Colin Timms: Did Steffani Compose a »Confitebor« in 1709? Schriftenreihe Analecta musicologica. Veröffentlichungen der Musikgeschichtlichen Abteilung des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom Band 44 (2010) Herausgegeben vom Deutschen Historischen Institut Rom

Copyright

Das Digitalisat wird Ihnen von perspectivia.net, der Online-Publikationsplattform der Max Weber Stiftung – Deutsche Geisteswissenschaftliche Institute im Ausland, zur Verfügung gestellt. Bitte beachten Sie, dass das Digitalisat der Creative- Commons-Lizenz Namensnennung-Keine kommerzielle Nutzung-Keine Bearbeitung (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) unterliegt. Erlaubt ist aber das Lesen, das Ausdrucken des Textes, das Herunterladen, das Speichern der Daten auf einem eigenen Datenträger soweit die vorgenannten Handlungen ausschließlich zu privaten und nicht-kommerziellen Zwecken erfolgen. Den Text der Lizenz erreichen Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode Did Steffani Compose a »Confitebor« in 1709?

Colin Timms

Among the distinguished visitors to Rome during Handel’s Italian period was the eminent composer,diplomat and bishop, Agostino Steffani. Steffani spent nearly six months in Rome,on a diplomatic mission, during the winter and spring of 1708–1709. While he was there, two of his operas were given their first perform- ance in Düsseldorf,the seat of his employer, the Elector Palatine Johann Wilhelm. Although these productions suggest that Steffani was still active as a musician in Germany, there is no conclusive evidence that he was involved with music in Rome, whether as a composer,performer or listener.The most substantial piece of evidence to this effect is a setting of Confitebor tibi Domine in GB-Lbl,Add. MS 14398, where it carries the heading »Abate Steffani 1709«. The plausibility of this attribution and date,and the possible circumstances of the psalm’s composition, are the subject of this paper.1 Steffani’s sojourn in Rome was not his only period in the city.He first went there at the age of eighteen »to perfect himself further in his art«2 – that is, music. As a boy, he had been an outstanding singer.Born at Castelfranco (Veneto) in 1654, he had become a treble in the choir of the Basilica del Santo,Padua, at the age of ten, and had made his début in Venetian opera just over a year later.In 1667,after a second appearance in Venice and further musical experience in and around Padua, he had been recruited by Elector Ferdinand Maria of Bavaria and taken to his court in Munich. There he had studied singing and keyboard-playing – harpsichord and

1 Some of the material of this paper appeared in my book Polymath of the Baroque. Agostino Steffani and His Music,New Yo rk etc.2003: here it is supplemented with additional information, and the discussion is refocused, revised and enlarged. 2 »Durchleüchtigster churfüersst,g[ne]digster Herr.Nach Eure churfrst:drtl:gdisten anbevelch[en] ist dero Cam[m]er Musicus Augustin Stefani An[n]o 1671 den ersten Octobris beÿ mir in die Kosst eingestand[en], und er gang 1672 zu anfang deß gemelten Monats von hier ab: nacher Rom V[er] raist, daselbs d[er]o gdisten disposition und bevelch gemeß sich in seiner Kunsst mehrers zu per- fectioniern […] Münch den 20:n Jenner 1673« (D-Mhsa, HR I Fasz. 472 Nr.882,fol. 20.Partial citation in Julius Joseph Maier, Archivalische Excerpte über die herzoglich bayerische Hofkapelle, in: Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 6 [1891],p.69–81: 72;cf. Alfred Einstein, Agostino Steffani. Biographische Skizze, I:Münchener Zeit, 1654–1688, in: Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 23 [1910], pp.1–36: 12f.).

Did Steffani Compose a »Confitebor« in 1709? 123 organ – with the Kapellmeister,Johann Caspar Kerll, who in addition had probably given him his first instruction in musical composition. He went to Rome in Octo- ber 1672 to study with Ercole Bernabei, the recently appointed »maestro di cappella« of the Cappella Giulia. He may have continued taking keyboard lessons with Berna- bei, but he concentrated mainly on composition. The first fruit of this period was his Psalmodia vespertina,acollection of vesper psalms and a Magnificat,for two antiphonal four-part choirs;the collection was pub- lished in 1674,but since the dedication is dated 1January, the settings must have been composed in 1673 or even 1672.He also embarked, presumably at his teacher’s insti- gation, on a contrasting group of pieces, scored for a variety of forces, that are pre- served only in GB-Cfm,MuMS94. Among these are two works dedicated to Saint Cecilia – a setting of the Cecilian antiphon Triduanas a Domino (dated 20 November 1673) and the psalm Laudate pueri (November).Steffani evidently composed these pieces in 1673 for the annual celebration of the patron saint of the Congregazione dei Musici di Roma, of which he became a member.The only other surviving piece that he appears to have written during this period is the secular chamber cantata Occhi miei, lo miraste,which is preserved in a contemporary Roman manuscript in D-HVs, Kestner vol. 76.3 Steffani’s studies in Rome mayve ha been cut short in the spring of 1674,when Bernabei was appointed to succeed Kerll as Kapellmeister at Munich. Master and pupil left the city together in May and reached the Bavarian capital on 7July.Steffani had spent nineteen months in Rome but was still less than twenty years old. When he went back there in 1708,he was fifty-four years of age and his circum- stances were entirely different. By then he hadye enjo danextremely successful career as a musician. At Munich he had become Director of Chamber Music (»Camer Music Director«) and composed a variety of works, including five operas. At the protestant court of Hanover he had presided over the most glittering period in the history of Italian opera in LowerSaxony, composing and directing at least six operas in the space of six yearsand in anew,state-of-the-arttheatre; his full-length Hanoveroperas had been staged in public in Hamburg, and his chamber duets had been circulated around the courts of Europe.But he had also pursued an increasingly successful career as a diplomat. Having played an important part in the negotiations that led in 1692 to the elevation of the duchy of Hanover to an electorate,he had been appointed in 1693 as Hanoverian »envoyé extraordinaire« to the Bavarian court in Brussels. Te n years later he had moved to Düsseldorf,not as a musician but as a privy councillor and as president of the Spiritual Council for the Palatinate and the counties of Jülich and Berg (»Kurpfälzischer,auch jülich- und bergischer geistlicher Raths-

3 The cantata is edited in Theodor Wilhelm Werner, Alfred Einstein, Die Musikhandschriften des Kestnerschen Nachlasses im Stadtarchiv zu Hannover, in: Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft 1 (1918–1919), pp.441–466:457–466;see also Colin Timms, Steffani’s Solo Cantatas, in: ›Con che soavità‹: Studies in Italian Opera, Song, and Dance,1580–1740,ed. Iain Fenlon, Tim Carter,Oxford 1995, pp.196–228: 204–208.

124 Colin Timms Präsident«).Within eight months he had been promoted general president of the Palatine government and council (»Regierungs-, Raths- und General-Präsident«), answerable only to the elector,so that when the secretary and poet Giorgio Maria Rapparini came to write his »portrait« of the court in 1709,he placed his account of Steffani immediately after that of Johann Wilhelm.4 Steffani’s appointment as president of the Spiritual Council at what was then the most important Catholic court in north Germany is a sign that he had also been pursuing for some time a career in the church: he had been a priest since 1680,abbot of Löpsingen since 1683 and an Apostolic Prothonotary since at least 1695.In September 1706 he had been nominated Bishop of Spiga (with consecration on 2January 1707),5 and around the same time he had also been informed that, when the way for this had been cleared, he would be appointed Apostolic Vicar of North Germany. When he went to Rome in 1708,therefore, he was an experienced politician and a bishop.The purpose of his mission was to find a way of reconciling the pope and the emperor,who had taken opposite sides in the War of the Spanish Succession. When Carlos II died, on 1November 1700,he left no direct heir.Innocent XII,who had died five weeks earlier,had supported the French claim to the throne (that of Philip of Anjou),and his successor,Clement XI,followed the same line,though more discreetly.Leopold I,on the other hand, favoured the claim of his son, Archduke Charles. Following the accession of Joseph I,in 1705,relations between Rome and Vienna continued to deteriorate.By 1706 the Habsburgs were the dominant force in Italy.The Spanish ambassador was so afraid of imperial troops that he left Rome with his family in April 1707;6 three months later the soldiers marched into Naples.7 In 1708 the College of Cardinals considered the possibility of excommunicating the emperor but instead sent him a letter of censure. Joseph responded by invading the papal states, taking Comacchio (on a mouth of the Po) in late May. By the autumn, according to Ursula Kirkendale,the people of Rome were so terrified that they were »fleeing the city ovein dr s«.8 The conflict was one that the pope could not win; the only way in which he could avoid a humiliating defeat would be to transfer his sup- port to the Austrians, but how could this be done without losing face?

4 Hermine Kühn-Steinhausen (ed.),Die Rapparini-Handschrift der Landes- und Stadt-Biblio- thek Düsseldorf.Zum 300. Geburtstage des Kurfürsten Johann Wilhelm von der Pfalz 19. April 1958, Düsseldorf 1958 (Veröffentlichungen der Landes- und Stadt-Bibliothek Düsseldorf, 4) p. 25. 5 Spiga is to be identified with Pegae,situated in the Hellespont under the metropolitan of Cyzi- cus. As Hawkins supposed, the diocese was »in partibus infidelium« and Steffani’s appointment »was only titular,for it does not appear that he ever went to reside in his diocese,or even received any revenues from thence« ([John Hawkins,] Memoirs of the Life of Sig. Agostino Steffani, some time Master of the Electoral Chapel at Hanover, and afterwards Bishop of Spiga [London c. 1750], p.iv, note). 6 Ursula Kirkendale,Handel with Ruspoli: New Documents from the Archivio Segreto Vati- cano, December 1706 to December 1708, in: Studi musicali 32 (2003), p. 301–348: 318. 7 Kirkendale, Handel with Ruspoli, p. 324. 8 Kirkendale, Handel with Ruspoli, p. 338.

Did Steffani Compose a »Confitebor« in 1709? 125 Johann Wilhelm had been trying for some time to bring the pope and the emperor together.On 9June 1708 Joseph wrote to the elector,asking him to nomi- nate a suitable person as mediator;he expressly mentioned Steffani, who had made a good impression in Vienna during the Hanoverian negotiations of the early 1690s. Steffani accepted the brief,and on 16 September he outlined his travel plans to the Tuscan and Palatine diplomatic resident in Rome, Count Antonio Maria Fede:

Io partirò dunque frà pochi giorni, e mi servirò di Cavalli di Posta, mà come non è possibile che io faccia questo viaggio senza fermarmi à Confluenza, à Magonza, à Francfort, à Erbi- poli, à Augusta, à Inspruck, à Verona, et à Firenze, V[ostra] S[ignoria] Ill[ustrissi]ma può ben giudicare che io non potrò haver la consolatione di abbracciarla prima del fine del prossimo Ottobre. Io non condurrò seco che un Cappellano,un Segretario,un Cameriere, un Cuoco, e due Staffieri; il resto della gente che mi bisognerà, e particolarmente un buon Decano, toccherà à V. S. Ill:ma l’Incommodo di provedermene.Habbia ella la risposta di questa in Verona nelle mani del Sig[no]r Marchese Michele Sagramosa.9 Two days later Johann Wilhelm gave Steffani his »istruzione segreta« and around the end of the month the bishop set off. Although his mission was meant to be secret, he stopped for discussions with important figures in various places along the way.He was in Augsburg on 6October and Innsbruck on the 12th, and he evidently made a detour to Vienna. He reached Rome on 7November.Waiting for him there was a letter from the dowager electress Sophie of Hanover: »They say that he [Johann Wilhelm] has used you to make peace between the emperor and the pope«.10 In Rome only the pope and Cardinal Piazza (nuncio of Cologne 1703–1706) had offi- cially been informed of the reason for Steffani’s visit, but in Germany his mission was secret no more. It is not known where he stayed in Rome.One might assume that he lodged with Count Fede,who enjoyed extremely close relations with the pope,but his name does not seem to be mentioned in the resident’s correspondence at that time

9 »I shall be leaving [Düsseldorf], 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.Ishall only be bringing one chaplain, one secretary, one valet, one cook, and two grooms; I shall have to putYo ur Most Il- lustrious Lordship to the inconvenience of providing me with the other personnel that I shall need, particularly a good dean. Would you send your reply to this [letter] to Marquis Michele Sagramosa in Verona« (Rome,Sacra congregatio pro gentium evangelizatione seu de propaganda fide, Archivio Storico,Fondo Spiga, vol. 39).Fede (1649–1718) represented Tuscany in Rome from 1693 and the Rhine-Palatinate from 1697 (Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 45,Rome 1995, pp.553–554, and Theodor Levin, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kunstbestrebungen in dem Hause Pfalz-Neuburg, in: Beiträge zur Geschichte des Niederrheins 20 [1906], pp.123–249: 159–164). 10 »on dit qu’il vous a emploie a faire la paix entre LEmpreur et le Pape« (D-HVsa, Cal. Br.23c, Nr.101,fol. 3, cited in Richard Doebner [ed.], Briefe der Königin Sophie Charlotte von Preußen und der Kurfürstin Sophie von Hannover an hannoversche Diplomaten, Leipzig 1905 [Publicatio- nen aus den Königlichen Preußischen Staatsarchiven79], pp.249f.).

126 Colin Timms with the Palatine Electress, Anna Maria Luisa of Tuscany, 11 and the size of his retinue suggests that he intended to live independently.On Tuesday 13 November (six days after his arrival),according to Valesio,the pope »gave a long audience to Steffani, Bishop of Spiga,[who has been] sent here by the Elector Palatine and by the empress, widow and mother«.12 The lady in question is Eleonore-Magdalena of Neuburg, Leopold’s third wife,Joseph’s mother and, most important, Johann Wilhelm’s sister, so the implication of Valesio’s account is that the emperor’s request to his uncle for Steffani’s assistance had been prompted by his mother.This audience must have been the first ofve se ral meetings that Steffani had with Clement XI.By January 1709 imperial troops were threatening Rome,thus intensifying the pressure on the pope, but a way was soon found whereby he could concede while avoiding humiliation: on 15 January he withdrew his support for Philip of Anjou and acknowledged the right of Archduke Charles to be regarded as the Catholic king but not as king of Spain.13 This ingenious formula was devised by the Bishop of Spiga. A month later the imperial forces began their retreat. No sooner had they gone than the papal states were ravaged by another wave of troops, en route from Naples to Milan. The pope was tempted to retaliate, but Steffani urged restraint. Clement XI was justifiably grateful to Steffani and demonstrated his appreciation on 2February by appointing him a Domestic Prelate and Assistant at the Pontifical Throne; according to Einstein, Steffani celebrated Mass in Sano. Pietr 14 Two months later,after further discussions with the pope and the Curia, he wasalso appointed Apostolic Vicar of North Germany(»ad partes Septentrionales et per Saxoniam Vicarius Apostolicus«).Hethen began making plans for his journeyhome: on 20 April he wrote to Elector Georg Ludwig of Hanover, thanking him for his offer of accommodation in his palace in Venice.Hemust have left Rome about the end of the month, for he stopped in Florence on 5May and reached Venice by the 13th; he also spent twodaysinPadua, presumably visiting relativesand friends. He arrived back in Düsseldorf in early June and immediately began work with Johann Wilhelm on the latter’sgrand design (his »gran negozio«) to reconvert north Germanytothe Catholic faith. If Steffani’s visit to Rome had been a diplomatic triumph, it hadalso set the course for the rest of his career, in which music would play a secondary role.

11 Hermine Kühn-Steinhausen, Der Briefwechsel der Kurfürstin Anna Maria Luise von der Pfalz, in: Düsseldorfer Jahrbuch 40 (1938), pp.15–256. 12 »Martedì 13 [13November 1708] Si portò questa mattina S. Beatitudine a piedi a visitare la chiesa del Noviziato de’ padri giesuiti per la festività del b. Stanislao Coska e nel ritorno diede longa udienza al Stefanii, vescovo di Spiga, spedito qui dall’elettore palatino et imperatrice vedoa madre« (Francesco Valesio,Diario di Roma, ed. Gaetana Scano,Giuseppe Graglia, Milan 1977–1979, vol. 4: 1708–1728, p. 187). 13 »Only the Spanish ambassadors, like their sovereigns, were designated as ›catholic‹, and there was only one of them at a court at any time« (Kirkendale,Handel with Ruspoli [see note 6],p.316, note 93). 14 Alfred Einstein, Agostino Steffani, in: Essays on ,rMusic ev.edition, London 1958,p.179–184: 182.

Did Steffani Compose a »Confitebor« in 1709? 127 In fact, music had already become a secondary concern. On appointment as Bishop of Spiga in 1706–1707, if not before, he had adopted the name of the musician and copyist Gregorio Piva to disguise his identity as acomposer.Thereare questions about his involvement as composer in all three of his Düsseldorf operas. Arminio (carnival, 1707)isapasticcio based largely on movements from Steffani’sMunich and Hanover operas. Amor vien dal destino (carnival, 1709)isaslightly revised version of a work that he had composed at Hanover in the 1690s but which had lain unperformed. Tassilone (carnival, 1709), which was probably intended as part of the celebrations of Johann Wilhelm’sfiftieth birthday(19 April 1708), mayhavebeen composed eighteen months beforeits first performance and revised in late 1708 by somebody other than Steffani. Amor vien dal destino and Tassilone are the only Steffani operas of which the first performance was not directed by the composer – because he was in Rome. It has generally been assumed that, while he was there, Steffani met and got to know the young Handel. According to Kirkendale,however, Handel had »left the city for good« on 12 September 1708.15 This statement appears to rule out the pos- sibility of any meeting between Handel and Steffani while the latter was in Rome, where he arrived only in November.It also casts doubt on the interpretation of the following passage in Hawkins’s Memoirs of the Life of Sig. Agostino Steffani:

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 composi- tions as could from time to time be procured: on these occasions, in the absence of a princi- pal 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.16 Leaving aside the details and implications of Hawkins’s text, it is indisputable that the only period when Steffani couldve ha sung in Ottoboni’s palace is the winter and spring of 1708–1709. He was in touch with Ottoboni during his negotiations; Otto- boni is mentioned in contemporary letters from Fede to Johann Wilhelm, and the cardinal and the elector exchanged gifts.17 If one person acted both as eye-witness in Rome and as informant in London, the obvious candidate must be Handel; but if Handel was not in Rome,even briefly,between early November 1708 and late April 1709,the eye-witness must have been somebody else (Handel could still have been the informant). Although Steffani and Handel were acquainted by 1710,at the latest, it is difficult to establish when and where they met. Handel’s account of what seems to have been their first meeting, in Hanover, is quoted by Hawkins in his History:

15 Kirkendale, Handel with Ruspoli (see note 6), p. 305. 16 [Hawkins,] Memoirs (see note 5), p.vii. 17 For German translations of Fede’s letters, see Levin, Beiträge (see note 9), pp.160f.

128 Colin Timms ›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‹, put- ting 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 Sophia 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 mat- ters of a public concern, he left me in possession of that favour and patronage which himself had enjoyed for a series of years.‹18 Riemann suggested that this meeting took place in the spring of 1703,when Handel was moving from Halle to Hamburg and Steffani from Hanover to Düsseldorf,19 and his arguments are extremely persuasive.But if the composers did not meet at Hano- ver in 1703 or make contact in Rome in 1708–1709, did they meet in one of the places on Steffani’s route back to Germany? Was Handel in Florence when Steffani stopped there on 5May 1709 or in Venice later that month, when Steffani evidently stayed at the elector of Hanover’s palace? There is no evidence that he was, or that in Venice they met Baron Kielmansegg, the elector of Hanover’s Deputy Master of the Horse. It is possible,nevertheless, that the composers are linked indirectly by a receipt, dated 28 February 1709,for copies of three cantatas by Handel made »per il Baron Tedesco«.20 Forty years ago Kirkendale wondered whether this baron was Steffani:

He was […] on a diplomatic mission for the Elector of Hanover. Thus he came [to Rome] as a »Tedescho«, and, of course,a»baron«; he doubtless visited the performances at the Bonelli palace.21 Despite its allure, this suggestion does not bear close scrutiny and has since been withdrawn. Steffani was neither a baron nor a German, and it is unlikely that a document would have referred to him in these terms, especially after his installation as a bishop; there is no evidence of his attending any concert at the Palazzo Bonelli, and he was sent to Rome not by the elector of Hanover but by that of the Rhine- Palatinate.Johann Wilhelm could conceivably have been the German in question: if Handel had promised to visit his court, as Mainwaring states,22 the elector could have been interested in acquiring some of his cantatas. But if the receipt does refer to him, why is he described as a baron, not as an elector? An alternative possibility

18 John Hawkins, A General History of the Science and Practice of Music,London ²1875, vol. 2, pp.857f. 19 Hugo Riemann, Wann machte Händel die Bekanntschaft Steffanis?, in: Der Merker 2 (1911), pp.1001–1 005. 20 Ursula Kirkendale,The Ruspoli Documents on Handel, in: Journal of the American Musicol- ogical Society 20 (1967), p. 222–273: 268, document 34. 21 Kirkendale, The Ruspoli Documents, pp.243f., note 82. 22 John Mainwaring, Memoirs of the Life of the Late George Frederic Handel. To which is added, a Catalogue of his Works, and Observations upon Them, London 1760, p. 71.

Did Steffani Compose a »Confitebor« in 1709? 129 is the aforesaid Baron Kielmansegg. Johann Adolf Freiherr von Kielmansegg must have been involved in Handel’s appointment as Hanover’s Kapellmeister,for he was thanked by the composer;he may therefore have had a good reason to purchase copies of his music.Furthermore, his wife was a singer who had performed Steffani’s chamber duets with Sophie Charlotte in Berlin. If Kielmansegg was not in Rome in February 1709,it is possible that Steffani, who had known him inver, Hano acted on his behalf; in this case the words »Baron Tedesco« would both refer to a real German baron and conceal the bishop’s role in the transaction.

Apart from the circumstances mentioned above,the only other evidence that Stef- fani may have been active as a musician in Rome in 1709 is the setting of Confitebor tibi Domine,which is preserved only in Add. MS 14398. The source is an imposing volume,comprising 154folios of thick, laid paper in upright quarto format, nearly 30cm tall by 23.5cm wide; there are sixteen staves to a page.The manuscript con- tains a substantial collection of vocal polyphony, as is clear from the elaborate title (fol. 2r):

Sacrarum Cantionum / A / Collection of Motetts / (with some Madrigals) / by / Clemens, non papa – Benedictus – Tubal / Mouton – Tallis – Byrd / Praenestini [Palestrina] – Vecchio – Philippi / Morley – Lockenburgo – Roselli / Steffani – Casati – Nasco /– Jusquin – / chiefly selected from the original / parts and put into /score 1770 The manuscript was copied by the »indefatigable« Edmund Thomas Warren (later Warren-Horne),secretary of the Noblemen and Gentlemen’s Catch Club from 1761 to 1794,23 and presented to the British Museum by Vincent Novello on his birth- day (6 September) in 1843.Byrd is represented by twenty-two motets (or parts of motets) from his Liber primus sacrarum cantionum (1589), and Palestrina by twenty from his Motettorum liber tertius (1575) and Liber quintus (1584);no other composer clocks up more than three. Although a contemporary tally of the contents (fol. [3r]) credits Steffani with two pieces, Confitebor tibi Domine (fols. 134v–143r) is the only one ascribed to him. Both he and the setting are strikingly later in date than their companions in the volume.While most of the collection consists of Renaissance polyphony for unaccompanied voices, Confitebor tibi Domine is a concertato setting in Baroque style scored for three voices (two sopranos and a bass: SSB), two violins and basso continuo.Its inclusion in this context perhaps reflects the fact that in the early eighteenth century Steffani had been regarded in England as a master of coun- terpoint and as a Catholic with contacts at court; he had also been elected president of the Academy of Vocal (later Ancient) Music. Since the manuscript was copied long after its contents had been composed, the attribution and dating of Confitebor tibi Domine must initially be regarded as doubt- ful, and in the absence of other evidence the setting itself must furnish the principal

23 A. Hyatt King, Some British Collectors of Music,c.1600–1960,Cambridge 1963,pp. 20f.; King lists twenty-five manuscripts copied by Warren or Warren-Horne.

130 Colin Timms basis for judgement. The piece has attracted little musicological attention, but one person who trusted the attribution is William George Cusins, a notable musician who,as Queen Victoria’s Master of Music (1870–1893), evidently examined works by Steffani in the royal family’s music collections and in the British Museum before writing his appreciative article on the composer for the first edition ofove Gr ’s Dic- tionary (1878–1890).24 Cusins described Confitebor tibi Domine as a »glorious« work, »full of exquisite beauties« and »with a splendid bass solo« – and he is right; but it also contains, in its closing ten bars (»Amen«),anumber of dissonances that are wholly untypical of Steffani (see Example 1).For this reason, the brief discussion of

247 []ŒŒ œœ. œœ œœ œœ. œœ œœ c œœ œœ œœ Vl. 1 & 2 &  œœ . œœ œœ œœ !œœ œœ ŒŒ œœ. !œœ œœ œœ œœ œœ. œœ œœ !œœ c J œœ !œœ S. 1 & J [A] ----men, A------c ŒŒ œœ œœ. !œœœœ!œœ j œœ œœ S. 2 & J !œœ œœ

A------men, A- ---- ?  !œœ œœ. œœœœ B. c  ŒŒ

A- --men, A- ----

?  []! œœ. œœœœ B. c. c 

56 6

249 ŒŒ œœ œœœœ ! œœ  œœ !œœ!œœ !œœœœ!œœ!œœ!œœ œœ ! Vl. 1 & 2 &œœ œœ J œœ !œœ œœ. !œœ œœ œœ œœ!œœ œœ œœ œœJœœœœ œœ. S. 1 & J ------men, A- -- j œœjœœœœ œœ œœœœœœœœ. œœ S. 2 &!œœ œœ !œœœœ œœ! -men, A------œœ œœ. œœœœœœ  œœ ?!œœj Jœœ œœ B. Jœœ J -men, A- ----men, A------œœ. œœ ?!œœ œœ œœœœ œœ œœœœ B. c. œœ

7nn 644 Example 1: Confitebor tibi Domine, bars 247–250 (»Amen«)

24 William George Cusins, art. Steffani, Agostino,in:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (A.D. 1450–1889),ed. George Grove,London 11878–1890, vol. 3, pp.677–682;the entry was slightly enlarged for the reprint in 1902.

Did Steffani Compose a »Confitebor« in 1709? 131 the piece in my book on the composer left open the question of authorship.25 The piece deserves further consideration. One of the most striking features of Steffani’s vocal compositions is the way in which his musical structures reflect theyo la ut and meaning of the texts that he set – his Stabat mater is a consummate example.26 The text of Confitebor tibi Domine (Psalm 110) seems to fall into a number of sections, according to subject-matter (see Table1). Verse1is a statement of the psalmist’s intention; vv.2–4 are an encomium

Latin version from the Liber usualis 1. Confitebor tibi Domine in toto corde meo: in consilio justorum etcongregatione. 2. Magna opera Domini: exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus. 3. Confessio et magnificentia opus ejus: et justitia ejus manet in saeculum saeculi. 4. Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum, misericors et miserator Dominus: escam dedit timen- tibus se. 5. Memor erit in saeculum testamenti sui: virtutem operum suorum annuntiabit populo suo. 6. Ut det illis haereditatem gentium: opera manuum ejus veritas et judicium. 7. Fidelia omnia mandata ejus: confirmata in saeculum saeculi: facta in veritate et aequitate. 8. Redemptionem misit populo suo: mandavit in aeternum testamentum suum. 9. Sanctum et terribile nomen ejus: initium sapientiae timor Domini. 10.Intellectus bonus omnibus facientibus eum: laudatio ejus manet in saeculum saeculi. 11.Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. 12.Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Translation from The New English Bible,with verses regrouped and numbered, punctuation revised, and verses 11–12 added to facilitate comparison with the Latin 1. With all my heart I will praise the Lord in the company of good men, and in the whole congregation. 2. Great are the doings of the Lord; all men study them for their delight. 3. His acts are full of majesty and splendour; righteousness is his for ever. 4. He has won a name by his marvellous deeds; the Lord is gracious and compassionate.He gives food to those who fear him. 5. He keeps his covenant always in mind. He showed his people what his strength could do. 6. Bestowing on them the lands of other nations. His works are truth and justice. 7. His precepts all stand on firm foundations, strongly based to endure for ever,their fabric goodness and truth. 8. He sent and redeemed his people; he decreed that his covenant should always endure. 9. Holy is his name, inspiring awe. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, 10.And they who live by it grow in understanding. Praise will be his for ever. 11.Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. 12.As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

Table 1: The Words of Confitebor tibi Domine (Psalm 110)

25 Timms, Polymath of the Baroque (see note 1), pp.171 f. 26 For discussion of this piece, see Timms, Polymath of the Baroque, pp.166–171.

132 Colin Timms of the Lord’s works, and vv.5–8 a reminder of his testament or covenant. The focus and the manner of the psalm change abruptly at v. 9, which, together with v. 10,is concerned with fear of the Lord and its consequences. The doxology follows. If the beginning of v. 9 is a turning point in the text, it is also a key moment in the structure of this musical setting (Table 2).To appreciate the significance of this moment, one must first understand how the text is normally treated inthis work. Generally speaking, each clause (or half-verse) is set to an imitative point that is

Bars VerseMetre Key* Voices**

1–273 1. ConfiteborC eS/S/B

273–313 2. Magna eS/S 314–381 exquisita e–G S/S

382–453 3. ConfessioG–b S2/B 454–533 et iustitia b–G S/S/B 534–613 et iustitia G–e S/S/B

613–821 4. Memoriam e–b–D–a–C S1/B

814–861 5. Memor erit CS/S/B 861–1091 virtutem 3/4C–G S/S/B

1092–1171 6. Ut det illis CG–e S2/B 1172–1241 opera e–G S2/B

1241–1321 7. Fidelia G–b S/S 1322–1401 facta b–G S/S/B 1402–1481 facta G–e S/S/B

1481–1541 8. Redemptionem eS/S 1542–1593 mandavit e–b S1/B 1594–1664 mandavit b–e S/S/B

1671–1724 9. Sanctum C–G B 1731–1773 initium G–d B 1774–1824 initium d–a B

1831–1893 10.Intellectus eS2/B 1893–1961 laudatio e–b S1/B 1961–2043 laudatio b–e S/S/B

2043–2221 11.Gloria eS/S 2222–2441 12.Sicut erat eS/S/B 2442–2544 Amen eS/S/B

*Lower case for minor keys, upper case for major.The final chords in bars182 and 254 have a »tierce de Picardie«. ** The use of violins is discussed in the essay; basso continuo is present throughout.

Table 2: Structure of the Confitebor tibi Domine in GB-Lbl, Add. MS 14398

Did Steffani Compose a »Confitebor« in 1709? 133 announced and explored by two or three voices over an independent basso con- tinuo; the violins are normally silent when the voices are singing. When the point has run its course,the music cadences and the voices rest while the violins echo the second half of the preceding vocal section, a procedure familiar from Monteverdi’s small-scale concertato works; there is normally an overlap between adjacent sec- tions for voices or violins (Example 2).None of the foregoing applies to the setting of v. 9 (»Sanctum et terribile nomen ejus«),which Cusins described as »a species of accompanied recitative« (Example 3).This is the only verse that is both sung by a single voice and accompanied throughout by the violins: the only other place where the instruments actually accompany vocal music is the concluding »Amen«. Further- more, there is a clean break between the end of v. 8 and the beginning of v. 9, not an overlap: the only other break in the music occurs at the very end of the piece.Thus, the main division in the musical setting corresponds with that in the text.

Vl. 1 & c ! ! !

Vl. 2 & c ! ! !

"œœ œœ œœ œœ. œœ c ŒŒ œœ. œœ "œœ œœ J œœ ŒŒ‰‰œœœœ"œœœœ S. 1 & J R R J Con -fi-te -bor ti -biDo-mi-ne in to -to œœ c ! Ó ŒŒ œœ. œœ "œœ œœ "œœ œœ S. 2 & J R Con -fi-te -bor ti -bi ? B. c ! ! !

œœ œœ œœ œœ ?  œœ œœ  œœ œœ B. c. c

" 6" 6 66" 5 5 "

4

Vl. 1 & ! ! !

Vl. 2 & ! ! !

œœ  œœ " S. 1 &œœ  !

cor ----de me ---o œœ. "œœ œœ J ŒŒ‰‰œœœœ"œœœœœœ œœ œœ  œœ S. 2 & R J "œœ œœ Do -mi-ne in to -tocor ------de œœ "œœ œœ "œœœœœœœœ.œœœœ ?ŒŒ œœ. R JR Ó ŒŒ‰‰œœ B. J J

Con -fi-te -bor ti -biDo-mi-ne in j ? "œœ œœ œœ "œœ j œœ ‰‰ œœ B. c. œœ. œœ œœ œœ

7 6 " 7 " 5

134 Colin Timms 18

Vl. 1 & ! ! !

Vl. 2 & ! ! !

j j j  Ó ! ŒŒ œœ œœ j j S. 1 & J œœ "œœ œœ œœ ne, in con -si-li -o ju - j j j j j j S. 2 &  Ó ŒŒ œœ œœ œœ œœ j ŒŒ  J "œœ œœ "œœ œœ ne, in con -si-li -o ju - sto -rum et œœ œœ œœ œœ j  œœ j j ? J J "œœ œœ "œœ ŒŒ J "œœ "œœ œœ. œœn œœn B. œœ J J J J J œœ œœ J ne, in con -si-li -o ju - sto-rum et con -gre -ga-ti -o --- œœ ? œœ œœ "œœ œœ œœ   B. c. œœ  

"

21 œœœœœœ"œœœœ œœ  œœ. ! Ó ŒŒ œœ œœŒŒ "œœ Vl. 1 & J

œœ œœœœ"œœ œœ œœ œœ Vl. 2 & ! ! Ó ŒŒ œœ ŒŒ

j œœ œœ. œœ œœœœœœœœ."œœ Ó ! S. 1 &"œœ j J J œœ sto-rum et con -gre - ga -ti-o-ne. j  œœ œœ œœ œœœœœœ Ó ! S. 2 & J œœ"  con-gre -ga-ti -o - ne. ? j B. œœ. œœœœ. œœ  Ó ! œœ œœ œœ  ------ne. œœ ? j   œœ B. c.  œœ. œœ   œœ œœ œœ

25 œœ. œœ œœ œœ œœ "œœ œœ"œœ œœ œœ "œœœœ J œœ "  Vl. 1 & !

 œœ. "œœ . œœ œœ. "œœ  ! Vl. 2 & J J

"œœ œœ œœ ! ! Ó ‰‰ œœ J . "œœ œœ S. 1 & J J J

Ma -gna o- --pe -ra j ! ! ! ‰‰œœœœœœœœ œœ j S. 2 & JJ œœ "œœ Ma -gna o-pe -ra ? B. ! ! ! !

œœ œœ œœ. œœ œœ. œœ œœ  ? "œœ œœ J J œœ œœ. œœ œœ. œœ œœ B. c. J J œœœœ œœ

6 " 6566"6 5 Example 2: Confitebor tibi Domine, bars 1–6 and 18–28

Did Steffani Compose a »Confitebor« in 1709? 135 167

Vl. 1 & C w w

C Vl. 2 & w w

œ. œ ? œ œ. œ œ. œ B. C œ œ. œ ˙

Sanc ------tum ? B. c. C w w

œ . 169 œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œœœœœœœœœœ œ œ œ œ Vl. 1 & Œ‰ œ œ œ œ œ œœœœœœœ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ œ Vl. 2 & Ó ‰

œ r rrrrœœœ œ œ œ œ œ. œ œ ? ‰œœœœœœœœœœRœœ œ œ R R R R J R B. RRRRR RRRR R R R 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 ? B. c. œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ œ Œ

Example 3: Confitebor tibi Domine, bars 167–170 (»Sanctum et terribile nomen ejus«)

The correlation between music and psalm is less obvious elsewhere. As Table2sug- gests, the musical structure is articulated by a variety of factors, including patterns of modulation and vocal scoring and the use of repetition at the end of a verse. Taking all these factors into account, and weighing each of them against the others, it could be argued that the setting treats the verses in groups – vv.1–3,4–7,and 9–10,leaving v. 8 and the doxology to fend for themselves. If this is the case,the setting of vv.1–8 conflicts with the structure of the text as outlinedve abo and the composer must have taken a different view of the psalm. That the words could be read in a number of ways, and that the reading repre- sented in Add. MS 14398 is not abnormal, is clear from a glance at other Confitebor settings in concertato style by a variety of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century composers. The beginning of v. 9 (»Sanctum et terribile«) is the first place where Monteverdi brings all the forces together in the Confitebor for three voices and two violins in his Selva morale e spirituale (1640–1641) and in the setting for two voices and violins in his posthumous Messa a quattro voci, et salmi […] con le letanie della B. V. (1650);27 the latter also anticipates the version in Add. MS 14398 in alternating

27 See Claudio Monteverdi, Opera omnia. Edizione nazionale,vol. 15/2,ed. Denis Stevens, Cre- mona 1998, pp.533–554, and vol. 18, ed. Mariella Sala, Cremona 1995, pp.247–263.

136 Colin Timms vocal sections and instrumental ritornelli. The impact of v. 9 is also reflected to some extent in a setting by Caldara for soprano solo,vocal »repieno« (SATB), oboe,two violins and organ (GB-Lbl, Add. MS 31550, fols. 9r–57v): while most of the psalm is given to the soloist (supported by other parts in turn),and v. 5 to the »repieno« with continuo,v.9 is scored for the »repieno« and two violins and the »Amen« brings all the forces together.Other composers take a contrasting approach. Carissimi’s setting for three voices (SSB) and continuo,published in 1646,treats each verse separately, without highlighting v. 9, but is unified by the recurrent use of a psalm tone.28 By contrast, a version for SATB,two violins and continuo by Francesco Durante (GB- Lbl, Add. MS 14108, fols. 163r–182v) falls into three clear-cut movements based on vv.1–7, 8–10 and 11–12, respectively. There is one striking feature of the Confitebor in Add. MS 14398 that is not found in anyother of the pieces mentioned above:the music of the last verseisthe same as that of the first. The setting of v. 1 comprises over twenty-two bars for the voices, fol- lowed by roughly five bars for the violins. Apart from minor adjustments for different words, the opening vocal section is repeated exactly for v. 12;the bars for the violins are replaced by the concluding »Amen«, in which the voices and instruments com- bine.The repeat was doubtless prompted by the words »Sicut erat in principio« (»As it wasinthe beginning«) and facilitated by the fact that theyhavethe same number of syllables and the same trochaic metre as »Confitebor tibi Domine«.Whoever com- posed this setting was aware of this relationship and interested in musical structure. The repeat is such a natural response to the words that one would expect all seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century settings of the doxology to display it. In theory, there are three main ways in which a composer of this period might have set »Sicut erat in principio« at the end of a psalm: (a)by repeating the opening of the setting as literally as the new words would allow; (b)by re-using the opening but modifying the material or its treatment in some way;(c) by setting the words to new music. A thorough discussion of this topic would be out of place in this context, but it must be affirmed that all three methods are found in psalm-settings throughout the Italian Baroque. Although the majority of the psalms in Monteverdi’s Vespers (1610), Selva morale and Messa a quattro voci, et salmi display no repeat of this kind, some of his settings employ a literal or a modified restatement. An unusual repeat is found in the Confitebor for seven voices and two violins in Giovanni Rovetta’s Messa, e salmi concertati,op. 4 (1639),where the music for »Sicut erat« is taken from the twenty-two- bar tutti setting of »Confessio et magnificentia opus ejus« (v.3).29 In the following

28 See Andrew V. Jones, The Motets of Carissimi, Ann Arbor 1982 (Studies in British musi- cology 5),vol. 2, pp.281–298.The setting was published in Motetti d’autori eccellentissimi, a2. 3. 4. 5. e 6. voci […] Seconda raccolta di D. Benedetto Pace monaco silvestrino,Loreto 1646,and reprinted in Rome in 1662; it also survives in manuscript. 29 Giovanni Rovetta, Messa, e salmi concertati, op.4 (1639),part1,ed. Linda Maria Koldau, Middleton 2001 (Recent Researches in the Music of the Baroque Era 109),pp. 70–88: compare bars 98–118 and 257–278.

Did Steffani Compose a »Confitebor« in 1709? 137 century, Handel may have restricted himself in Dixit Dominus (1707) to re-using the cantus firmus that he had employed in the first vemo ment, but Vivaldi in his psalms habitually set »Sicut erat« to an »abridged and retexted version of the opening«.30 In light of all this evidence,Warren’s attribution of the Confitebor to Steffani – and the date (1709) – must still be regarded as doubtful: they may or may not be correct. Apart from the dissonances mentioned above,there is nothing in the work that would be uncharacteristic or unworthy of the composer.31 The alternation of passages for voices and instruments and the emphasis on v. 9 (»Sanctum et terribile«) may point to an earlier composer,but if,on the other hand, Steffani was responsible, he may simply have been observing traditional approaches to setting the psalm. In conclusion, let us take a final look at the words (Table 1).The psalm includes statements that seem highly relevant to Steffani’s circumstances in 1709:having been made Apostolic Vicar of North Germany, he certainly intended to »praise the Lord in the company of good men, and in the whole congregation« (v.1), and he doubtless hoped that the Lord would show »his people what his strength could do,bestowing on them the lands of other nations« (vv. 5–6):he could have interpreted this as a reference to the projected reconversion of north Germany. In other words, Steffani could have been encouraged by these words to set Confitebor tibi Domine as a mani- festo of his intentions on being appointed Apostolic Vicar.If he was so encouraged, it is not difficult to account for the dissonances in the final ten bars:he would have begun the composition after his appointment in April 1709 and would not have had enough time to finish it to his satisfaction before leaving Rome in early May; he would have taken the piece away with him and never looked at it again. If an autograph score were by chance to be found, the paper would doubtless reveal the accuracy,or otherwise,of this hypothesis. For the moment, however, we can only recall that the same thing had happened to Steffani before: when he left Rome in May 1674,he took with him a setting of Laudate Dominum that was in an imperfect state.32 The imperfections are different in kind from those inthe Confitebor,but he never returned to the piece to iron them out. Perhaps this precedent offers a solution to the mystery of the Confitebor tibi Domine in Add. MS 14398.

30 Michael Talbot, The Sacred Vocal Music of Antonio Vivaldi, Florence 1995 (Quaderni vival- diani 8), p. 279; the psalm-settings are discussed on pp.263–286 and 351–384. 31 There is a glaringly obvious pair of consecutive fifths between the violins in bars179–180,but similar fifths are found in Steffani’s late madrigal »Gettano i re dal soglio« (ed. Colin Timms, in: The Musical Times 119 [1978], suppl. to n. 1620 [Feb.]). 32 The setting is preserved in GB-Cfm, Mu MS 94,pp. 91–114,and discussed in Timms, Poly- math of the Baroque (see note 1), pp.151 f.

138 Colin Timms