No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 1976
Though the period of Handel's visit to Italy—1706 to 1710—has rightly been regarded as crucial to the formation of his mature style, study of the nature and extent of the development has been hindered by incorrect chronology of the music of the Italian period. Furthermore, assessment of the music written before 1706—essential to an appreciation of the effects of the Italian visit—has been even more difficult because of over-ready acceptance of the authenticity of many supposed early works. The research of the last twenty years has brought to light much new information about Handel's work in Italy, establishing the dates and circumstances of composition of a number of major works. Associating musical features with independently determined dates not only points out the course of the composer's development, but also allows dates to be assigned on stylistic grounds when there are clear musical affinities with datable works and other evidence is lacking. The limited compass of this paper precludes travelling far down any of the paths the new research has opened up, and is mainly concerned with the large-scale works; but it may suggest a way of approach. As the main achievements of the most recent work have yet to be incorporated in any Handel biography, a summary will be worthwhile.
1 London. 1760; reprinted Amsterdam, 1964.Google Scholar
2 Hamburg, 1740; the Handel biography is reproduced in Händel-Jahrbuch 1971, 91–9.Google Scholar
3 G. F. Händel (Leipzig, 1858–67; reprinted Hildesheim, 1966).Google Scholar
4 Handel: A Documentary Biography (London, 1955).Google Scholar
5 George Frideric Handel (London, 1923; revised 1947, 1959).Google Scholar
6 ‘Die Händel-Handschriften der Santini-Bibliothek in Munster’, Händel-Jahrbuch 1960, 111–50.Google Scholar
7 Discussed by Ewerhart in his article ‘New sources for Handel's La Resurrezione’, Music and Letters xli (1960), 127–35. It should be noted that when writing this article Ewerhart was unaware of the correct date of Il Trionfo del Tempo, and his discussion of the relationship between the overture to that work and the overture to La Resurrezione is misleading. The Trionfo overture is the earlier piece. When Handel recomposed it for La Resurrezione he began by writing out a fresh autograph (now in the Fitzwilliam Museum, 30 H 1, pp. 1–8), but at the final return of the main theme of the Allegro he abandoned the new autograph and continued by directly amending the Trionfo autograph. Chrysander, unaware that the Trionfo version had been so amended, erroneously included the Resurrezione trumpet parts in his edition (Händel-Gesellschaft, xxiv, 7–8).Google Scholar
8 The new-found music for La Resurrezione has not so far been published, but it can be heard on Ewerhart's recording of the work (Vox SVUX-52012).Google Scholar
9 ‘The Ruspoli Documents on Handel’, Journal of the American Musicological Society, xx (1967), 222–73; see also ibid., 517–18.Google Scholar
10 ‘Händel in Italia: Nuovi Contributi’, Rivista italiana di musicologia, ix (1974), 152–74.Google Scholar
11 Streatfeild, R. A., Handel (London, 1910, repr. New York, 1964), 30–32.Google Scholar
12 Briefwechsel der Kürfurstin Sophie von Hannover mit dem Preussichen Königshause, ed. G. Schnath (Berlin and Leipzig, 1927).Google Scholar
13 Op cit, 189. My translation is from the published German version of the original French.Google Scholar
14 ‘Handel and Steffani,’ Musical Times, cxiv (1973), 374–7.Google Scholar
15 Hans Joachim Marx, ‘Die Musik am Hofe Pietro Kardinal Ottobonis unter Arcangelo Corrili’, Analecta Musicologia, v (1968), 104–77; see especially p. 118.Google Scholar
16 Un Mecenate in Roma barocca (Florence, 1955).Google Scholar
17 ‘The Problem of Handel's Latin Church Music’, Musical Times, c (1959), 197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 M Fabbri, ‘Nuova luce sull'attivita fiorentina di Giacomo Antonio Perti, Bartolomeo Cristofori e Giorgio F. Hendel,’ Chigiana, xxi (1964), 143–90.Google Scholar
19 Some will feel that long-standing traditional attributions should not be dismissed so summarily; but in view of the poor provenances of these works the onus of proving authenticity is on those who wish to retain them in the Handelian canon. In the case of the trio sonatas and the ‘St John Passion’ the complete absence of thematic links with any authentic works by Handel is sufficient, in such substantial stretches of music, to rule out Handelian authorship. The three ‘Halle’ flute sonatas (published in Six Solos … compos'd by Mr Handel Sigr Gemiiani …, London, 1730) are more plausible, but (excepting the three movements of the E minor sonata which are direct transpositions of movements in the oboe sonata op. 1 no. 8 and a keyboard minuet) they are by no means certainly Handel's and there is nothing to suggest a link with Halle. The viola da gamba sonata is attributed in some manuscripts to J. M. Leffloth (1705–31), who wrote a violin sonata with very similar characteristics.Google Scholar
20 MS 130 Hd 4 v. 312.Google Scholar
21 For example the items in the earlier part of the fourth volume of keyboard music in the Hallische Händel-Ausgabe (Serie IV, Band 17), edited by Terence Best.Google Scholar
22 Preface to the Hallische Handel-Ausgabe, IV/17, p. viii.Google Scholar
23 Like much else in the 1733 collection, these suites had previously been printed without authority in Pieces a un & Deux Clavecins Composées par Mr Hendel (Amsterdam, c1719).Google Scholar
24 An excerpt (the aria ‘Qui habitare facit’) was played near the end of the paper so that the audience could place the piece stylistically in relation to the other music played. The haphazard structure of the movements looks back to Alira while the exuberant voice and string writing indicates an affinity with the earliest Italian works. The piece may therefore have been written at Hamburg to take to Italy, or may be one of the first works composed on arrival (at Florence?). In either case a date of about 1706 may be conjectured.Google Scholar
25 Hāndel-Gesellschaft, xxi, 108–116.Google Scholar
26 See Händtl-Gesellschafi, xxi, 113 and xxxviii, 95.Google Scholar
27 Händel-Gesellschaft, xlviii, 108–11. Chrysander's ‘corrected’ version of the viola part in the opening Largo is erroneous. The part as printed by Walsh is indeed incorrect, but the only error is in the clef; if the part is read a third higher, i.e. as if it was in the mezzo-soprano clef, it fits perfectly. Perhaps the engraver or the copyist of his source had imagined this section of the viola part to be in the tenor clef and had thought it needed ‘transposing’ back to the alto clef.Google Scholar
28 Pp. 56–7.Google Scholar
29 Ed. R. Ewerhart (Cologne, 1959).Google Scholar
Musical items from which excerpts were played during the reading of paper are indicated by ∗. The extracts from Almira, Rodrigo and the Laudate pueri in F were specially recorded for the paper by an ensemble directed from the harpsichord by Donald Burrows, to whom the author is most grateful. The other performers were Marilyn Jones (soprano), Philip Cave (tenor), Gillian Secret and David Robinson (violins), Marion Robinson (viola), and Clare Lumsden (cello).Google Scholar