburg ( –), der Erbauer der Residenz (Munich: Verlag der Kommission, ). Schnath, Georg, Der Königsmark-Briefwechsel: Korrespondenz der Prinzessin Sophie Dorothea von Hannover mit dem Grafen Philipp Christoph Königsmark  bis . Kritische Gesamtausgabe in Regestenform (Hildesheim: August Lax, ). ———. Geschichte Hannovers im Zeitalter der neunten Kur und der englischen Sukzession  –,  vols. (Hildesheim: August Lax, , , , ). ———, ed. Briefwechsel der Kurfürstin Sophie von Hannover mit dem preussischen Königshause (Berlin: K. F. Koehler, ). Seifert, Herbert. Der Sig-prangende Hochzeit-Gott: Hochzeitsfeste am Wiener Hof der Habsburger und ihre Allegorik  – (Vienna: Musikwissenschaftlicher Verlag, ). Spongano, Raffaello. Nozioni ed esempi di metrica italiana (Bologna: Riccardo Patron, ). Straub, Eberhard. Repraesentatio maiestatis, oder churbayerische Freudenfeste: Die höfischen Feste in der Münchner Residenz vom . bis zum Ende des . Jahrhunderts (Munich: Stadtarchiv, ). Symcox, Geoffrey. Victor Amadeus II: Absolutism in the Savoyard State, – (Berkeley: University of California Press, ). Tardito-Amerio, Rosalba. Italienische Architekten, Stukkatoren und Bauhandwerker der Barockzeit in den welfischen Ländern und im Bistum Hildesheim (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, ). Tibus, Adolph. Geschichtliche Nachrichten über die Weihbischöfe von Münster: Ein Beitrag zur Specialgeschichte des Bisthums Münster (Münster: Friedrich Regensburg, ).





 Timms, Colin. ‘George I’s Venetian Palace and Theatre Boxes in the s’, in Music and Theatre: Essays in Honour of Winton Dean, ed. Nigel Fortune (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ),  –. Toland, John. An Account of the Courts of Prussia and Hannover; Sent to a Minister of State in Holland (London: John Darby, ). Trautmann, Karl. ‘Italienische Schauspieler am bayrischen Hofe’, Jahrbuch für Münchener Geschichte,  (), – . Tüchle, Hermann. ‘Mitarbeiter und Probleme in Deutschland und in Skandinavien’, in Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum, ed. Johannes Metzler,  vols. (Rome: Herder, –), ii. –. Vorkamp, Gerhard. ‘Das französische Hoftheater in Hannover,  –’, Niedersächsisches Jahrbuch für Landesgeschichte,  (), – . Vries, Jan de. Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis, – (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Ward, Adolphus William. The Electress Sophie and the Hanoverian Succession, nd ed., rev. and enlarged (London: Longman, Green, ). Weisert, Hermann. ‘Die Rektoren und die Dekane der Ruperto Carola zu Heidelberg – ’, in Semper Apertus: Sechshundert Jahre Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, –,  vols., ed. Wilhelm Doerr (Berlin: Springer, ), iv.  – . ———. Die Verfassung der Universität Heidelberg: Überblick – (Heidelberg: Winter, ). West, Shearer, ed. Italian Culture in Northern Europe in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ). Westermann, Herbert. ‘Brand Westermann: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des hannoverschen Barock’, Hannoversche Geschichtsblätter, n.s.,  (), –. Wiedemann, Heinz Hollis. Gerard Wolter Molanus, Abt zu Loccum: Eine Biographie,  vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,  – ). Wittichen, Paul. ‘Zur Geschichte des Apostolischen Vikariats des Norden zu Beginn des . Jahrhunderts’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,  (),  – . Wittkower, Rudolf. Art and Architecture in Italy,  to  (Harmondsworth: Penguin, ). Woker, Franz Wilhelm. Aus norddeutschen Missionen des . und . Jahrhunderts: Franciscaner, Dominicaner und andere Missionare (Cologne: J. P. Bachem, ). ———. Geschichte der katholischen Kirche und Gemeinde in Hannover und Celle (Paderborn: F. Schöningh, ). Zedler, Johann Heinrich. Grosses vollständiges Universal Lexicon aller Wissenschaften und Künste,  vols. (Halle and Leipzig: J. H. Zedler, – ).

Index




This index includes names, titles, and subjects found in the introduction and chapters of the book, but not the appendices; the notes are indexed only when they add substance that might otherwise be overlooked. Excluded are names of (for example) publishers, artists, cities, and countries that do not form part of the argument. Steffani’s name is abbreviated to ‘S’ in some headings and subheadings. Reference is made to pages and notes, the latter being indicated by ‘n’. Pages carrying illustrations are shown in bold type. ‘a risposta’ technique,  – ,  Abbatini, Antonio Maria,  Abel, Clamor Heinrich, –  Academy of Vocal Music. See Steffani, Life Accademia della Crusca,  Adelaide, duchess of Shrewsbury,  Admiramini fideles (Kerll),  Agrippina (Handel),  air à deux, ,  air de danse,  Alaric I, operas on,  Albani, Annibale, cardinal,  Albergati (Capacelli), Pirro, count,  Albinoni, Tomaso, , , ,  Albrecht Ernst, prince of Oettingen,  –  Alceste (Franck), n Alceste (Trento), – , ,  Alcibiade (M. A. Ziani),  Alcides,  Alessandro (Handel), ,  Alexander the Great, operas on,  Algarotti, Francesco,  allemande,  Altieri, Gaspare,  Altieri, Paluzzo, cardinal,  –  Alvilda in Abo (G. A. Bernabei),  Amalie Louise, countess of Nassau,  Amfione (Magni),  Aminta (Tasso),  Anacletus, St,  Andromaque (Racine),  Anet, Jean-Jacques-Baptiste,  Anjou. See Philip Anna Maria Francesca of Sachsen-Lauenburg, 

Ansbach. See Caroline; Wilhelm Friedrich Antiopa giustificata,  Anton Ulrich, duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, , , , ,  Antonelli, Giovanni Carlo,  Apolloni, Giovanni Filippo,  Arcadian Academy, , , , ,  Archinto, Girolamo,  Ardespin, Melchior d’, , , , – ,  aria, – , ,  aria in duetto, , ,  arias by Steffani accompaniment of, –  in dance metre, – , ,  –  forms of, , – , – , –  texture of, –  Ariberti, Bartolomeo D’, marquis, –  Arie (Strozzi),  arioso, ,  Ariosti, Attilio, , , ,  in Berlin, ,  – , n Ariosto, Ludovico, , –  Aristotle,  Aristoxenus, , n Arminio (C. F. Pollarolo),  Arminio (poemetto), n Arminius (Campistron),  Arne. See Young Artifici musicali (G. B. Vitali),  Ascanio in Alba (G. A. Bernabei), –  Astianatte (Salvi),  Astorga, Emanuele D’, ,  Atys, o L’inganno vinto dalla costanza (Ariosti), , , n





 August Wilhelm of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel,  Augusta Dorothea of Schwarzburg-Arnstadt,  Augustine, St,  Aureli, Aurelio, , , , –  Aurelia, Diana,  – ,  Aureliano (Pallavicino), n Austria, , , , , – ,  Averara, Pietro D’, , –  Babel, Charles, – ,  Babell, William, , n Bach, Johann Bernhard,  Bach, Johann Sebastian, , , , , , n Baden. See Franziska Sibylla Augusta Baldassari, Benedetto, , , ,  Ballati, Luigi (Lodovico), abbot, ,  ballet, , , ,  Barberio, Joseppe,  Barckhausen, Franz Justus,  Barrey, instrumentalist,  Bartleman, James, n Bassani, Giovanni Battista,  basse de viole, ,  basso continuo, – , – , – ,  basso ostinato, – , , –  basso seguente,  bassoon, , , ,  Bauer, councillor in Frankfurt,  Bavaria, , , , – ,  Bavarian court in Brussels,  – , , – , , n Bayreuth. See Sophie Louise Begnudelli Basso, Carlo,  Bellérophon (Lully),  Bencini, Pietro Paolo,  Benedetti, Giovanni Francesco,  Benedetto, singer,  Benedict XIII, pope, – , ,  Benedikte Henriette von der Pfalz, , ,  Benevoli, Orazio, , ,  Bénimédourène, Eddy, n Berardi, Angelo, –  Berenstadt, Gaetano, ,  Berg, duchy of, , ,  Berlin, – , ,  Bernabei Ercole, , – , , , , – , , , , n Giuseppe Antonio, , – , , , – , , , , n Vincenzo, – , n Bernardi, count, –  Bernardi, Francesco (‘Senesino’), ,  – 

Bernstorff, Andreas Gottlieb, baron, –  Bertram Carl, count of Nesselrode-Reichenstein, ,  Bertrand, instrumentalist,  Bianchi, Brigida, , , –  Bissari, Pietro Paolo, –  Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus, , n Böhmer, Just Christoph,  Bokemeyer, Heinrich, ,  Bombace, la. See Tarquini Bompiaccini, P.,  Bononcini, Giovanni, , , – , , , , , n Bononcini, Giovanni Maria, , n Bontempi, Giovanni Andrea,  Borosini, Antonio, , ,  – , , , ,  Bossis, Gioseppe,  Bothmer, Hans Kaspar, count, , , – ,  Bourbons,  bourrée, , – ,  Bovicelli, Marc’Antonio, –  Bozzomo, Agostino, Father,  Braccioli, Grazio,  Bradamante (Bissari), ,  Brandenburg, , , , , n See also Prussia Brindau, Frau,  Bronckhorst-Gronsfeld, Otto Wilhelm, count, , ,  Brunswick, , , , ,  – , n Brunswick-Lüneburg, , , ,  Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. See Anton Ulrich Brussels. See Bavarian court; Steffani, Life Burney, Charles, ,  –  Burrows, Donald, n Bury, Guillaume,  Bussche, Albrecht Philipp von dem, –  Bussi, Giovanni Battista,  Buttstett, Johann Heinrich,  Cagliaroli, Francesco, ,  Cajetan,  Caldara, Antonio, , , , ,  Stabat Mater by, ,  Calegari, Francesco Antonio,  Calvani, Diego,  Campistron, Jean Galbert de, , –  canarie, –  cantata, , – , – ,  cantatas by S, , –  () Cantate, ariette e duetti (Strozzi),  cantus firmus, ,  canzonetta, , ,  Capece, Carlo Sigismondo, , n

 Caproli, Carlo, , n Carafa, Giovanni Pietro,  Cardinals, College of, ,  Carissimi, Giacomo, xv, , , ,  secular works of, , , , ,  as teacher, , – , n Carlo Emanuele, prince of Savoy,  Carlos II, king of Spain, – , ,  carnival in Hanover, – , – ,  – ,  in Munich (), –  in Venice, , ,  Caroline of Ansbach, , ,  – ,  Carracci, Agostino, n Carracci, Annibale,  Carrara, abbey of San Stefano in,  –  Carse, Adam,  Casini, Giovanni Maria, –  Castelfranco, –  Cavalieri, Gaetano De’, , –  Cavalli, Francesco, , – ,  cavata, , , , – , , –  cavata a due,  Cazzati, Maurizio, –  Cecilia, St, , –  Cefalo (Bononcini), , n Celle, , n Celletti, Rodolfo, – ,  Cesti, Antonio, , , – , , , , n Cettareli, Signora, –  chaconne, –  chalumeau,  chamber duet,  – , – ,  –  chamber duets by S, –  circulation of, –  dating of, , – ,  – , –  forms of, –  influence of, – ,  with instruments,  manuscripts of, – , , – ,  performance of, – , –  poetical texts of, , – , – , , –  revision of, – , –  vocal scoring of, – ,  chamber music, –  Chappuzeau, Samuel,  Charbonnier, Martin,  Charles, archduke, Emperor Charles VI,  – , ,  – ,  Charlotte Felicitas, of Celle, – , ,  Chateauneuf, actor,  Checati, Giovanni Antonio, –  Chelleri, Fortunato, , 

Chiabrera, Gabriello, ,  Chiaravalle, Ferdinando, , ,  – ,  chiavette, , n chorus, , ,  Christian V, king of Denmark,  Christian Ludwig, duke of Celle,  Christina, queen of Sweden, , , , ,  Christine Louise of Bavaria,  Chrysander, Friedrich, xvii, , , , ,  ciacona, ,  Cicognini, Giacinto Andrea, ,  Cienfuegos, Alvaro, cardinal, –  Cittadella, Francesco, count, , n Cittadella, Paola Emilia. See Franchini, Paola Emilia Clari, Giovanni Carlo Maria, , ,  Clement X, pope,  Clement XI, pope, , – , – , – , , ,  Clérambault, Louis-Nicolas,  Coberg, Johann Anton,  –  Codin. See Pietrogalli, Antonio Colbert, Jean Baptiste,  Colloredo-Waldsee, Johann Baptist, count,  Cologne, ,  papal nuncio of, , , , , ,  See also Archinto; Bussi; Cavalieri; Oddi; Piazza; Santini Colonna, Giovanni Paolo,  coloratura, ,  Colt, William Dutton, knight,  comédie-ballet,  commedia dell’arte,  Composition de musique (Kusser),  Como, Giuseppe,  Concerto madrigalesco (E. Bernabei), ,  concerto, sacred, , – , –  Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelizatione seu de Propaganda Fide, , , – , –  Congregazione dei Musici di Roma, ,  Contarini, , n Conti, ‘abbate’,  Conti, Antonio, n continuo. See basso continuo Corelli, Arcangelo, , , , –, –, ,  See also trio sonata Corneille, Pierre, ,  Corradini, Pietro Marcellino, cardinal,  Corsi, Giuseppe (detto Celano), ,  Così fan tutte (Mozart),  Cossoni, Carlo Donato, ,  Cottini. See Pietrogalli, Antonio counterpoint,  – , – , – , – ,  –  See also fugue; stile antico





 Couperin, François,  courante,  Crescimbeni, Giovanni Mario,  Croce, Giovanni,  Croll, Gerhard, ,  – , ,  Crotch, William,  Cusins, William George, xvii, , ,  – ,  Cuvilliés, François, ,  da capo form, – , , – , ,  Da Ponte, Giulia Fermana, ,  Dalla Tavola, Antonio, – ,  dance metres, , – ,  – ,  Dandrieu, Jeanne,  Dario (Ariosti),  De Grandis, Vincenzo, –  Deisel, Dominio, n Del Ponto, Georg,  Delectus sacrarum cantionum (Kerll),  – ,  Della Corte, Andrea, xvii, , , –  Della Torre, Lucio, count,  Demetrio (Pallavicino),  Descalzo, Ubertino,  Descartes, René,  Desjardins, Marie Catherine Hortense, ,  Destouches, André Cardinal,  dialogue, ,  Diana amante (G. A. Bernabei),  Direnberg, Engel. Benedikte,  –  divertissement, ,  Doebner, Richard, n Dormiglia, Caspar,  Dorothea Sophia, duchess of Parma,  Dresden, ,  du Cormier, stage designer,  Du Mont, Henry,  Dubois, Guillaume, cardinal,  duet. See chamber duet Duetti da camera (G. Bononcini), , ,  Duetti per camera (Cazzati),  Dunstan, Elizabeth, n Durante, Francesco, ,  –  Durastanti, Margherita, , ,  Düsseldorf court of, –, n music and opera at, – , n dynamic markings,  Eberhard IV Ludwig, duke of Württemberg,  Eberhardine Sophie,  Egmont, Marie-Thérèse, countess of, ,  – , – ,  Einstein, Alfred, , , , n, n Eléonore d’Olbreuse, 

Eleonore Erdmuthe of Eisenach, ,  Eleonore Magdalena, empress,  Elisabeth Charlotte (‘Liselotte’) von der Pfalz, duchess of Orléans, , ,  Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, ,  Elisabeth of Holstein-Norburg,  Elpidia,  Empire. See Austria Enea in Italia (G. A. Bernabei),  Enea in Italia (Schürmann?),  Ennuy, Charles,  entrée, –  Ercolani, prince,  Ernst August, duke/elector of Hanover, , ,  as bishop of Osnabrück, , –  death of, , –  involvement with music, , , , ,  marriage of,  –  political activities of, – ,  – , ,  visits to Italy of, ,  – , ,  Ernst August, prince of Hanover, ,  Ernst Ludwig I, duke of Meiningen,  Ernst Ludwig, landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt,  Erote ed Anterote (E. Bernabei), ,  Este Amalia D’, princess of Modena,  house of, ,  –  Sigismondo D’, marquis,  See also Francesco II; Rinaldo III Estrées, César d’, cardinal, , n Euclid, n Europe,  Evelyn, John,  Fabrice, Friedrich Ernst, –  false entry, ,  falsobordone,  Farinel, Jean-Baptiste, , , , – , ,  Farnese, Francesco and Odoardo,  Farsetti, Maffeo Niccolò,  –  Feckler, Joseph Paris, – ,  Fede, Antonio Maria, count, ,  – , , ,  See also Steffani, Life, autobiography of Fedeli, Ruggiero,  – , ,  correspondence with S of, , , , ,  Fedra incoronata,  Felling, Thomas,  Ferdinand Maria, elector of Bavaria,  – , , ,  – , ,  Fétis, François-Joseph, –  Fichtl, Franz Ludwig, n Fiedler, Gottlieb, ,  Fileno, idolo mio (Atto Melani),  – 

 Fiocco, Pietro Andrea, ,  Fischer, Georg, , , , n Fischer, Johann,  Fischer, Johann Caspar Ferdinand, , ,  Fleck, Johann Georg,  Florilegium primum (secundum) (Muffat),  flute, ,  Forqueray, Antoine,  Förtsch, Johann Philipp,  Forzoni Accolti, Persio,  France, , – , ,  – ,  – ,  Francesco II D’Este, duke of Modena, ,  Franchini family, , , – ,  Marc’Antonio, , ,  Paola Emilia, , , , n Franck, Johann Wolfgang, n Frangioni, Severo, –  Franz Ludwig of Pfalz-Neuburg, elector of Trier, ,  Franziska Sibylla Augusta of Sachsen-Lauenburg, margravine of Baden,  Frederik IV, king of Denmark,  French culture, influence of, , , , , , , , n Frenelly, singer,  Freschi, Giovanni Domenico,  Frescobaldi, Girolamo, ,  Friedrich of Brandenburg, king of Prussia attitude to Steffani of, ,  –  marriage of,  – ,  visits to Hanover of, ,  Friedrich, prince of Hanover,  Friedrich August of Hanover,  Friedrich August II, prince of Saxony,  Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia, ,  Frigimelica Roberti, Girolamo, count, friend of Steffani, , , , , –  investigations of, – , – , n fugue, , – , ,  – ,  –  See also counterpoint Fürstenberg, Ferdinand von, bishop of Münster and Paderborn,  Gabrieli, Andrea and Giovanni,  Gabrielli, Angelo,  Gabrielli, Domenico, ,  Gaffi, Bernardo,  Gagliano, Marco da,  Galliard, John Ernest, , – , , , ,  Galloni, Giuseppe, ,  Galuppi, Baldassare,  Gandersheim. See Henrietta Christina Gantz kurtzer Bericht, – , n Gasparini, Francesco, , , , , 

Gates, Bernard,  Gatti, Theobaldo di,  Gatz, Erwin,  Gaudentius, n gavotte, , , – ,  –  Geertsom, Jan van, – , n Geistliche Chor-Music (Schütz),  Geminiani, Francesco,  Georg, duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg,  Georg August, prince of Hanover, ,  –  Georg Ludwig, elector of Hanover and king (George I) of Great Britain, , , ,  involvement with music, , , , ,  relations with Steffani, – , , – ,  Georg Wilhelm, duke of Celle, – , , ,  Gerardini, Alexander,  Gesualdo, Carlo, prince of Venosa, –  Gherardini, Gherardo,  Giannettini, Antonio, , ,  Giardi, V.,  Giardini, Giovanni Battista,  Gigli, Gerolamo, n gigue, – ,  Giocasta (Wilderer),  Giorgione,  Gisberti, Domenico, ,  Giulio Cesare in Egitto (Handel),  Giulio Cesare ricovrato all’ombra (G. A. Bernabei),  Giusti, Tommaso, ,  Göding, Heinrich,  Godwin, Joscelyn,  Gonzaga, Eleonora, princess of Guastalla,  Gonzaga, Ferdinando Carlo, duke of Mantua,  Görtz. See Schlitz Gottfried Wilhelm, count of Rheinstein and Tattenbach, , ,  Gottin. See Pietrogalli, Antonio Gradenigo, , n Granara Giovanni Agostino, – ,  – , ,  Giovanni Battista, – , n Grandi, Alessandro,  Gratianini, Nicola, –  Graziani, Bonifazio, ,  Grazianini, Nicolò Francesco,  –  Great Britain,  –  Greene, Maurice,  Gregg, Emily, n Grimaldi, Nicola,  G[rimm], C.,  Groppi, Bartolomeo,  Grote, Otto, –  Guarini, Giovanni Battista,  Guidi, ‘abbate’, – 





 Guidi, Anastasio, n guitar, , ,  Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden,  Gutjahr, Sophie,  Hackh or Hagge, Georg Alexander, , n Hader (von Hadersberg), Clementin, , ,  – , ,  Halle, , –  Hamburg, ,  Hamel-Bruynincx, Jacob Jan,  Handel, George Frideric, xv, , , , ,  borrowings from S, xviii, , ,  chamber duets and cantatas of, , , , , –  and Hanover, , – , ,  operas of, , , , ,  as a source for Hawkins, , ,  – , ,  and S, possible meetings of,  – ,  – , ,  Hanover, – , ,  catalogue of operas at, , , –  Catholic community in, , , – ,  court of, , -,  – , n duchy/electorate of,  music before Steffani at, –  and the Ninth Electorate, ,  – , ,  – , ,  opera before Steffani at, –  opera-houses at, , , – ,  orchestra at, – , ,  St Clement’s church in, , – ,  Hapsburgs Austrian, , , , –  Spanish, –  harmony, , – , , , –  Harms, Johann Oswald, , ,  harpsichord, – , ,  Harris, James, xvi Hasse, Johann Adolf, , ,  hautecontre,  Hawkins, John and his Memoirs of S, xvi, ,  on S as bishop, , – ,  on S and Hanover, , – , , – , –  on S and Munich, – , ,  on S’s parents,  on S and singing, – ,  Hayes, Philip and William,  Haym, Nicola Francesco, ,  Heidegger, Johann Jakob,  Heidelberg, , , , , n Helena rapita da Paride (Freschi?),  Hempelmann, Matthias, abbot, 

Henrietta Adelaide of Savoy, electress of Bavaria, – ,  – ,  – ,  Henrietta Christina of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, abbess of Gandersheim, ,  Henry the Lion, duke of Bavaria and Saxony, , , , n operas on,  – , n Heroux, instrumentalist,  Herrenhausen, – , , ,  Hesse-Darmstadt. See Ernst Ludwig Hesse-Kassel. See Karl Heumann, Christoph August,  Hoffmann, Ernst Theodor Amadeus,  Holste, Johann Friedrich,  Homer,  Hörde, Johann Friedrich Adolf, baron,  Huguenots, ,  I veri amici,  Iburg,  Idee armoniche estese (Legrenzi),  Il litigio del cielo e della terra (E. Bernabei), , n Il mio cor è un passaggiero (Kerll), – ,  Il pastor fido (Guarini),  In hymnis et canticis (E. Bernabei),  –  Innocent XII, pope,  Innocent XIII, pope,  –  instrumental music by S, , – ,  See also keyboard music by S instrumentalists at Düsseldorf, , n at Hanover, – , – , , n at Munich,  – , , – , ,  Issé, oder Die vergnügende Liebe (Schürmann),  Italian culture, influence of,  – ,  – ,  Jacquet de la Guerre, Elisabeth-Claude,  Jaecklin, Johann,  Jan (John) III, king of Poland,  Jesuit College in Strasbourg, – , – ,  Jesuits, , , ,  Jews, ,  Johann Friedrich, duke of Celle, , , – ,  Johann Wilhelm, Palatine elector, , – ,  – ,  and Catholic affairs,  – , , , , ,  marriage of, –  and music and opera, – , ,  and Seltz,  –  and Steffani’s mission to Rome, –  Jordanes (Jornandes),  Joseph of Austria, Emperor Joseph I, , – , , n Joseph Clemens of Bavaria, , , – , n

 Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria, ,  Jülich, duchy of, , , ,  Junge, Johann Friedrich,  –  Kaman, harpsichord-maker,  Kaminski, N., n Kappers, Gerhard, –  Karl, langrave of Hesse-Kassel, , , , n Karl Leopold, duke of Mecklenburg,  Karl Ludwig, Palatine elector, , , –  Karl Philipp, Palatine elector, , , –  Kassel, , , , ,  Kaufold, Claudia, xviii Kayser, Matthias,  Keiser, Reinhard, –  Kerll, Johann Caspar, – , , ,  – ,  keyboard music by S, – ,  Kielmansegg, Johann Adolf, baron,  Kielmansegg, Sophie Charlotte, – , ,  Königsmarck, Maria Aurora, countess, , – , n Königsmarck, Philipp Christoph, count, – , – , , n Kraft, Georg Andreas,  Kuhnau, Johann,  Kühnel, August, –  Kunst der Fuge, Die,  Kusser, Johann Sigismund, , – ,  La chasse de Diane,  La costanza nelle selve (Mancia), , –  La Dori (Cesti),  La Dori (G. A. Bernabei), n La fede ne’ tradimenti (Ariosti), n La festa del Himeneo (Ariosti, Rieck), n La Fontaine, Georg Wilhelm,  La forza del giusto (Wilderer),  –  La gloria festeggiante (G. A. Bernabei),  La ninfa ritrosa (Zambonini?),  La reggia dell’armonia (Torri),  La Sisière, missionary,  Labia family, ,  L’amor d’amico (Torri),  L’amor pudico (Dalla Tavola), –  L’amor vince fortuna (Capece), n Lanciani, Flavio, , ,  Landi, Gioachino,  Landini, Maria, ,  Lang, Paul Henry, ,  Lantery, abbot, – , n L’Argia (Cesti), n L’arpa festante (Maccioni),  Lassus, Orlande de, – ,  Lazara, Alessandro De’, abbot, 

Lazzara, Angelo Maria De’, canon, , , – ,  – , n, n Le Comte,  Le fantôme amoureux (Ariosti), , n Le festin de Pierre (Molière),  Le journal de printems (J. C. F. Fischer),  Le pretensioni del sole (Kerll),  Legrenzi, Giovanni, , – , ,  Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm advice for Steffani,  death of,  on German courts,  as historian,  – , , , , , n and opera, , – ,  Lemoles, Pietro,  –  Leo, Leonardo, ,  Leoni, count,  Leopold I, emperor,  – ,  – , ,  L’Erinto (Kerll), , n L’Ermione (G. A. Bernabei), , n Ligniville, Eugène, n L’incoronazione di Poppea (Monteverdi),  L’inganno regnante (M. A. Ziani), , n Loeillet, Jacques,  Loeillet, Jean Baptist (John),  Lonati, Carlo Ambrogio,  London, , – , , ,  Lorenzani, Paolo,  Lorraine, court of,  Lothringen, Karl Josef,  Lotti, Antonio, , , , , ,  Lotti, Federico,  Louis, dauphin of France, , , n Louis XIV, king of France, , , , – , ,  Lucian,  Lucio, Francesco, , ,  Lully, Jean-Baptiste,  – , ,  dramatic works of, , , ,  instrumental music by, , , , – ,  Lünig, Johannes Christoph, n lute, , , , ,  Lutti, Antonio,  –  Maccioni, Giovanni Battista, , ,  – ,  Maculinus, Thomas, –  Madama reale. See Marie Jeanne Baptiste madrigal, – , – , , ,  madrigals by S, ,  – , –  Magni, Paolo,  Maillet, major,  Mainwaring, John, xvi, ,  Mainz, ,  Majus, Ludolf Wilhelm, canon, –  Mancia, Luigi, , , , – 





 Mancini, Dario,  Mancini, Olimpia, countess of Soissons,  Mannheim,  manuscripts (music) A-Wn,  D-BFb,  D-DS,  D-Hs, n D-HVl,  D-WD, , , n E-Mn, ,  GB-Cfm, ,  GB-DRc, , n GB-Lbl, , , – ,  –  GB-Lcm, n GB-Ob,  I-Ac,  I-Bc, , , , n I-MOe,  – ,  –  I-Pca,  Marais, Marin,  Marcello, Benedetto, , , ,  –  Marchand, Louis,  Marconi, Anselmo,  Marcorelli, Giovanni Francesco,  Marenzio, Luca,  Margarita Teresa of Spain,  Maria Anna of Austria, electress of Bavaria,  Maria Anna Christina of Bavaria, , n Maria Anna Josepha of Austria, Palatine electress, ,  Maria Anna von der Pfalz, queen of Spain,  Maria Antonia of Austria, electress of Bavaria, – , – , , ,  Maria Sophia, queen of Portugal,  Maria Teresa, queen of France,  Marie Jeanne Baptiste of Savoy-Nemours,  Marles, Candace, , n Mars und Irene (Ariosti), n Martini, Giovanni Battista, xvi, , – , – , , n Marx-Weber, Magda,  Mary, queen of England, –  Mass settings by S, , , n Mattei, Saverio,  Mattei, Sebastiano, abbot, n Mattheson, Johann, xvi, , , , , , ,  –  Maupin, Madame,  Mauritio (Gabrielli),  Mauro Domenico and Gasparo,  Ortensio biography of, – , , , n

as friend of Steffani, , , , ,  –  as librettist, – ,  – ,  – ,  – , – , , – , n in Padua (), – ,  as poet, – , ,  Maximilian I, duke of Bavaria, , ,  Maximilian II Emanuel, elector of Bavaria birth of, , ,  in Brussels, , ,  – , – , ,  marriage of, ,  –, –  as music lover, , , , , – ,  as patron of Steffani,  – , , , ,  as soldier, ,  – , , – ,  Maximilian Emanuel Franz Joseph of Bavaria, n Maximilian Wilhelm of Hanover,  Mayr, Dominicus,  Mazarin, Jules, cardinal,  Mazzocchi, Domenico,  Mazzocchi, Virgilio, , n Mecklenburg. See Karl Leopold Medea vendicativa,  Medici Anna Maria Luisa De’, Palatine electress, – , , , ,  – ,  Cosimo III De’, grand-duke of Tuscany, – , , n Ferdinando De’, prince of Tuscany, , ,  Francesco Maria De’, cardinal, ,  –  Gian Gastone De’, grand-duke of Tuscany,  Meiningen. See Ernst Ludwig I Melani, Atto, –  Melchiori, Nadal, , ,  – ,  Messiah (Handel),  Metastasio, Pietro,  Meybaum, Heinrich,  Michelangelo,  Milton, John,  minuet,  – , , , – ,  Missa superba (Kerll),  missions, missionaries,  – , , , , – ,  Mocenigo, Eustachio, count, , n Modena, ,  –  Molanus, Gerard Walter, abbot,  Molière, Jean Baptiste Poquelin, , , n Molino, Girolamo,  Monari, Clemente,  Moniglia, Giovanni Andrea,  Montaigne, Michel Eyquem de,  Montalbano, Nicolo, ,  Monteverdi, Claudio, , , , , ,  Moratelli, Giovanni Battista, –  Moratelli, Sebastiano, , 

 Mori, Alessandro,  Mori, Francesco, abbot, , –  Moritz Adolf,  Moritz Wilhelm, duke of Sachsen-Zeitz,  Morselli, Giovanni, da Carpi,  motets by S, , , – , – , , n Motteux, Pierre Antoine,  motto, ,  Mozart, Wolfgang Amadée, ,  Muffat, Georg, ,  Munich electoral residence in, – ,  – ,  history of, –  music in,  – , – , , , ,  Münster, ,  narrative, –  Nassau. See Amalie Louise Navara, Joann Francesco, –  Nenna, Pompeo,  Nesselrode-Reichenstein, counts of, , , –  See also Bertram Carl; Franz Netherlands, –  Neuburg, ,  Nicoletto,  Nicolini,  – , ,  Nicolini, Nicola,  Nicomède (Corneille),  Nomis, (Benedetto) Andrea Gasparo, marquis,  Novello, Vincent,  O amor Jesu (Kerll),  obbligato, ,  Obizzi, Pio Enea degli, –  oboe, , , – , ,  Oddi, Jacopo,  Odoacre (Varischino), n Oettingen. See Albrecht Ernst Onorio in Roma (C. F. Pollarolo),  opening gambit, – , ,  opera in Düsseldorf, – , ,  in Hanover,  – , – ,  – ,  –  in Munich, – , , , – ,  –  in Venice, – , , – ,  – ,  operas by Steffani arias in, , – , –  arrangements of,  –  dances in, , – , , –  duets in, – , –  for Düsseldorf, , – , ,  ensembles in, – ,  Hamburg productions of, xvi, , ,  – , , n

for Hanover, xviii, – , , – , ,  – , ,  influence of, ,  – ,  instrumental movements in, –  librettos of, – , – ,  – , , , – , , – ,  –  manuscripts of, ,  – , , , , –, , , – ,  – , n for Munich, ,  – ,  – , –  on-stage instruments in, ,  orchestration of, – ,  – , ,  publication of,  revision of, – , , , , – ,  scenography of, , , , – , ,  subjects of,  vocal writing in, – , – , –  Orlandi, Angela,  Orlandi, Luigi, , , , ,  Orlando furioso (Ariosto), , –  Orlando innamorato (Boiardo), n Orlando, operas on, –  Orléans. See Elisabeth Charlotte; Philip II Oronte (Kerll),  Orontea (Cesti or Lucio),  – , , ,  Orosius, Paulus,  Osnabrück, , ,  ostinato. See basso ostinato Ottoboni, Pietro, cardinal, , , ,  ouverture-suite, , ,  overture, , –  Ovid, , ,  Pacieri, Giuseppe,  Padua, , , , – ,  ‘collateria’ of, , , –  Paglia, Francesco Maria, ,  Palatinate, , , , ,  See also wars Pallavicini, Stefano Benedetto friendships of, , – ,  librettos of, , – , ,  – , , n Pallavicino, Carlo, , ,  Palmieri, Francesco, count, , ,  – , –  Pantono, Phillipp,  Paolucci, Fabrizio, cardinal, , ,  Papafava, Alessandro, monsignor,  Paride (Bontempi),  Paride in Ida (Mancia), , ,  Paris, , –  Paris, Nicola, , –  Parma. See Dorothea Sophia Pasi, Antonio, ,  Pasquini, Bernardo, ,  passaggi, 





 passepied,  pasticcio,  –  pastoral, –  Paul IV, pope. See Carafa Paul the Deacon,  peace treaties of Passau,  of Rastatt, ,  of Ryswick, , –  of Utrecht, ,  of Westphalia, ,  pedal, , –  Pellegrini, Antonio, , ,  Pellegrini, Valeriano, ,  Pepusch, Johann Christoph, xvi, , –  Per ch’io vado lontano (E. Bernabei),  Percival, John, viscount, st earl of Egmont,  Pergolesi, Giovanni Battista,  Peri, Jacopo,  Perti, Giacomo Antonio,  Peter the Great, tsar of Russia, ,  Petrobelli, Francesco, ,  Pez, Johann Christoph, , ,  Pfalz. See Palatinate Philip, duke of Anjou, , –  Philip II, duke of Orléans,  Philip III, king of Spain,  Philip IV, king of Spain,  Philipp Wilhelm of Pfalz-Neuburg, ,  Pia et fortis mulier (Kerll),  Piazza, Giulio, ,  Pietà, Ospedale della, ,  Pietragrua, Carlo Luigi, , , , , ,  Pietrogalli, Antonio, detto Cottini,  – ,  –  piffero,  Pignietta, Giuseppe, ,  Pilotti, Elisabetta,  Pio, Antoni(n)o, –  Pistocchi, Francesco Antonio, ,  Piva, Gregorio, –, , – , ,  – , , n Piva, Nicolò,  plainsong, ,  Platen, Ernst August, count, –  Platen, Franz Ernst,  Plettenberg, Friedrich Christian, bishop,  Pliny the Younger,  Plutarch, ,  Poelchau, Georg Johann Daniel,  poetry, Italian, – , – ,  imagery,  –  Polcastro, Giovanni Domenico, count,  Poli, Angelo Maria, – 

Polifemo (G. Bononcini), n Polixena Giustina of Hesse-Rheinfels,  Pollarolo, Carlo Francesco, , , ,  Porta, Costanzo,  Praz, Mario,  preludio, –  Preysing Felice, ,  Friedrich,  M. A. T., countess,  Maximilian,  Prez, Albertus,  Prié, marquis. See Turinetti Priorato, Galeazzo Gualdo, n Procopius,  Propaganda Fide. See Congregatio Prussia, , ,  See also Brandenburg psalm settings by S, – , , –  Psalmi vespertini (Graziani, V. Mazzocchi),  Psyché (Lully),  Purcell, Henry, , , , , ,  Pythagoras,  Quantz, Johann Joachim,  Quinault, Philippe, , n Raaff, Anton,  Rabelais, François,  Racine, Jean, , ,  Rainaldi, Carlo, n Rameau, Jean Philippe,  Raphael,  Rapparini, Giorgio Maria, – , –  Rauscher, André, , n recitative, , , – , ,  – ,  –  recitative a due, –  recorder, , , , ,  refrain,  Reincken, Johann Adam,  Remolini, Nicola, – ,  –  Reutter, Christian, n rhetoric in language, , ,  in music, , , , –  rhythm, notation of, , –  Riccati, Giordano, count, xvi, , ,  on S’s music, , , , ,  Rieck, Karl Friedrich, n Riemann, Hugo on drama in S’s operas, , ,  – ,  on music, – , , , , n, n rigaudon, – 

 Rinaldo III D’Este, duke of Modena, – , , ,  Ristori, Giovanni Alberto,  Ristorini, Dominico Christoph,  ritornello, ,  Riva, Giuseppe, , – , , , n Rivani, Antonia, n Rivardini, Giovanni Giacomo, , n Rodier, François, – ,  – ,  Roger, Estienne, , , , , n Roland (Lully),  Rolli, Paolo, , , n Rome, – , – , – ,  – ,  Rosenmüller, Johann,  Rossi, Luigi, , , , , , n Rota, Valerio (?), monsignor, bishop, ,  Rovetta, Giovanni,  Royal Academy of Music, – ,  Rubini, Domenigo,  Ruggieri, Costantino,  Ruggiero (Sabadini),  Ruzini, Carlo,  Sabadini, Bernardo,  Sabbatini, Pietro Paolo,  Sachsen. See Saxony Sachsen-Zeitz. See Kühnel; Moritz Wilhelm Sacrae modulationes (E. Bernabei), n Sagramosa, count,  Sagramosa, Michele, marquis,  Salicola, Margherita,  Salvadore, singer,  Salvadori, Andrea,  Salvi, Antonio, –  Salvietti, Matteo,  Salzinger, Ivo,  Sanfré, Anton Franz Maximilian, count, ,  –  Santinelli, Rosane (‘Rosana’), , ,  Santini, Alberto, count,  Santini, Vincenzo,  Santonini, prince, –  Santorini, Lorenzo,  sarabande, – , ,  – ,  Sardi, Cesare, –  Sartorio Antonio,  Sartorio, Girolamo,  Savioni, Mario, , , n Savonarola, Raffaello,  Saxony, ,  – ,  Sayler, Augustin, ,  Sbarra, Francesco, ,  Scacchi, Marco,  Scandinavia, , 

Scapinelli Antonio, archpriest, – , , –  Antonio, doctor, ,  Bartolomeo,  Scarabelli, Diamante Maria,  Scarlatti Alessandro life and works of, xv, , , , , , ,  musical style of, – , , , , –  Domenico, ,  Pompeo, abbot, ,  Scarron, Paul,  Schalck, Johann Bartholomäus,  Schenck, Johannes,  scherzi by S,  –  Scherzi (Petrobelli),  Schiavonetti, Giovanni,  Schlitz, Friedrich Wilhelm (known as Görtz), baron, , –  Schmitz, Eugen, , –  Schönborn, family, –  Damian Hugo Philipp,  Friedrich Karl, , , ,  Johann Philipp Franz, ,  – ,  Lothar Franz, ,  – , – , , ,  Rudolf Franz Erwein,  Schoonjans, Regina,  Schulenburg, (Ehrengard) Melusine von der, ,  Schulenburg, Johann Matthias von der, count,  Schürmann, Georg Caspar, ,  – ,  Schütz, Heinrich, , , ,  Scotti, Luigi, n scribe A,  scribe B, ,  Seltz, provostship of,  Senesino. See Bernardi, Francesco sequence,  serenata,  Serstevens, bookshop,  Seyringer, Johann Carl,  Shrewsbury. See Adelaide Sickingen, baron,  Sievers, Heinrich,  sinfonia, –  singers in Berlin, , , – , –  in Düsseldorf,  in Hanover, – ,  – , – ,  –  in Munich,  – , –  in Venice,  in Würzburg, – 





 Soissons. See Mancini, Olimpia sonata, , ,  Sonate … libro primo (Legrenzi),  sonnet,  Sophie, duchess, later electress, of Hanover,  attitude to Steffani, – , , , ,  character of, – , –, ,  correspondence of, , , , , , ,  Sophie Amalie, queen of Denmark-Norway, –  Sophie Charlotte, electress of Brandenburg, later queen of Prussia biography of, – , , , , ,  –  correspondence, –  (),  – , ,  musical interests of, – , ,  – , – , , , – ,  Sophie Dorothea of Celle, ,  – , , , n, n Sophie Dorothea, daughter of above, ,  – ,  Sophie Louise, margravine of Bayreuth,  Soranzo, Lorenzo, –  Sorosina, Benedetta,  –  Sorosina, Giuseppe, –  Spain,  –  Spanheim, Ezechiel von, baron,  Spinoza, Benedict de,  Spoglia, Giuseppe,  Stadion, Friedrich, count,  Steffani, Agostino Life as abbot of Löpsingen, ‒, , ,  as abbot of San Stefano in Carrara, ,  ‒ , ‒, n and the Academy of Vocal Music, ,  ‒ , , n as Apostolic Prothonotary, , n as Apostolic Vicar of North Germany,  ‒ , , ‒, , ‒ art collection of, ‒, ‒  as Assistant at the Pontifical Throne,  autobiography of, , , , , ,  ‒ ,  ‒  baptism of,  benefices, at Hildesheim and Liège, of,  ‒  as Bishop of Spiga,  – ,  in Brussels, – , –  and Castelfranco, – , , , ,  change, from musician to bishop, of,  – , , –  contemporary admiration for,  – ,  – , , –  correspondence of. See Bauer; Fedeli; Georg

Ludwig; Mauro, O.; Pallavicini, S. B.; Riva; Scapinelli, A.; Schönborn, J. P. F.; Sophie; Sophie Charlotte; Violanta Beatrice death and estate of, –  as a diplomat,  – , – ,  – , –  as Domestic Prelate,  in Düsseldorf,  – , – ,  education of, – , – , , , , , , , n family of, – ,  – , ,  finances of expenditure,  ‒ , ,  ‒ ,  ‒ , ,  income as Apostolic Vicar, ,  ‒ ,  ‒ , , , n income at Düsseldorf,  ‒  income at Hanover, ,  income at Munich, ,  ‒ ,  ‒ , , , , , n predicament, ,  ‒ , ,  ‒  and Florence, , ,  in Frankfurt, –  in The Hague, , ,  –  handwriting of, , ,  and Hanover, – ,  – , – , ,  – , , , , –  and the harpsichord,  – , , – , ,  health of, , ,  – , ,  and Heidelberg University,  in Herten, , – , ,  – ,  homes of, , , , ,  library of, , , – , , n, n lifestyle of, , , , ,  likenesses of,  – , –  as linguist,  – , ,  and Modena,  –  in Munich, – ,  – , – ,  music collection of, –  in Neuhaus, , – , ,  nickname of,  as organist, ,  –  and Padua,  – , – , , – , , – , n in Paris,  – ,  as a politician,  –  as priest,  –  as provost of Seltz, , – , –  pseudonym of, , – ,  – ,  relations with Kerll,  removal to Düsseldorf,  – ,  removal to Hanover, –  removal to Munich,  –  retirement of, –  in Rome, – , , – , – , 

 as a singer, – , , ,  – ,  staff of, , ,  as suffragan of Münster, ,  travel, in Germany-Austria, of, , , , , – , ,  travel, to/from Italy, of, – , ,  – , , – , , – , ,  – , ,  in Turin, – ,  and Venice, – , , , , , , ,  – , – , n in Vienna, – , ,  Works Ah! che l’ho sempre detto, , , – ,  revision of, , – ,  Al rigor d’un bel sembiante,  – ,  –  Alarico il Baltha, , , ,  –  music of, – , , , , , – , –  Alcibiades. See La libertà contenta Amor vien dal destino, ,  – ,  – , ,  music of, – , , – , , – , ,  ‘ariette francesi’, ,  Arminio, -, , ,  –  music of, – , , – , , – ,  Audacia e rispetto,  – ,  Aure, voi che volate, , , , , –  Baccanali, , ,  –  music of, , , , , ,  Beatus vir (GB-Cfm), , ,  – ,  Beatus vir (I-Ac),  Beatus vir (Psalmodia),  – ,  Begl’occhi, oh Dio, – , , ,  Cangia pensier, , , , – , n revision of,  – , –  Che sarà di quel pensiero,  Che volete, , – , , , , ,  Cingete floribus, , – ,  Confitebor tibi Domine (Psalmodia),  Crede ogn’un che sia pazzia, , n Credidi,  Cruda Lilla,  Crudo Amor, , , , – , ,  Die auserlesensten … Arien,  Dimmi, dimmi, Cupido, ,  Dir che giovi,  – ,  – ,  Dixit Dominus (Psalmodia),  – ,  Dolce è per voi soffrire, – , , , – 

Dolce labbro, , ,  Domine probasti me,  –  D’un faggio all’ombra assiso, ,  E così mi compatite, , ,  E perchè non m’uccidete, -,  – , ,  È spento l’ardore, , ,  Elevamini in voce tubae, , , –  Enea. See Amor vien dal destino Felices adae Filii, , – ,  Fileno, idolo mio, –  Flores agri, , – ,  Forma un mare, , – ,  Fredde ceneri. See Saldi marmi Fuge, cara anima, ,  Gelosia, che vuoi da me,  –  Gettano i re dal soglio, , , –  Già tu parti, ,  Guardati, o core,  Hai finito di lusingarmi,  Henrico Leone, – , – , n music of, , , , , , –  Ho scherzato, ,  I trionfi del fato, ,  – , , ,  music of, , , – ,  – ,  –  Il mio seno, ,  ‘Il pianto di Lucinda’, n Il più felice e sfortunato amante,  Il Turno. See Amor vien dal destino Il zelo di Leonato, , ,  In convertendo,  In exitu Israel, ,  Inquieto mio cor, , – ,  –  Io mi parto, , , ,  Io mi rido,  Io voglio provar, , ,  La fortuna su la ruota, , – , , – , ,  La libertà contenta, xviii, – , ,  music of, , – ,  – , ,  La lotta d’Hercole con Acheloo, xvii,  – , ,  music of, , , , ,  La superbia d’Alessandro, ,  – ,  music of, , , , ,  –  Labri belli, dite un pò, , , ,  Laetatus sum,  Lagrime dolorose,  Lauda Jerusalem, ,  Laudate Dominum (GB-Cfm), , ,  –  Laudate Dominum (Psalmodia),  Laudate pueri (GB-Cfm), , – ,  –  Laudate pueri (Psalmodia),  – 





 Steffani, Agostino, Works (continued) Le rivali concordi, xvii, , –  (),  ‒ , , ‒,  music of, , , – , – , , , ,  –  Les airs à joüer, ,  Les ouvertures, chacconnes,  Libertà! L’infelice umanità,  Libertà! Non posso,  Luci belle, non tanta fretta,  – ,  Lungi da l’idol mio, ,  – ,  Magnificat, , , –  Marco Aurelio, , , ,  music of, , , , – ,  – , ,  Memento Domine David,  M’hai da piangere, ,  Mi voglio far intendere, , –  Mia speranza illanguidita, , ,  M’ingannasti, fanciullo bendato,  Navicella che ten’ vai,  Nel tempo ch’amai,  Niobe, regina di Tebe, – , , , n music of, , , – , , , , – ,  Nisi Dominus, –  No, no, no, mai nol dirò, n No, no, no, non voglio se devo amare, , , – , ,  Non plus me ligate, –  Non so chi mi piagò, ,  Non ve ne state a ridere,  Occhi belli, non più,  Occhi miei, lo miraste, ,  –  Occhi, perchè piangete, , ,  Oh! che voi direste bene, , ,  – ,  –  Orlando generoso, , – , , , , ,  music of, , ,  – , , , –  (), –  Parlo e rido, , , , ,  Piange la bella Clori, – Più non amo, ,  Placidissime catene, , , – , ,  Porto l’alma incenerita,  Pria ch’io faccia, , –  Psalmodia vespertina, – , – , – ,  – , n Quando mai verrà quel dì,  Quando ti stringo, , , –  Quanta certezza,  – ,  – ,  Quanto care, , – , ,  revision of, ,  –  Quest’è l’ultima,  Questo fior, 

Qui diligit Mariam,  – ,  – , , ,  Qui pacem amatis, , – , –  ‘racolta e affetti’,  Ravvediti, mio core,  Reginam nostram formosissimam, , –  Ribellatevi, o pensieri, , , , , –  Rio destin, – , , – ,  Sacer Ianus quadrifrons, , , , – , , – , , n Saldi marmi,  – , – , , ,  Sendschreiben,  –  Senti, Filli spietata,  Serenata for Countess Preysing,  Servio Tullio, , , ,  ‒ , , , n music of,  – , , , , ,  Sia maledetto Amor, ,  Siete il più bizzarro umore, n S’intimi guerra,  Solone,  – , , , ,  Sonate da camera a tre, , , , ,  Sonitus armorum, , , – , –  Sperate in Deo, , ,  –  Spezza Amor l’arco, –  Stabat Mater, ,  – , – , , , ,  Su, ferisci, alato arciero,  Surge, propera, veni, , – , ,  Tandem adest clara dies, , – ,  Tassilone,  – , , , n music of, , – , , – , , – , ,  –  Tengo per infallibile, , – , , ,  Tienmi ’l cor la gelosia, ,  Torna a dar vita, , – , ,  Triduanas a Domino, , – ,  Troppo cruda, –  Tu m’aspettasti, , – , , – ,  Turbini tempestosi, – ,  Venite exultemus, , –  Videte gentes, , –  Voi ve ne pentirete,  Vorrei dire, , , , –  Works of doubtful authenticity Accademia per musica, ,  Ad supernam coeli mensam, –  Bel tempo, addio, , n Briseide, , , ,  Confitebor tibi Domine (GB-Lbl), ,  – ,  Credo in unum Deum,  Dixit Dominus (D-B), – 

 Estote fortes in bello,  Omnes gentes ad Jesum venite,  Sonata for violin and continuo,  –  Super flumina Babilonis,  Stievani Camillo, – , , , ,  Giacomo Antonio, ,  Helena, –  Helena Perina,  – , , –  Ippolita, – , , , ,  Paolina (née Terzago), – , , ,  –  Ventura Giacomo. See Terzago, Ventura stile antico, – , , –  Strabo, –  Strada del Pò, Anna Maria,  Stradella, Alessandro life and works of, – , – , , n musical style of, ,  – , – ,  Stradivari, Antonio,  Strasbourg, archbishop of,  stretto, , , , –  Strozzi, Barbara, ,  Strungk, Nicolaus Adam, –  suspension, , , , – ,  Tacitus, , , n Taelli, Caterina,  Tafelmusik, ,  taille,  Tallaoni, Mutio Maria, –  Tamagni, Giovanni,  Tapper, Johannes Wilhelm,  Tarditi, Orazio, ,  Tarquini, Vittoria (‘la Bombace’), –  Tartini, Giuseppe,  Tasso, Torquato, ,  Tattenbach. See Gottfried Wilhelm Telegono (Pietragrua),  Telemann, Georg Philipp, , ,  tempo indications, ,  Tenaglia, Antonio Francesco, , n Teresa Kunegunda Sobieska, electress of Bavaria, ,  Termini, Olga,  Terzago Marc’Antonio, , , –  Paolina. See Stievani, Paolina Ventura Giacomo,  – , , , – , ,  – ,  Tesauro, Emmanuele,  Theatine order, ,  theatres in Düsseldorf, 

in Hamburg, , –  in Hanover, , , -,  in Munich, ,  –,  in Venice, , ,  Theodora (Handel),  theorbo, – ,  theories of music,  –  Thielke, gambist,  Thomyris, Queen of Scythia,  Tibus, Adolph,  Tiepolo,  Timocrate (Leo),  timpani, , , ,  Toland, John, – ,  tonality in opera, , , –  in other works, , , , , –  Torafly, singer,  Torelli, Giuseppe, ,  Torri, Pietro life of, , , ,  works of, , , , ,  Tosi, Antonio, ,  Tosi, Pier Francesco, , ,  tourney, , , ,  tragédie lyrique, , , ,  treaties of alliance and partition,  Trent, council of,  Trento, Matthio,  Trier, ,  trio (oboes and bassoon), , , ,  trio sonata, , , – , – ,  Troisio, Giovanni, abbot, n trumpet, , , ,  Turinetti, Ercole Di, marquis of Prié,  Turks, , , , , , , ,  Ulrika Eleonora, queen of Sweden, ,  United Provinces,  Valenti, librettist,  Valentini, Giovanni,  Vallotti, Francesco Antonio, ,  Valoix, instrumentalist, –  Vandini, Antonio,  Varischino, Giovanni, n Vater, organ-builder,  Venice, , ,  See also carnival; opera; Steffani, Life; theatres Venturi, Vincenzo,  Venturini, François, –  Verloge, Hilaire,  versi sciolti, , 





 Vezin, instrumentalist,  Vienna, , , , –  Vigasio, Oliviero,  villanella,  Villedieu, Madame de. See Desjardins Vinci, Leonardo,  Violanta Beatrice of Bavaria, , , ,  letters of, ,  –  (), , ,  violin, – , , , , , n violoncello, ,  violone,  Vitali, Giovanni Battista, ,  Vitali, Tomaso Antonio,  Vittorio Amedeo II, king of Savoy,  Vivaldi, Antonio, , , ,  Viviani, Antonio,  Wachter, Johann Peter,  Walpole, Robert, xvi Walther, Johann Gottfried, xvi Warren, Edmund Thomas,  wars of Candia,  of the Grand Alliance,  Great Northern War, , ,  Nine Years’ (Palatinate) War,  of the Spanish Succession, ,  – , ,  – , ,  Thirty Years’War, ,  Weiss, Johann Sigismund,  Wendler, Hanns Ludwig, n Wening, Michael, , –

Werckmeister, Andreas,  Westerholtz, Friedrich Burckhard Johannes Matthias, baron,  –  Westermann, Brand, –  Wilderer, Johann Hugo,  – , ,  Wilhelm Friedrich, margrave of Ansbach,  Wilhelmine Amalie of Celle, empress, ,  Winter, Heinrich E., n Wirtschaft,  – ,  Wittelsbach dynasty, ,  Wolfenbüttel, , , , n Wolff-Metternich zur Gracht, Franz Arnold, bishop, , ,  Wolff-Metternich, Wilhelm Hermann Ignaz, canon,  word-setting, , – , ,  – , , – , –  Württemberg,  See also Eberhard IV Ludwig Würzburg,  Young, Cecilia (Mrs Arne),  Ypres,  Zacco, count,  Zambonini, Pietro, – , –  Zarlino, Gioseffo, ,  Zeiller, Franz,  Zellner, Georg, , , n Zeno, Apostolo, , ,  Ziani, Marc’Antonio, , , , n Ziani, Pietro Andrea, 