A Second Refuge French Opera and the Huguenot Migration, c. 1680 – c. 1710 By Rebekah Susannah Ahrendt A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Music in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Kate van Orden, Chair Professor Richard Taruskin Professor Peter Sahlins Fall 2011 A Second Refuge French Opera and the Huguenot Migration, c. 1680 – c. 1710 Copyright 2011 by Rebekah Susannah Ahrendt 1 Abstract A Second Refuge French Opera and the Huguenot Migration, c. 1680 – c. 1710 by Rebekah Susannah Ahrendt Doctor of Philosophy in Music University of California, Berkeley Professor Kate van Orden, Chair This dissertation examines the brief flowering of French opera on stages outside of France around the turn of the eighteenth century. I attribute the sudden rise and fall of interest in the genre to a large and noisy migration event—the flight of some 200,000 Huguenots from France. Dispersed across Western Europe and beyond, Huguenots maintained extensive networks that encouraged the exchange of ideas and of music. And it was precisely in the great centers of the Second Refuge that French opera was performed. Following the wide-ranging career path of Huguenot impresario, novelist, poet, and spy Jean-Jacques Quesnot de la Chenée, I construct an alternative history of French opera by tracing its circulation and transformation along Huguenot migration routes. This history attributes the lack of a sustained tradition beyond la France not to the genre’s musical or dramatic forms or its allegiance to French politics, but rather to the changing social and religious pressures on its primary foreign audience. My primary argument is that only after they left France did the Huguenots—and French opera—become identifiably “French,” for one of the most significant effects of this migration event was the contesting and reconfiguration of the nature of Frenchness itself. Once abroad, the Huguenots were viewed by their hosts first and foremost as French. Similarly, the appearance of French opera outside of its place of origin contributed to distinctions between various “national” styles of composition precisely because of its placement in comparison with other forms of spectacular entertainment. Engaging questions of translation, performance, mobility, and reception, I show that the nostalgia for French cultural products experienced by these displaced persons, as well as the 2 received opinion amongst host societies that French spectacle was of a higher order, created opportunities for entrepreneurs and contributed to the canonization of Lully and the codification of the French style. And French opera, because of its associations with Paris and its focus on spectacle and group expression, became an important instrument in discourses of identity and cultural competence abroad. However, the shifting status of French immigrants during this period limited the usefulness—and indeed the feasibility—of actual productions. In sum, I argue that the opera was itself a site of refuge that could exist only as long as the French community abroad remained culturally distinct. i Acknowledgments It seems somehow fitting that I write these words with a view of Amsterdam’s Westerkerk from the window. The view—perhaps because I enjoy it at this time—stirs both happiness and melancholy. The area around the Westerkerk was called Le Jardin by the Huguenot community—today we call it the Jordaan. Jean-Jacques Quesnot de la Chenée (the “hero” of this narrative) once lived at the end of the Bloemstraat, just a few steps away from where I sit. The Bloemstraat ends at the Prinsengracht, directly opposite the Westerkerk; thus, each time Quesnot left the building he would be confronted by this beautiful church. And it is in the graveyard of the Westerkerk that his wandering feet finally came to rest. The cross-border nature of my project has entailed a mobility nearly as expansive as Quesnot’s. My wanderings across the bibliographic landscape of Western Europe would not have been possible without the support of an academic year research grant from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the Utrecht University – North America Exchange Fellowship, the American Musicological Society Eugene K. Wolf Travel Grant, and a departmental fellowship from the Music Department of the University of California Berkeley. In its last stages, this dissertation (and I) was supported by an Andrew W. Mellon/American Council of Learned Societies Dissertation Completion Fellowship. I am most grateful to all of these institutions. I am also superlatively grateful to the many friends and colleagues who have provided a place to rest my head during my travels. In London, Edith van der Linden; in Paris, Louis Tian, Deirdre Dowling & Nils Wieboldt, and Philippe Grisvard; in The Hague, Elisabeth Opsahl & Tom Missotten, Sonja Gruys & Carlos Vaquero Patricio, and Louis Verschoor; in Amsterdam, Jed Wentz; in Utrecht, Harm Langenkamp, Ted Dumitrescu, and Constance Allanic; in Hamburg, Esther Criscuola de Laix; in Berlin, Saad Nasir, Tracy Achtman, and Matthias Tischer. Quite a few of these connections date back to my days as a displaced Californian at the Royal Conservatory of The Hague, and to the international community of early musicians I owe a great debt in terms of collegiality and musical experiment. I would especially like the thank the members of my ensemble, Les grâces—Jonathan Rhodes Lee, Jennifer Paulino, and Annette Bauer, the viol players of Berlin, the students in Jed Wentz’s class at the Conservatorium van Amsterdam, and the ever-willing Ambrož Bajec-Lapajne. An international community of scholars have kept me honest, provided unflagging support, and willingly shared ideas and materials with me. John S. Powell has been a great aid ever since we first met at a colloque in northern France in 2003. My conversations with musicologists Michael Burden, Antonia Banducci, Rebecca Harris-Warrick, Graham Sadler, Shirley Thompson, and Bruce Gustafson (whenever we meet in transit) have all been extremely rewarding. Very special thanks go to Karl Kügle for his unwavering support in many matters, and to Jed Wentz for always being there (and not being there—which is why ii I’m enjoying this view). For their invaluable commentary from afar, I thank literary scholars Buford Norman and William S. Brooks. On the history side, Wijnand Mijnhardt and Maarten Prak both appeared at exactly the right time. My comrades-in-Huguenot-arms David van der Linden and Lionel Laborie have been a “permanent spring” of advice, sources, and excellent companionship. Closer to home (in Berkeley), I could not have imagined a more stimulating, challenging, and loving group of faculty, staff, and graduate students than what I experienced in my years here. Seminars with Jocelyne Guilbault, Inez Hollander-Lake, Alan Nelson, Anthony Newcomb, Nicolas Paige, John H. Roberts, Mary Ann Smart, Richard Taruskin, Kate van Orden, and the late (and much lamented) Wye Jamison Allanbrook literally changed my scholarly life. Kris Albert and Melissa Hacker were always there when I needed last minute paperwork. My fellow graduate students—especially my “brother” Eliot Bates, Esther Criscuola de Laix, Sean Curran, Scott Edwards, Lisa Jakelski, Anna Nisnevich, and Adeline Mueller (who saw me through the end)—were a constant source of support and comfort. For their help in setting the musical examples, I thank Jonathan Rhodes Lee and Daniel Cullen. Kimberly Parke checked in on me nearly every day over all these years, no matter where in the world she was (whether Tennessee, New Zealand, or Thailand). And my family, both in California and Pennsylvania, were kind enough to stop asking questions after awhile. The members of my ever-patient committee were outstanding in every way (and are not to be blamed for any of my errors). Peter Sahlins always knew exactly what to say to make me work harder, and how to say it with enough good humor that I actually did it. Richard Taruskin was forever willing to push paper back and forth; his candid comments, superlative teaching, and immense musical knowledge have truly been inspiring. Mere words cannot describe my fabulous committee chair, Kate van Orden. She has been practically perfect in every way, from her astute reading (which often divined a meaning that I had obscured), to her excellent editorial skills, her musicianship, her scholarship, and her humanity. She has been a role model in so many ways, and I am most grateful to have been able to work with her. There are two other people in particular to whom I owe an enormous debt. The first is my younger sister, Amy. She has cooked and cleaned for me, put up with some of the wilder phases of my life, bailed me out of bad situations (thanks also to her partner Rob Stone), read my prose, and listened to my stories with the brain of a scientist and the heart of a humanist. The second is Daniel Heartz, who has been patron, mentor, model, and (at last) dear friend. To them I dedicate this work. iii Contents Acknowledgments i List of Figures and Examples iv List of Appendices vii Library and Archival Sigla viii A note on translations x Introduction: French opera and the Huguenot migration 1 1 Defining French opera 25 2 The Verdeutschung of French opera in Hamburg 65 3 Armide, the Huguenots, and The Hague 113 4 Porous boundaries 151 5 Staging the réfugié experience 182 Works cited 221 Appendices 248 iv List of Figures and Examples Figure 1.1 Title page of Psyché, tragedie 47 Wolfenbüttel: Bismarck, 1686 Table 1.1 The cast of Psyché, Wolfenbüttel, 1686 49 Figure 2.1 Nicolaes Visscher II, NOBILISSIMI ALBIS FLUVII OSTIA, 69 nec non HAMBURGENSE et alia Territoria adjacentia (detail) Amsterdam: Schenk, after 1682 Figure 2.2 Jan Luyken, “Hamburg besieged by the King of Denmark in 1686” 71 from Lodewijk Sylvius, Historien onses Tyds, Behelzende Saken van Staat en Oorlogh, vol.