Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2004 From to St. Petersburg and Back Again: The Sacred Music of and the Mutability of Eighteenth- Century Style Keith Knop

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF MUSIC

FROM VENICE TO ST. PETERSBURG AND BACK AGAIN: THE SACRED MUSIC OF BALDASSARE GALUPPI AND THE MUTABILITY OF EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STYLE

By

KEITH KNOP

A thesis submitted to the School of Music in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Music

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2004 The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Keith Knop defended 24 March 2004.

______Jeffery Kite-Powell Professor Directing Thesis

______Douglass Seaton Committee Member

______Denise Von Glahn Committee Member

Approved:

______Seth Beckman, Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, School of Music

The Office of Graduate Studies has approved the above named committee members.

ii To my parents.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables...... v List of Musical Examples...... vi Abstract...... vii Introduction...... 1 Biography ...... 5 Life ...... 5 Works ...... 17 Reputation...... 21 Latin Works ...... 25 ...... 26 Regina coeli...... 29 ...... 31 Et incarnatus est ...... 34 Confitebor tibi...... 39 Russian Orthodox Works ...... 45 Plotiyu usnuv...... 47 Slava Edinorodnyi Syn ...... 51 Summary and Conclusions ...... 54 Appendix A: Browning’s “A Toccata of Galuppi’s”...... 59 Appendix B: Comparison of Galuppi’s Division of with the Vulgate...... 62 Bibliography ...... 64 Biographical Sketch ...... 66

iv LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Galuppi, Regina Coeli, diagram of first movement...... 30

Table 2.2: Stylistic comparison of four Galuppi pieces ...... 37

v LIST OF MUSICAL EXAMPLES

2.1: Magnificat Tone V and Galuppi, Magnificat theme...... 27

2.2: Galuppi, Regina Coeli, mm. 1-2 and 10-11 ...... 30

2.3: Galuppi, Regina coeli, third movement, mm. 1-2, 22-27 ...... 32

2.4: Galuppi, Dixit Dominus, mm. 1-3...... 33

2.5: Galuppi, Et incarnatus est, mm. 41-45...... 35

2.6 A: Galuppi, “La pastorella al prato,” mm. 1-12...... 38

2.6 B: Galuppi, Et incarnatus est, mm. 13-21...... 39

2.7: Galuppi, Confitebor tibi, first movement, mm. 1-6 ...... 40

3.1: Galuppi, Plotiyu usnuv, mm. 13-15...... 47

3.2: Galuppi, Plotiyu usnuv, mm. 45-53...... 49

3.3: Galuppi, Slava Edinorodinyi Syn, mm. 33-47...... 53

vi ABSTRACT

The Italian Baldassare Galuppi (1706-1785) had a profound impact on the development of buffa and on Venetian musical life for nearly forty years. Less widely known is the fact that he also exercised considerable influence over the development of Russian Orthodox church music in the latter half of the eighteenth century. The biography presented here pays special attention to his time spent in , as this is often glossed over. Galuppi is also an interesting study because, as a member of the transitional generation that includes such as Pergolesi and C. P. E. Bach, his music often displays an amalgam of styles characteristic of both the and Classic eras. This is especially evident in his sacred music, and is illustrated through analysis and discussion of five Latin and two Russian Orthodox sacred works.

vii INTRODUCTION

The name of Baldassare Galuppi is one that tends to live in footnotes and marginalia. Although his name appears frequently in discussions of eighteenth-century music (opera in particular), his music is seldom discussed in any depth. He has attracted the attention of many Italian scholars, but the amount of material available in English remains very limited by comparision. He is, however, a far more interesting figure than his present-day status might suggest, not only because of the quality of his music, which is still largely forgotten and infrequently performed, but also because he was widely traveled and worked in so many genres, under widely varying circumstances. He was a performed opera composer at age sixteen; he held the reins of some of Venice's most important musical institutions for forty-five years; he changed the face of Russian Orthodox sacred music. Galuppi makes for a fascinating case study, not only because of his life and his accomplishments, but also because he is in many ways an ideal model of the adaptability that the times required of an eighteenth-century composer able to work in a variety of styles and to adapt to extraordinary situations. The present work will focus mostly on Galuppi's sacred music, excluding the Masses, as they have been discussed in great depth in Anthony Lawrence Chiuminatto's 1959 dissertation for Northwestern University, The Liturgical Works of Baldassare Galuppi.1 In addition to analysis of the liturgical works, Chiuminatto's study contains an extensive, if occasionally episodic, biography of Galuppi, but it also contains much information that is now dated or known to be inaccurate.

1 Anthony L. Chiuminatto, “The Liturgical Works of Baldassare Galuppi” (Ph.D. Diss, Northwestern University, 1959).

1 Several other studies of Galuppi are notable. One of these is Reinhard Wiesend's Studien zur von Baldassare Galuppi,2 the subject of which is largely outside the scope of this thesis. It deals mostly with the sources of Galuppi's seria works and with the structure of his arias. Another is the collection Galuppiana 1985, drawn from papers given at a conference commemorating the bicentenary of Galuppi's death.3 The essays, mostly by Italian scholars, tend to focus on Galuppi's life and career in the Ospedali and on his . Two other sources of note, though not primarily concerned with Galuppi, are Robert-Aloys Mooser's Annales de musique et des musiciens en Russie au XVIIIme siècle4 and Marika Kuzma's dissertation on Dmitry Bortnyansky,5 both of which provide information on Galuppi's role as maestro di cappella in St. Petersburg. The first chapter of this thesis will provide a biography and examine in brief Galuppi's reputation and influence, as well as contributions to the various genres in which he worked. The second and third chapters will be devoted to an examination of selected works from his Latin and his Slavic sacred pieces, respectively, with an emphasis on the context and the performing forces for which they were written. The final chapter will serve as a

2 Reinhard Wiesend, Studien zur Opera Seria von Baldassare Galuppi (Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1984).

3 Galuppiana 1985, ed. Maria Teresa Muraro and Franco Rossi (: Leo S. Olschki, 1986).

4 Robert-Aloys Mooser, Annales de la Musique et des Musiciens en Russie au XVIIIme siècle (Geneva: Mont-Blanc, 1948–1951).

5 Marika C. Kuzma, Dmitrii Stepanovich Bortnianskii (1751-1825) (Ph.D. diss., Indiana University 1992).

2 conclusion, examining Galuppi's works in a broader context and considering the degree to which his blending of styles was a product of his time. This study cannot claim to be comprehensive. Rather, it is an attempt to establish, by examination of a sampling of representative works, a new view of Galuppi's place in history as a composer of sacred music and a representative of eighteenth-century sacred music styles. Some attempts at systematic study of Galuppi's operas have been undertaken, particularly of his seria works; Chiuminatto examined the available sacred music nearly fifty years ago; and William S. Newman, in his The Sonata in the Classic Era,6 conducted at least a superficial survey of his keyboard works, which were collected and edited by Hedda Illy.7 The vast majority of Galuppi's music, especially his sacred music, still awaits systematic study, however, and to date almost nothing has been written about Galuppi's Russian Orthodox works. What little material there is on the Russian works discusses them in relation to Bortnyansky or to the continuing Russian Court Chapel tradition, rather than as a part of Galuppi's overall musical oeuvre. No doubt this is partially due to the difficulty of locating the music and partially to the greater interest on the part of Russian scholars in the works of native Russian composers. More comprehensive studies of Galuppi's sacred work as a whole will likely not occur until his music is more readily available. It is to be hoped that more of it will be published. Although some of Galuppi's music is commonplace, his best

6 William S. Newman, The Sonata in the Classic Era, 3d ed., (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983), 191-99 and passim.

7 The numbering system of this edition is frequently used (by the Library of Congress, for example) as a catalogue of Galuppi's keyboard works. Baldassare Galuppi, Sonate per cembalo, ed. Hedda Illy (Rome: De Santis, 1969).

3 works display ingenuity and artfulness, and they deserve attention beyond the purely academic.

4 BIOGRAPHY

Life

Baldassare Galuppi was born on the island of Burano, outside Venice, on 18 October 1706, to Angelo and Zuanna Galuppi. Some early sources erroneously report the year of his birth as 1703, based upon records entered in Venice; at that time the city-state used its own civic calendar, which ran some three years behind the Gregorian calendar used by the church.8 Angelo Galuppi was a barber and part-time violinist in small theater orchestras and may well have been Baldassare's first music teacher.9 In his youth Baldassare was given at least rudimentary training as a violinist, but beyond that it is difficult to gauge the scope and nature of his early musical education. At some point relatively early in his life he must also have been instructed on the or organ, as references to him as an instrumentalist almost exclusively refer to him in his capacity as a keyboard player. According to Francesco Caffi, a nineteenth-century Venetian magistrate and musical scholar, the Galuppi family was very poor,10 but through some unknown means the young Baldassare was able by the age of sixteen to acquire sufficient ability as to impress , who was then the first organist of San Marco, both with his skills as a keyboard player and with a

8 Ibid., 38.

9 Dale E. Monson, “Galuppi, Baldassare,” The New Grove Dictionary of Music Online, ed. L. Macy (Accessed 28 May 2003), .

10 Francesco Caffi, Storia della musica sacra nella già Cappella Ducale di San Marco in Venezia, dal 1318 al 1797 (Venice: G. Antonelli, 1854-55); cited in Chiuminatto, 39.

5 basic knowledge of theory.11 Chiuminatto theorizes that Galuppi may have been substituting for local organists by this time, although the evidence for this is circumstantial. Beyond these scant facts very little is known of Galuppi's life until he was sixteen, when he wrote his first opera. It proved quite unsuccessful; later in life he was known to dismiss the work as a disaster (or “shipwreck” in the original Italian idiom).12 It did, however, serve to attract the attention of , who, according to the story, made him forswear all public musical activity for three years and arranged for him to study with Lotti.13 However, according to Monson, this story appears to be a romanticized legend; if Galuppi made any such promise, “he did not keep it, for two years later he was playing the cembalo in opera houses and writing substitute arias for revivals and pasticcios.” Monson also claims that Galuppi's studies with Lotti may have begun even before his youthful encounter with Marcello.14 The details of his compositional curriculum under Lotti are virtually nonexistent, but Caffi, Fétis, and other biographers agree that Lotti was very proud of Galuppi’s progress. Where he lived during this time is unknown, but at some point he came into contact with Lotti's other pupils, for he later provided music for an opera composed in a joint venture with his fellow student Giovanni Battista Pescetti (c. 1704-66). By age twenty Galuppi had made something of a name for himself as a harpsichordist in Venice and Florence, working with the Antonio

11 Monson, “Galuppi.”

12 Chiuminatto, 41.

13 François-Joseph Fétis, Biographie universelle des musiciens et bibliographie généralle dela musique (Paris: Firmin-Didot et cie., 1877-78), 3: 393.

14 Monson, “Galuppi.”

6 Pelizzari,15 and playing in the San Angelo, San Samuele, and San Giovanni Grisostomo theaters;16 he also performed before the Grand Duke of Florence, who found him to be a “very fine performer on the harpsichord” and evidently retained him for some months.17 Galuppi was back in Venice by late 1727.18 If he was indeed actually employed by the Grand Duke, that would account for his whereabouts for at least part of that year. Following his return, he began working on the above- mentioned collaboration with Pescetti, an opera called Gl'odi delusi del sangue, which premiered on 2 February 1728 in Venice.19 This was successful enough to encourage them to collaborate on another opera, Dorinda, in 1729, which was again a success and led to further commissions, enough to keep Galuppi busy with a modestly successful operatic career for the next several years. In 1734 he composed what may have been his earliest oratorio, Tobia il giovane.20 Around this time his operas began gaining popularity outside of Venice, appearing in Mantua and Turin; this also coincides with the earliest known appearances of his nickname “Il Buranello,” derived from his birthplace and often used interchangeably (by Burney, for instance21) with his surname.

15 Chiuminatto, 43.

16 Monson, “Galuppi.”

17 Chiuminatto, 43.

18 James L. Jackman, “Galuppi, Baldassare,” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie (: Macmillan, 1980), 7: 134.

19 Chiuminatto., 44.

20 Monson, “Galuppi.”

21 For instance in his correspondence with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Letters of Dr. , ed. Alvaro Ribeiro, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991) 1: 87.

7 In 1738 Galuppi may have had his first taste of employment by the Venetian state. At that time he was in the service of the patrician Michele Bernardo;22 the score of a serenata written for a commemorative event on the island of Burano bears the inscription “Baldassare Galuppi, Most Worthy and Able Maestro of His Excellency.”23 Chiuminatto interprets this to mean that Galuppi was in the employ of the Doge, but this presents problems, as the Doge at the time was not Michele Bernardo, who never held the office, but Alvise Pisani. Unless Galuppi was serving two patrons at once, or Bernardo was somehow worthy of the title “excellency,” this is puzzling. Of course, one cannot discount the possibility that the inscription was metaphorical, hyperbolic, or simply wrong. In 1740 Galuppi's music for the festival of St. Mary Magdalen led to a permanent appointment at the Ospedale dei Mendicanti, following the appointment of its previous maestro, Giuseppe Saratelli (d. 1762), to the post of vicemaestro of the .24 Galuppi's duties at the Ospedale included teaching, conducting, and composing, and he held the post for eleven years. He had not been employed long at the Mendicanti, however, before he undertook a lengthy voyage. In 1741 the Earl of Middlesex invited him to London and the Haymarket theater,25 prompting Galuppi to petition for nine months leave (reluctantly granted), although he remained in London for nearly twice that time, returning to Venice only in May of 1743. While in London, he oversaw the production of eleven operas; four of them, all seria, received their

22 Ibid.

23 Francesco Piovino, “Baldassare Galuppi, note bio-bibliografiche,” Rivista Musicale Italiana 13 (1906): 694.

24 Gastone Vio, “I Maestri di coro dei Mendicanti e la Capella Marciana,” in Galuppiana 1985, 108.

25 Jackman, 134.

8 first performances in London: Penelope, in Cartagine, Enrico, and Sirbace.26 Galuppi was not solely occupied by the presentation of his own works, however, and in fact his first operatic production in London, on 31 October, was a pasticcio, in Persia, which he cobbled together from arias of Leo, Hasse, , himself, and others, chosen by the singers of the company.27 Galuppi's tenure in London was on the whole successful, and he remained popular in London for many years after his departure. Not everyone was captivated, however. Those predisposed to ridicule were, of course, unimpressed. Walpole claimed that Galuppi's music found little favor, and Handel was disparaging about the one performance he heard.28 Of course, it must be remembered that Handel, fighting a protracted and tiring battle with the rival Opera Company of the Nobility (established in 1733-34), was likely not the most objective judge of the men brought in to fill his shoes. Burney, though presumably unaware of Handel's comments, went so far as to theorize that his November departure for Ireland was prompted at least in part by Galuppi's arrival: After this period, Handel having been ruined by carrying on operas at his own expense [sic] in opposition to the nobility, and unable to indemnify himself by the profits of his oratorios, went to Ireland: a measure which was probably precipitated by the certain information he had received of the Earl of Middlesex having . . .

26 Ibid., 136.

27 Charles Burney, A General History of Music from the Earliest Ages to the Present Period, (1935; reprint, New York: Dover, 1957), 2: 838.

28 Monson, “Galuppi.”

9 engaged the King's theater in the Hay-market . . . with Galuppi to compose.29

On the other hand, even Burney himself, elsewhere quick to praise Galuppi's talents, found his first original offering, Penelope, rather lacking: “he now copied the hasty, light, and flimsy style which reigned in Italy at this time, and which Handel's solidity and science had taught the English to despise. . . . [I]t seems not to have been unjustly treated.”30 The succeeding three operas found much greater success, however, and Galuppi's works (including pastiches) continued to be performed in London long after his departure.31 Upon his return to Venice, Galuppi resumed life as he had left it, playing harpsichord and producing operas, in addition to his duties at the Mendicanti. The institution extended his contract for another three years.32 By 1744 he had so increased the standards of performance that they were able “to match any in the city,” and his salary at the time was a commensurately impressive 350 ducats per annum.33 The year 1744 also saw the beginning of Galuppi's long and profitable involvement with . He began by adapting three Roman works for Venetian tastes, and he composed a of his own for Carnival in 1745 (albeit with limited

29 Burney, History, 838. Whatever other reasons Handel may have had, the 1741 trip to Dublin was undertaken for the premiers of and .

30 Burney, History, 839-40.

31 , “Baldassare Galuppi (1706-1785): Étude bibliographique sur ses oeuvres dramatiques,” Rivista Musicale Italiana 6 (1899): 572-73.

32 Monson, “Galuppi.”

33 Jackman, 134.

10 success).34 The practice of arranging operas by other composers is something that he appears to have continued for several years. Galuppi's reputation continued to rise throughout the 1740s, as did the value of his commissions. As his prestige grew, he once more attracted the attention of his superiors, and in May 1748 he was elected vicemaestro of the ducal chapel at San Marco, again following in the footsteps of Giuseppe Saratelli, who had been promoted to maestro di cappella.35 Also of note in 1748 was his opera , which ran for nineteen performances in rapid succession and proved a smashing success.36 Another milestone occurred in 1749, when Galuppi began his long-term collaboration with the librettist and playwright (1707-1793), often considered the father of modern Italian comedy. The first of many Galuppi-Goldoni operas was Arcadia in Brenta, which premiered 14 May 1749 at the San Angelo theater. The collaboration was evidently extremely satisfactory to both composer and librettist, for over the course of the next year no fewer than three more Galuppi-Goldoni operas appeared in Venetian theaters: Arcifanfano re dei matti (December 1749), (January 1750), and Il paese della Cuccagna (May 1750).37 This outpouring of creativity had far-reaching consequences, for it resulted in the principal accomplishment for which Galuppi is still regularly credited: the creation of the buffa ensemble finale. By 1751 Galuppi's frenetic pace as an opera composer, combined with his duties both at San Marco and the Mendicanti, had begun to take its toll.

34 Monson, “Galuppi.”

35 Chiuminatto, 75.

36 Monson, “Galuppi.”

37 Jackman, 137.

11 Galuppi found that he simply had too many obligations to continue in his post at the Mendicanti, and he tendered his resignation. He was officially released from his post on 30 November, with the governors of the Mendicanti voting ten to five in favor of accepting his resignation.38 Over the next decade Galuppi continued composing opera and gradually took over more and more of the duties of Saratelli, who suffered health problems later in his life. Saratelli died in early 1762, and in April of the same year Galuppi was unanimously elected to ascend to fill the vacancy. Galuppi's previous post was in turn filled by (1725-1813), who, incidentally, had taken over Galuppi's post at the Mendicanti in 1752, thus neatly continuing the chain begun with Saratelli some twenty-two years previously. By July Galuppi had also been appointed maestro di coro at the Ospedale degli Incurabili,39 and he further attained posts as organist at two Venetian parish churches and a private chapel.40 One wonders how or where he found the time to fulfill all of his obligations, but he continued composing opera, as well, although his rate of production slowed considerably. Having by this time become the single most important musical figure in Venice, Galuppi promptly embarked on a program of improvements to the performing forces of San Marco, much as he had done at the Mendicanti. Saratelli, it seems, had been a priest first and a composer second, and consequently rather indifferent to the role of instruments in sacred music. The orchestra as Galuppi inherited it in 1762 was more or less the same as it had been when Saratelli became maestro in 1748, and even this group does not appear to have differed substantially from the basilica orchestra of 1708. Galuppi secured permission from the Venetian state to reorganize the choir

38 Vio, 98.

39 Monson, “Galuppi.”

40 Chiuminatto, 74.

12 and orchestra, creating standing bodies of twenty-four and thirty-five people, respectively, with the possibility of hiring extra performers on special occasions.41 In the meantime Galuppi's fame had spread as far afield as Russia, where the court had come to know and appreciate his operas. The previous Italian opera composer at the St. Petersburg court, , had failed to capture the hearts of the Russian nobility, and therefore Catherine II instructed her ambassador in Venice to acquire Galuppi's services as director of music and master of the chapel for three years, for the sum of 4,000 rubles per year. Galuppi resigned his post at the Incurabili and obtained leave from San Marco, with the stipulation that he continue to supply a Mass for Christmas and other services. He departed for Russia in mid-1765, traveling with an instrumentalist and a singer, likewise engaged by the Russian court.42 Along the way he paid a visit to C. P. E. Bach in Berlin and met famed womanizer in Riga, finally arriving in St. Petersburg on 22 September. Galuppi was presented to the Empress on the day of his arrival and was in active service within the week. On 27 September he performed for the Empress, playing the harpsichord and directing the orchestra while she and her associates played ombre, to her evident satisfaction. This began a series of regular Wednesday concerts in the hall outside the Empress's apartments, in which he so impressed the Empress that she presented him with a fine red velvet cloak.43 Galuppi's primary duties, however, lay in the theater and in the church. Over the course of his three years in Russia he produced three of his own

41 Ibid., 75-76.

42 Mooser, 2: 69-70.

43 Ibid., 72.

13 operas ( and , both revivals, and a new opera, Ifigenia in Tauride in 1768), as well as a pair of dramatic cantatas and shorter unstaged works,44 several ballets, and assorted works by Gluck, Angiolini, Manfredini, and others.45 He also composed sacred pieces for use in the Russian Orthodox service, and fifteen a cappella pieces on Slavic texts survive in Russian archives.46 The court orchestra displeased him, and he quickly set about improving their standards of performance, much as he had done in Italy. The choir, however, impressed him greatly, and Ifigenia in Tauride included ten chorus pieces. One important side effect of Galuppi's Russian stay was his encounter with the young Dmitri Bortnyansky, who was later to become his pupil and exert substantial influence on Russian music in his own right. The Russian historian V. Ivanov has proposed that Bortnyansky actually began his studies with Galuppi while the latter was still in St. Petersburg, but there appears to be no direct evidence to support this.47 Bortnyansky certainly did travel to Venice after Galuppi's departure, perhaps even traveling with him, and he remained in Italy for ten years. Unfortunately, very little is known about his apprenticeship with Galuppi. A 1780 letter from Catherine to Galuppi renders payment for his services as an instructor in the amount of 10,000 ducats (even if divided over ten years, far more than his annual salary at San Marco), but the frequency and nature of Bortnyansky's lessons with Galuppi remain unknown. It is almost certain, however, that Bortnyansky did not remain in Venice for the

44 Dominico Carboni, “Alla corte imperiale di Pietrosbourgo: Fortuna delle opera di Baldassarre Galuppi in Russia,” in Galuppiana 1985, 121-124.

45 Mooser, 72ff.

46 Jackman, 138.

47 V. Ivanov, Dmytro Bortnians'kyi (Kiev: Muzychna Ukraïna, 1980), 29; cited in Kuzma, 19.

14 duration of his Italian tutelage but rather traveled to be present at premieres of his works elsewhere in Italy.48 Galuppi had plenty of tasks before him, however, besides the education of Bortnyansky. Upon his return to Venice in late 1768 he resumed his duties at San Marco. He also resumed duties at the Incurabili, his replacement, Francesco Brusa (1700-1768), having died shortly before his return.49 By this point Galuppi's interests were drifting away from opera, and sacred and chamber music form the bulk of his oeuvre during the remainder of his life. Perhaps he simply lacked the time to continue composing for the theater, or the inclination, or the inspiration, or perhaps he was simply becoming more concerned with spiritual matters in his old age. In any case, he composed only six more operas after his return, the last of which was La serva per amore, written in 1773. This essentially marked his retirement from operatic life, although he did periodically return to the theaters to direct revivals of earlier works.50 In 1776 Galuppi's position at the Incurabili was officially terminated, as the institution could no longer afford to pay a maestro di coro; however, Galuppi remained affiliated with it until his death, occasionally supplying music and leading performances.51 It is something of a testament to Galuppi's drawing power that he was able to maintain the level of musical grandeur reported by Burney and others in the 1770s, at a time when the Venetian Republic was in dire financial straits and beginning to crumble.

48 Kuzma, 21-22.

49 Piero Weiss, “Brusa, (Giovanni) Francesco [Gianfrancesco],” The New Grove Dictionary of Music Online, ed. L. Macy (Accessed 15 January 2004), .

50 Chiuminatto, 46.

51 Ibid., 97.

15 After 1780 worsening health limited Galuppi's activities even further; at that point he essentially limited himself to the execution of his duties as composer and conductor at San Marco.52 In recognition of his service, he also received a raise in salary from 400 to 600 ducats per year.53 One of the last big events in which he participated was the papal visit of 1782, for which he himself conducted the music, including his final oratorio, Il ritorno di Tobia.54 As a side note, if Tobia il giovane was indeed his first oratorio, the choice of subject matter was appropriately cyclical. Whether or not this was a conscious decision on Galuppi's part, however, is only conjecture. That same year he was visited in his home by the Grand Duke and Duchess of Russia, to whom he dedicated a set of six keyboard sonatas.55 Galuppi was ill for much of 1784 and confined to bed for the final two months of that year. Nevertheless mindful of his duties, he began and completed the composition of the Mass for Christmas of that year, although its actual direction fell to Bertoni. Galuppi passed away just over a week later, on 3 January 1785.56 At his death, Galuppi left the bulk of his estate to his wife, Adrianna. His will mentions his three sons, Girolomo, Niccolò, and Antonio, as well as his grandson Antonio, but apportions them only small inheritances, as Galuppi had provided for them during his life;57 in any case, the elder Antonio had died in 1780. His seven daughters are not mentioned, but at the time of his visit in

52 Ibid., 46.

53 Ibid., 65.

54 Monson, “Galuppi.”

55 Chiuminatto, 67-68.

56 Ibid., 51-52.

57 Galuppi's will, cited by Caffi, cited in turn by Chiuminatto, 50.

16 August 1770, Burney remarked that most of Galuppi's many children were married;58 they were therefore presumably cared for by husbands or, if still unmarried, by their mother or siblings. Galuppi received a number of postmortem tributes, including a large-scale Requiem held in San Stefano that was conducted by Bertoni in February of that year.59

Works

Like many of his contemporaries, Galuppi produced an enormous quantity of music in a wide variety of genres. The fruits of his pen include over ninety operas, the sine qua non of the major composers of his era, as well as many oratorios and dramatic cantatas, for a total of over 130 dramatic works. Given the nature of his posts, sacred music unsurprisingly made up a tremendous portion of his oeuvre; much of it is unfortunately lost. Instrumental works are not so common, as he had little call to write them. Aside from overtures to his dramatic works he composed a number of concerti for various events and, over the course of his life, wrote approximately 130 keyboard sonatas, mostly for his own amusement. Some of these were published in his lifetime, notably by Walsh in England. Galuppi's opere seria constitute the larger part of his operatic output, spanning nearly forty-five years from his early collaborations with Pescetti to his Montezuma of 1772. The bulk of music in these works lies in the numerous da capo arias, which generally follow either the standard ABA plan or one of

58 Charles Burney, An Eighteenth-Century Musical Tour in France and Italy: Being Dr. Charles Burney's Account of His Musical Experiences as It Appears in His Published Volume with Which Are Incorporated His Travel Experiences According to His Original Intention, ed. Percy A. Scholes (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), 133.

59 Monson, “Galuppi.”

17 the more extended variations (AA'BAA', ABCAB, etc.) common during his life.60 Later works show more experimentation with the form, perhaps as a result of his experience as a buffa composer, and divergences from the standard form become more common after about 1760.61 As popular as Galuppi's seria works were, it was in the field of opera buffa that he made his most lasting impression. Much like Monteverdi, and contrary to the current trends in opera seria, Galuppi took great care to fit his music to the text. This was not always the case in his own earlier seria works, particularly the early ones. His greatest buffa successes came from his collaborations with Goldoni, and their role in shaping the operatic ensemble finale has already been mentioned. With regard to specific techniques employed by the pair, Monson states that musical form, tonality and melody were made the servant of the drama. Goldoni’s comic, act-ending text mosaics were matched by Galuppi with short musical sections, either open or closed, in contrasting keys, tempos and metres, through-composed to match the rapid shifts of plot and to reflect the insistent, kaleidoscopic emotions. These were usually organized around a central key; related key areas, new textures and melodies created strong contrast. This model for ensemble finales was widely imitated, by Haydn and Mozart among others.62

60 Ibid. See also Jackman, 135.

61 Wiesend, 162.

62 Monson, “Galuppi.”

18 The impact of this development can still be seen as late as Rossini's comic operas, with their large-scale ensemble finales and complex musical and dramatic interaction between characters.

Galuppi employed a wide variety of forms in the buffa arias, ranging from simple binary forms to full da capo arias, the latter generally being reserved for the semi-serious roles, romantic leads in particular; the da capo aria is no longer found in his comic operas after about 1755.63 Galuppi's operatic writing, both buffa and seria, is also frequently characterized by a sophisticated interplay between vocal and orchestral parts. About his sacred works, little need be said here, as discussion of them forms the bulk of Chapters 2 and 3. Galuppi wrote freely in both a cappella and concerted styles, as the needs of the liturgical season dictated. The concerted works tend to be more homophonic, whereas the a cappella works tend more toward the kind of severe contrapuntal textures rare elsewhere in his work. The Slavic pieces are all a cappella and exhibit diverse styles. Galuppi's instrumental music forms a comparatively minor part of his output. Some of the concerti have been recorded recently,64 but more attention has been paid to the sonatas. These may be in one or several movements. Most of them do not exhibit the type of virtuosity that one might expect, given Galuppi's reputation as a harpsichordist, although they are all quite idiomatic to the keyboard. As most of them were written, as he says, for his own amusement, the quality is uneven, and many of them fall back on common broken-chord stereotypes. William S. Newman found that some of the faster

63 Jackman, 135-136.

64 The complete Galuppi harpsichord concerti are available on a 1999 recording on the Dynamic label (#215), featuring Rita Peiretti as soloist and conductor of the Accademia Dei Solinghi.

19 movements exhibit a rhythmic drive and vitality that compensates for the sometimes less inspired melodic or harmonic gestures, but above all he was impressed by Galuppi's sense of form: By treating his materials intensively rather than extensively—that is, by repeatedly returning to a few ideas rather than constantly evolving new ones—and by taking a large, uncomplicated view of tonality, he creates forms of exceptional unity and breadth. It is true that this important virtue of unity can at the same time be a chief fault, for not seldom do Galuppi's ideas seem somewhat flat in their lack of contrast and individuality. Yet, exceptional unity without the benefit of distinguished ideas seems to account for the success of two of his most convincing sonatas. These are the two in one movement, with long “cadenzas,” in the Walsh sets, Sonatas 11 (Op. 1, No. 2) and 3 (Op. 2, No. 3).65

The slow movements are less formulaic, tending towards a soaring, operatic cantabile style.

Reputation

Galuppi's fame during his lifetime was quite extensive, and it was based on his reputation not only as a composer but as a conductor, as well. His expansion of the performing forces in San Marco in 1762 has already been mentioned, but in addition to enlarging the orchestra he also brought to it a high degree of discipline and musicality; under his direction the San Marco orchestra was called the most skillful in all of Italy.66 In rehearsing the vocal forces, Galuppi made certain that the singers avoided unnecessary theatricality and sang in a style appropriate to the church.67 His stay in Russia served to improve the court orchestra, which reached new levels of precision under his

65 Newman, 198.

66 Monson, “Galuppi.”

67 Chiuminatto, 78, 80.

20 direction, as he was wont to rail at them in “good Venetian” whenever their execution was faulty.68 In Italy his skill as a composer was commemorated in numerous ways. In 1760 Goldoni was so impressed by the premiere of Galuppi's Adriano in Siria, on a by Goldoni himself, that he composed a four-stanza tribute to the composer.69 One of Galuppi's more famous works in Venice was an oratorio written for the Incurabili, Tres pueri Hebraei in captivitate Babylonis, popularly known as La Fornace di Babilonia, on the story of Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego. This work attained such popularity that in 1774 the directors of the Incurabili commissioned a mural of Galuppi in the act of composing it; sadly, the mural was never executed, as the institution was already in dire financial condition and was forced to abandon the project.70 Toward the end of his life, Galuppi received a number of other honors, including the previously mentioned personal visit from the Grand Duke and Duchess of Russia; in 1779 he was also invited to the palace by the new Doge.71 In England Galuppi enjoyed a long-lasting vogue. Burney, as previously noted, was highly complimentary towards Galuppi in general, in spite of a weak start with Penelope, and his history as well as his travel accounts in Italy and his personal correspondence frequently make mention of Galuppi's skill and his tasteful simplicity. Handel may not have cared for his music, but he was not in a position to judge objectively (and in any case, Handel was similarly dismissive of Gluck). Galuppi's operas continued to be produced in London for

68 Jakob von Stählin, quoted in Mooser, 71. No specific citation given.

69 Chiuminatto, 54-55.

70 Ibid., 54.

71 Ibid., 65.

21 over twenty years after his departure. A pastiche constructed entirely of Galuppi's music, Il trionfo della continenza, was presented in 1746;72 Galuppi operas (and pastiches) continued to be produced sporadically, and the last production of a Galuppi opera in London did not take place until November of 1768.73 The firm of John Walsh published seventeen editions exclusively of Galuppi's music between 1746 and 1766, of which three were books of keyboard sonatas and many of the rest were books of popular arias with titles in the format of “The Favorite Songs in the Opera Call'd . . .”74 This does not include pastiches, of which there were many that included music by Galuppi. One such pastiche, Love in a Village, compiled by Arne with a libretto by Isaac Bickerstaff, was published by Longman as late as 1770.75 Galuppi was remembered into the nineteenth century in England; holographs of some of his sacred music appear in auction records of the firm of Puttick & Simpson in 1861 and 1862; the 1862 auction, of 3-5 September, was from the library of Vincent Novello and included a Dixit Dominus by Galuppi as lot 769.76 Also of note in the nineteenth century was 's poem, “A Toccata of Galuppi's,” which appeared in his 1855 collection Men and Women. Which toccata he had in mind, if it even still exists, is an unresolved issue and is likely to remain so, given the lack of identifying description in the

72 Wotquenne, 573.

73 Ibid., 576.

74 William C. Smith and Charles Humphries, A Bibliography of the Musical Works Published by the Firm of John Walsh during the Years 1721-1766 (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1968), 150-53.

75 Love in a Village: A Comic Opera as It Is Performed at the Theater Royal in Covent-Garden (London: Longman, 1770).

76 James Coover, Music at Auction: Puttick and Simpson (of London), 1764- 1971 (Warren, Michigan: Harmonie Park Press, 1988), 179-80, 184.

22 poem (the text of which is reproduced in Appendix A). The poem is hardly one of Browning's more famous works (and, one might argue, justifiably not), but in 1855 he was still sufficiently cognizant of Galuppi's music and basic biography to write fifteen stanzas on it, at least seventy years after Galuppi's death. By that point the piece in question would have been little more than a historical curiosity. The poem accordingly has a nostalgic quality to it, a romantic vision of an older and wealthier Venice. Burney's correspondence also provides some information about Galuppi's reputation throughout Europe; his letters to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and to the German geographer, historian, and professor of Greek, Christoph Daniel Ebeling, indicate that his opinions were shared by at least some of the musical public of France and Germany.77 Marpurg evidently had little use for him (or contemporary in general), labeling him “ein schlechter Componist” in the index of his Kritische Einleitung in die Geschichte und Lehrsätze der alten und neuen Musik, for which Burney sharply criticized him.78 In the main text of the work Marpurg dismisses Galuppi and several other Italians, claiming that those who found their music tasteful had no taste themselves.79 In summary, and Marpurg's opinion notwithstanding, it can be stated with certainty that during his lifetime, and for some time afterward, Galuppi was both a popular and respected composer. His works enjoyed wide

77 See The Letters of Dr. Charles Burney, ed. Alvaro Ribeiro (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991) 1: 87; 103-4.

78 Ibid., 104. Also, 104n: “In the unpaginated Index at the end of the Kritische Einleitung Marpurg gives the entry ‘Galuppi, ein schlechter Componist’; to his entry ‘Italiäner sind heutiges Tages elende Componisten’, CB [Charles Burney] added in his own copy (n. 10) in pencil the marginal comment: ‘not true’.”

79 Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, Kritische Einleitung in die Geschichte und Lehrsätze der alten und neuen Musik (Berlin: G. A. Lange, 1759), 90.

23 dissemination, and he left a lasting mark on dramatic music in the eighteenth century.

24 LATIN WORKS

Galuppi lived at a time when numerous divergent musical styles coexisted, all of which would have been familiar to his audiences. Beyond the broad categories of sacred and secular music, there existed ample stylistic variety. During his sojourn in Venice, Burney reported hearing, in addition to ordinary plainchant (including that of the Greek Orthodox and Armenian churches), Masses sung by priests with both organ accompaniment alone and with orchestral accompaniment, hymns with solos and choruses, motets for solo voice with recitative, and works “grave and majestic, consisting of fugues and imitations in the stile [sic] of our best old church services.”1 In speaking of performances heard at the four Ospedali, and the Incurabili in particular, he noted: I dwell the longer on these performances, as, at this time, the theaters of Venice were all shut; but the only difference between this kind of church music, and that of the drama, consists in the choruses; those of the church are long, elaborate, and sometimes well written. Those who suppose all the church music of Italy to be as light and airy as that of the opera, are mistaken; it is only on festivals that modern music can be heard in any of the churches. The music of the cathedrals, on common days, is in a stile [sic] as grave and as ancient as that of our church services of two hundred years standing; and in the parish churches it is a mere canto fermo, or chant, sung in unison by the priests only; sometimes with the organ, but more frequently without.2

By this it is easy to see the number and variety of styles in which church music was commonly heard in Galuppi's own time. Considering the frequency of

1 Burney, An Eighteenth Century Musical Tour, 112-15.

2 Ibid., 127-28.

25 feast days in the Roman Catholic liturgical calendar, the contrasts between the more traditional and conservative music and that in the theatrical style must have been common and marked, even if the more operatic music was kept separate from the church service itself and performed as something in the vein of a “concerto spirituale.”3 Galuppi's career as a composer of church music spanned over four decades, and his output appears to have been prodigious. Lamentably few of his works are available, which has no doubt contributed to the relatively meager amount of scholarship concerning his sacred works. What is available is not always dated reliably, if at all. Nonetheless, an examination of a sample of his sacred works will suffice to provide some insight into Galuppi's personal idioms and the degree to which he felt able to adopt sometimes radically different styles and, on occasion, blend them. The published works to be examined here are settings of the Magnificat; the Easter text Regina coeli laetare; Psalm 110 (109 Vulgate), Dixit Dominus; and the Et incarnatus est, a setting of a close paraphrase of that sentence from the .

Magnificat a 4 in C major (Date Unknown)

This Magnificat bears the indication “da capella,” despite including parts for trumpet, strings, and continuo. The designation is therefore presumably a reference to the style of the work, which is very definitely in the conservative , and not an indication of scoring. The trumpet has short independent passages, and there are a few instances near the beginning and the end in which the continuo line is similarly independent, but for the vast majority of the work the instrumental parts merely double the vocal lines. The sopranos and tenors sing colla parte with the second violins and violas,

3 Ibid., 117.

26 respectively; the altos double the first violins at the octave below. Save for the short passages indicated above, the vocal bass and basso continuo lines are identical. When not playing an independent line, the trumpet tends to play with the first violins, which places particular emphasis on the first violin/alto line. Stile antico is also indicated in the meter; the piece is in 4/2 and contains no rhythmic values smaller than a quarter note, except for one brief passage in which eighths appear as part of a dotted pattern. Although this piece is in a single large movement (240 measures), it is divided into two broad sections by a fermata over a general pause in the second half of measure 155, which marks the end of the Magnificat verses and the beginning of the Doxology. The text is set in imitative polyphony throughout. The opening words, Magnificat anima mea Dominum, are set to a theme based on the plainchant Magnificat Tone V from the Liber Usualis (see Example 2.1).4

Example 2.1: Magnificat Tone V and Galuppi, Magnificat theme

This theme and its associated text recur numerous times throughout the work, interwoven with the ongoing material. Nearly every line of the text is preceded by, or overlapped with, a statement of the Magnificat theme, which modulates along with the rest of the piece. The theme is alluded to in most of the keys

4 Patricia J. Callahan, “The Magnificats of Baldassare Galuppi,” Choral Journal 33, no. 5 (December 1992): 21.

27 through which the piece modulates, appearing in the sequence of keys C-G-D- F-C-G-F-C-B-flat-C-[C-G-C-G-G-F-C]. The brackets here enclose modulations within the Doxology, in which the Magnificat tune serves as one of three themes in a triple fugue, beginning in measure 182 after the first complete statement of the Doxology text. Over the course of the piece Galuppi finds several opportunities for text painting. The first of these occurs at the words “dispersit superbos.” The concept of dispersal or scattering is depicted by a series of descending triads, traded between voices, which begins and ends in C major but implies along the way E minor, A minor, D major, B minor, F major, and G major; at the same time, the pride of “superbos” is represented by an anacrusic rhythm (quarter rest, quarter, two half notes) and an octave drop between the last two syllables. Another clear instance is on the words “et exaltavit humiles,” in which the simplicity of “humiles” (dotted half, quarter, whole, usually on the same pitch) is contrasted with a running melisma on “exaltavit” (four quarters, dotted quarter, eighth, two quarters, repeat). Of Galuppi's four known Magnificat settings, this is decidedly the most old-fashioned.5 Galuppi had studied composition and with Lotti, and it would seem logical chronologically if this stile antico work dated from Galuppi's younger years. It would be rash, however, to assume for that reason alone that this is an early work. The use of so récherché (by this point, at least) a technique as triple fugue suggests the hand of an experienced composer. This may simply be an example of what Burney meant when he said of Galuppi

5 Callahan, 22. Of the remaining three, the G major Magnificat, for SATB chorus and soprano soloist, is the most operatic, with a solo part that varies between Baroque decoration and galant simplicity. The other two, in C major and C minor, occupy a middle ground between the conservative ecclesiastical style of the da cappella C major and the more operatic style of the G major; these styles, however, can be demonstrated with the other works discussed below.

28 that “upon occasion, he shews himself to be a very able writer in the true church stile, which is grave, with good harmony, good modulation, and fugues well worked.”6

Regina coeli (Date Unknown), F major

This setting, for solo soprano, strings, and continuo, is in three movements. The first of these is a flowing F-major andante in 3/4 time. The second, in B-flat major, is marked allegro assai and is in common time. The final movement returns to F major, albeit with some unusually chromatic excursions, and alternates between sections of largo in 12/8 with characteristic siciliana rhythms and of allegro in 3/8. The text runs as follows: Regina coeli, laetare, alleluja, Quia quem meruisti portare, alleluja, Resurrexit sicut dixit, alleluja, Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluja. The first two lines are set in the first movement, with the remaining two movements setting one line each. In the final movement the text is repeated once, with “Ora pro nobis Deum” in the two siciliana sections and the alleluja in the two allegros. The texture of the entire work is unequivocally homophonic: the first and second violins frequently play in unison and sometimes also double the soprano; the bass line has little melodic interest, tending to move with the beat in the outer movements and in the middle movement mostly playing the sort of repeated eighth-note figures one might expect to find in C. P. E. Bach or early Haydn.

6 Burney, An Eighteenth-Century Musical Tour, 134.

29 Rhythmically, the first movement is dominated by triplets and by two recurring dotted motives, (see Example 2.2) which correspond to “a” and “c” in the form diagram below (see Table 2.1).

a. c.

Example 2.2: Galuppi, Regina Coeli, mm. 1-2 and 10-11

In spite of this repetition, the form of the first movement is not immediately obvious, as there is no strong relationship between the text and the motives. While the text follows an ABAB form, with A and B representing the first and second lines of the poem, respectively, thematically no such clear relationship exists. The harmonic structure and scoring of the movement suggest a sonata form, or possibly a sonata-ritornello hybrid, but this is not immediately recognizeable because of the thematic ambiguity. The overall form of the movement may be diagramed as follows (see Table 2.1):

Table 2.1: Galuppi, Regina Coeli, diagram of first movement

Part I Part II Text: [Instrumental] A B A B(94) [Inst.] a b c d e a b' c e' d' a' e'' b' c' d b' c'' d a'' e''' c e F: I F: I V C: I unst. F: I IV I I mm. 1 6 10 14 21 26 31 37 43 52 58 61 70 74 84 90 100 110 118 120 127 131 With regard to text setting, the most salient features are the long and florid melismas on “laetare” (rejoice) and “alleluja.”

30 The second movement is jubilant, as befits the text, and highly virtuosic, featuring numerous trills, thirty-second-note figures similar to those in the first movement, runs of sixteenth notes, and leaps of up to a sixth. It is possible, with some effort, to see the outlines of a ternary form in this movement, but, as in the previous movement, the lack of a strong correlation between the text and recognizeable themes or phrases suggests a free approach to form. Also as in the first movement, there are frequent melismas, especially on the word “alleluja.” One such melisma runs for ten measures, beginning on the upbeat to measure 52 and continuing partway through measure 62. The third movement, in ABA'B' form, is the most interesting and the most unusual. The melody and harmony feature a number of unexpected chromatic inflections and clashes, both in the largo and allegro sections. The opening largo, in F major, ends with an Italian sixth-to-dominant half-cadence in C, which segues into the first allegro, also in C major. Of note is the repeated use of a dissonant E in the upper voice, its first appearance neither prepared nor conventionally resolved. Both allegro sections feature oddly chromatic string passages (see Example 2.3). In the A sections, the chromaticism may be related to the text, “Ora pro nobis Deum” (pray to God for us), thereby emphasizing the pleading character of the text. The operatic solo part contributes to the theatrical character of all three movements.

Dixit Dominus (1775; revised 1781), E-flat major) The 1775 version of the Dixit Dominus was written for the Incurabili and therefore features SSAA choir and strings. The bass line was not originally

31 Example 2.3: Galuppi, Regina coeli, third movement, mm. 1-2, 22-27. figured, but it gained figures in the 1781 revision (for San Marco, which calls for SATB and also adds pairs of and horns). This is another three- movement work. The first movement sets verses 1-3 of the Biblical text (Psalm 110), the second verses 4-5, and the final movement verses 6-7, plus the Doxology. The orchestral parts of the Dixit Dominus are in a purely buffa style through nearly all of the first movement. This is apparent from the opening theme, which provides the material for the greater part of the accompaniment throughout the movement, and which recurs in the two succeeding movements, as well (see Example 2.4).

32 Example 2.4: Galuppi, Dixit Dominus, mm. 1-3.

There is also something slightly tongue-in-cheek about the way the choir stretches the first syllable of “dixit” over an entire measure, then snaps out the second in the space of a quarter note. It is doubtful that Galuppi had any sort of comic effect in mind when he wrote the piece, but the spritely buffa quality is unmistakeable. The choral parts move in much slower rhythmic values than the accompaniment, and although they are occasionally enlivened by dotted rhythms, their comparatively serene, homorhythmic polyphony provides a sharp contrast to the busyness of the orchestral line. There is an emphasis on static pitch in the choral parts through most of the movement, which calls to mind a recitative-like style in which many syllables are sung on a single pitch. This may be in imitation of the speech suggested by “dixit.” There is one passage, beginning in measure 31, where the voices enter canonically in whole notes over a tremolo and repeated eighth-note accompaniment; one other short passage of imitative polyphony (still over the same busy accompaniment) occurs at measure 60, on the words “inimicorum tuam” (your enemies), which are set to melismas entering first in the first soprano line, then the middle two voices together, and finally the second alto, with all four voices finishing together. In contrast to the earlier contrapuntal passage, the rhythms of the entrances here give them a characteristically Baroque sound. The second movement, a largo, is a marked contrast. It opens in the relative minor key, C minor, with a brooding, syncopated accompaniment figure, over which voices enter in imitation. At measure 32, at the words “Tu

33 es sacerdos in aeternam” (You are a priest forever), the tempo changes to allegro, and the movement becomes a fugue on a disjunct, triadic theme. There is some notable text painting on the word “confregit” (shatters), including chromatic shifts and sixteenth-note figurations in the upper strings. The counterpoint and grave opening bring this movement closest of the three to Burney's “true church stile.” The third movement also opens with a largo, this one in B= major and features ornamental violin writing and dynamic contrasts that come close to the empfindsamer Stil. The vocal parts again move in more stately rhythms. An allegro begins in measure 13, which starts the modulation back to E= major with the reappearance of the first-movement theme.

Et incarnatus est, F major

This setting, a single 60-measure movement, is on a much smaller scale than the works previously discussed. It is scored for two sopranos, two violins, cello, and continuo. It is in 3/8 time and marked larghetto. Although it is not a siciliana, as the metrical stresses suggest something closer to a minuet, it displays some of the characteristics associated with that style of writing, especially the dotted rhythms. The melodic line is mostly conjunct and almost entirely doubled in thirds; the violin parts seldom diverge from those for the singers, playing either the same material or a simplified version of it. The two sopranos sing the text in alternation up to “et incarnatus est” and thereafter sing together, almost entirely in thirds, until the end of the piece. Galuppi's predilection for diatonic harmony is readily apparent here, as the piece seldom strays far from the tonic and is entirely devoid of accidentals outside of the one short modulatory passage. The texture is wholly homophonic. In form, this short duet resembles a highly compacted da capo

34 form, with the A section returning only in the last five measures and only in the instrumental parts. One of the charges sometimes leveled against religious music of the Enlightenment era is that it pays less attention to the meaning of the words than did the music of earlier generations. Certainly to the modern ear Galuppi's gently tripping, almost galant setting of text from the Mass might seem to border on the frivolous. However, beneath the galant surface there are signs that even here Galuppi took some care with his treatment of the text. This is most notable in the beginning of the B section. It is likely not coincidental that the piece's one modulation (to F major) occurs with the words “et homo factus est” (and was made man), thus mirroring the divine transmutation into mortal form with a harmonic shift. Similarly, when the soloists sing “natus Maria virgine” (born of the virgin Mary)7 the diminished and minor sonorities, appearing unexpectedly, suggest the pains of birth. This passage, with its use of secondary chords, is really the only one in the entire piece that approaches harmonic adventurousness (see Example 2.5).

Example 2.5: Galuppi, Et incarnatus est, mm. 41-45.

7 N.B.: The Mass text reads “ex Maria virgine”; this is the only deviation from the standard text.

35 Galuppi may have written this piece for his students either at the Mendicanti or the Incurabili. It may also date from earlier in his career, or have been for something outside his normal duties, as according to a note in the modern edition the manuscript was discovered in the library of the cloister of Einsiedeln in Switzerland. Table 2.2 compares the style characteristics of these four works.

Table 2.2: Stylistic comparison of four Galuppi pieces

Magnificat Regina coeli Dixit Dominus Et incarnatus est Scoring SATB, strings, Soprano, SSAA, strings, 2 sopranos, 2 vn, trumpet, strings, continuo? vc, continuo continuo continuo Dynamics Not indicated Contrasting f Contrasting f and Not indicated in and p p vocal parts Rhythm simple duple I. simple triple; simple duple in all simple triple meter II. simple duple; three movements III. compound triple/simple triple Melody varies virtuosic; generally very vocal, according to operatic conjunct; static conjunct, galant, in text; subjects motion common, thirds for imitation perhaps reflecting speech elements of “dixit”? Harmony Frequent Mostly diatonic; Mostly diatonic Mostly diatonic; one modulation, chromatic with frequent modulation, some mostly by dissonances in suspensions secondary dominant fifths part 3 usage Texture Polyphony Homophony, Mostly familiar- Homophony, solo (mostly solo plus style polyphony and duet plus imitative), accompani- with accompaniment stile antico ment accompaniment; some fugal or canonic passages

36 Table 2.2: Continued

Form Free I. Sonata?; I. ABA'; II. AB; III. ABA' II. Free; ABC; cyclic aspect III. ABA'B' due to the return of opening material in all movements Text Painting: Painting: Generally syllabic; Painting: “homo “dispersit,” “laetare,” painting on “irae,” factus est,” “natus (melody/ “alleluja” “confregit” Maria virgine” harmony) (melody) (rhythm, texture) (modulation) “humiles,” “exaltavit” (melody/ rhythm)

All of this music has ostensibly the same purpose—to aid in the worship and glorification of God—but it captures at least four current styles during Galuppi's working life. The Magnificat, “da cappella,” nearly belongs to another era altogether, drawing on the heritage of a cappella imitative polyphony established in Venice by composers such as , as filtered through Baroque aesthetics and seen in the stile antico works of composers such as J. J. Fux and Galuppi's own teacher, Lotti. Lotti's well-known eight-voice Crucifixus, for instance, shares many of the characteristics of the Galuppi Magnificat. Of these four works, the Magnificat is perhaps the most removed from what one would expect of one of the prime shapers of opera buffa. The Dixit Dominus belongs to a much more up-to-date type of polyphony; a good parallel among more famous compositions is the D-major Vivaldi . The first movements of these two pieces share buoyant, rhythmically animated orchestral accompaniments and largely homorhythmic singing, as well as alternating orchestral and vocal passages. The two solo works are, logically, much more closely allied to opera. Whereas the Regina coeli is more akin to opera seria, with its florid melismas

37 and frequent ornaments, the Et incarnatus is much closer to opera buffa. While it would be a stretch of the imagination to consider the Incarnatus a siciliana, it does display some of the lilting, pastoral qualities associated with that genre, which also appear with great frequency among Galuppi's buffa airs. For instance, Lena's “La pastorella al prato” (The shepherdess in the meadow) from , which actually is a siciliana, shares a number of characteristics with the Incarnatus, including the thin texture, the diatonic harmonies, the limited melodic range (a ninth for both voices of the Incarnatus and the aria) and the characteristic lilt (see Examples 2.6 A and B).

Example 2.6 A: Galuppi, “La pastorella al prato,” mm. 1-12.

Of course, the problems of dating make it difficult to lay these works side by side, as they may indeed be separated by years or even decades. For this reason one further work, which juxtaposes several style traits within itself, will be a useful aid; it is a work which unfortunately does not appear to have been published.

38 Example 2.6 B: Galuppi, Et incarnatus est, mm. 13-21.

Confitebor tibi, G major (1733)

This is a twelve-movement motet, based on Psalm 111 (Vulgate 110). The manuscript, apparently an autograph, was discovered around ten years ago in the library of the Dijon Conservatory, and the work was recorded in 1994 by Gérard Lesne and Il Seminario musicale.8 It does not appear in the New Grove list of Galuppi’s works. The first page bears the title “Confitebor à 3:o con Ins:ti” and the date 1733, which appears to be in Galuppi's own hand. This would place the work near the beginning of Galuppi's operatic career. The work is for soprano, alto, and bass soloists with four-part string orchestra and is quite lengthy. Each

8 Baldassare Galuppi, Motets, Gérard Lesne, Veronique Gens, Peter Harvey, Il Seminario musicale, Virgin Classics VC 5 45030 2.

39 movement generally sets one complete sentence of the text, although movements 5 and 6 split one long sentence between them, and movements 11 and 12 similarly split the Doxology. The division of the text does not exactly follow the Vulgate verses (see Appendix B for a side-by-side comparison of the texts). The whole lasts approximately half an hour. The motet is in G major, but individual movements are frequently in related keys. The first movement in particular features some striking stylistic contrasts. The first two measures introduce the theme that dominates the movement, one which would fit in perfectly in a buffa aria, with its syncopated opening and abrupt, matter-of-fact ending. This is immediately followed by a highly chromatic passage in the first violins, which inflects the harmony briefly toward C minor. Just as abruptly, the melodic material returns to a more easy-going buffa style (see Example 2.7).

Example 2.7: Galuppi, Confitebor tibi, first movement, mm. 1-69

9 Transcribed from the manuscript reproduced in the notes accompanying the above-mentioned recording.

40 These contrasts in the orchestra are not echoed as strongly in the three solo lines. Although they adopt the opening two-measure phrase as their own, they continue with material different from that presented by the orchestra. In fact, the soloists and orchestra operate almost independently of one another, with the soloists alternating between delicately interwoven contrapuntal lines and simple chordal textures, and the orchestra sometimes providing simple accompaniment, sometimes reprising its earlier material, and sometimes joining in the contrapuntal texture. The movement is a slightly truncated ritornello form in which the ritornello appears three times, the last time without its first two measures. The two vocal sections both set the complete text of the verse, with the second featuring more dramatic harmonic motion than the first. The second movement is similar in most respects. It is a duet for soprano and alto, and it too is in ritornello form. Also similar to the first movement, the ritornello theme is frequently interwoven contrapuntally with the vocal parts. The third movement is something slightly different, being in essence a duet between the cello and the bass soloist, with only continuo accompaniment. The cello and bass alternate in presenting long, winding phrases, the cello sometimes joining the continuo line while the bass sings and sometimes echoing fragments of its opening theme. The cello solo assumes the same ritornello role as the full ensemble in the preceding two movements. The fourth movement is another solo aria, this one for alto accompanied by full orchestra and continuo, in the same ritornello form as the preceding three movements. The fifth movement has no ritornello. The three soloists enter in imitation over continuo alone. This movement is a simple binary form, with new musical material appearing at the beginning of verse 6 of the Vulgate text. The music of this movement and the ninth are the farthest removed from the

41 opera house. The stile antico polyphony, while still very vocal, is much more ecclesiastical than the carefree contrapuntal relationship between the vocal and instrumental parts in the first movement. The sixth movement appears at first to be an ordinary da capo aria for the soprano soloist, complete with an abbreviated ritornello in the middle of the A section. All proceeds as expected throughout the A section, until approximately halfway through the B section, at which point the text and music from the A section begin to be reintroduced, creating first one and then another “false da capo” effect. When the ritornello of the A section reappears in earnest, everything seems to have returned to normal, but the movement concludes at the end of the opening ritornello, where one would expect the soprano to return. The seventh movement is a duet for soprano and alto, similar in form to the sixth. Again the B section is interrupted by a return of earlier text and music, creating a false da capo, and again there is a concluding ritornello where, in a true da capo aria, there would be a full reprise of the A section. Also notable in this movement is the pastoral character created by the moderate tempo and the intermittent use of the lower strings as drones. The eighth movement is a virtuoso aria for the bass soloist. The writing includes numerous wide leaps and rapid roulades extending over multiple measures. The form is close to that of the ritornello forms seen in several of the preceding movements. In place of the instrumental interlude separating the two vocal sections, however, is a flourish for the soloist, unaccompanied. In other respects the form is the same as above, including the use of modulation in the second vocal section to increase harmonic tension. The ninth movement opens with a homorhythmic introduction in E minor, stating the words “Sanctum et terribile est nomen eius” (sacred and terrible is your name) twice, first ending on a half cadence in E minor, then beginning in the relative major and cadencing back in the tonic. The

42 remainder of the verse is set in somber, suspension-laden stile antico polyphony over an incessant dotted rhythm in the orchestra. The text of the tenth movement begins with the word “Intellectus bonus” (a good understanding). Accordingly, the movement is set as a three-voice fugue for the soloists, thereby demonstrating the composer's own good understanding of theory and reflecting the meaning of the text. The character of the movement is far from severe, however. The subject of the fugue features gently tripping dotted rhythms and a gracefully vocal shape that give the fugue a certain galant quality at odds with the conception of fugue as an intellectually rigorous technique.10 The orchestral accompaniment is not a part of the fugal texture, but it does suggest certain aspects of the fugue subject. The violins, for instance, maintain the dotted rhythm of the subject constantly, except at cadences, and the bass line occasionally breaks into the upward runs associated with the word “omnibus” (all). The final two movements are settings of the Doxology, with the eleventh setting the initial line and the twelfth picking up at “sicut erat in principio.” The eleventh movement is a moderately-paced aria for the soprano, with some florid melismatic writing toward the end. The aria can be considered a ritornello form only in the very loosest sense. It opens with an extended orchestral introduction (approximately one third of the aria's total length) and closes with another instrumental section, which reuses some of the material from the opening. In between the two orchestral sections, however, the singer is hardly ever silent—when the orchestra takes over for a measure or two, it is only to echo the phrase just sung. In the twelfth movement Galuppi seizes upon the text “sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper” (as it was in the

10 The most famous use of fugue as a symbol of the intellect is probably in Richard Strauss’s Also sprach Zarathustra, but Monteverdi, Charpentier, and Vivaldi used imitative or fugal settings of these words in other settings of the Confitebor tibi text.

43 beginning, and now, and forever) and provides the work with a neatly cyclical ending by setting the final verse to a literal reprise of the opening movement's music. Galuppi was thus willing to incorporate varied styles not only among discrete sacred works but also in different movements of the same work. His Confitebor tibi setting includes operatic virtuosity (VIII) and pastoral drone effects (VI), also seen in the Regina coeli; buffa gestures (I) and fugue (X) similar to those in the first and second movements, respectively, of the Dixit Dominus; and stile antico polyphony (V, IX), such as made up the Magnificat. That all these varied and contrasting styles can be found within the confines of a single work testifies both to Galuppi's adaptability and to his audience's acceptance of so widely varied a stylistic palette.

44 RUSSIAN ORTHODOX WORKS

Galuppi was neither the first nor the last Italian composer invited to the Russian court. One earlier composer, Vincenzo Manfredini, met only with limited success.1 Subsequent composers to fill the post of maestro di cappella included the Italians (1727-1779), (1729- 1802), and (1740-1816), but Galuppi left a mark more lasting than most for several reasons. During his tenure in St. Petersburg he brought a previously unknown level of discipline and skill to the choral and orchestral performing forces at his disposal; additionally, Galuppi integrated elements of Russian style into his compositions for the court chapel, achieving a degree of synthesis not reached by his predecessors or successors. The chorus that Galuppi found awaiting him in St. Petersburg impressed him greatly, although even they must have been the object of a little fine tuning under the hand of so demanding a conductor. Nonetheless, he expressed his awe of them, declaring that he had never heard their like in Italy2–high praise indeed, considering that he had spent much of his life in a city with an extensive and opulent choral tradition dating back to the Gabrielis and earlier. Sacred music in St. Petersburg had little in common with what Galuppi had written back in Venice, however. The major musical interlude in the Orthodox service was the choral concerto, a fairly loosely-defined genre. Choral concerti had a place in the liturgy, generally before the communion, but the texts were often simply sacred poetry, serving a devotional purpose but

1 Mooser, 69.

2 Ibid., 71. 45 notin themselves necessarily liturgical. When Galuppi arrived in Russia, the choral concerto was in a state of flux. It still had strong ties to an earlier genre called the partesnyi kontsert, which was in turn based on a blend of still earlier native genres and Western polyphony, and which remained harmonically modal.3 At the same time the influx of Italian musicians had begun to shift the genre toward a more tonal idiom with a greater focus on melody. In its later form exhibited by Bortnyansky and others, the choral concerto was largely homophonic, with multiple movements, and with solos, duets, or trios emerging freely from the texture. The writing was generally quite instrumental in character, not avoiding disjunct motion or figuration and featuring frequent solo/tutti contrasts; Marika Kuzma suggests this may have been an effort to compensate for the lack of actual instruments, as the Orthodox church strictly forbade their use.4 Galuppi wrote at least fifteen choral concerti himself, and more may once have existed. At least one of these was published in the twentieth century, Plotiyu usnuv. This and Slava Edinorodnyi Syn, which will be discussed later, are among his four best known Orthodox pieces.5 The original manuscripts for all fifteen still reside in the Rossiyskaya Gosudarstvennaya Biblioteka in Moscow.

3 Kuzma, 76.

4 Ibid., 64-65.

5 N. D. Uspensky, “A Wreath on the Grave of Dimitriy Stepanovich Bortnyansky,” Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate (1975): 64; cited in Carolyn C. Dunlop, The Russian Court Chapel Choir 1796-1917 (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000), 109. The other two are Blagoobraznyi Iosif and Sudi Gospodi; how they came to be counted among Galuppi’s best-known Slavic works is a mystery neither author deigns to reveal, as neither work appears to have been published. 46 Plotiyu usnuv is a bipartite work scored for SATB choir, and its text, for Easter, deals with the death and resurrection of Christ.6 It is set in C minor, though this is not immediately clear, as it opens with a first-inversion tonic chord. Upon the entry of the bass and alto on G, this becomes a tonic 6-4 chord, with the fifth doubled. In fact, the tonic C minor chord in root position does not appear until measure 4, and even then it is only as the sixteenth note of a dotted eighth-sixteenth pair; the first unequivocal statement of the tonic is in measure 14, introducing the half cadence that ends the opening adagio introduction (see Example 3.1).

Example 3.1: Galuppi, Plotiyu usnuv, mm. 13-15.

Given Galuppi's meticulous approach to text setting, it might not be too rash to postulate a textual foundation for this tonal nebulousness. The first words ofthe piece speak of sleep as a metaphor for death, and it is possible to read

6 The full text, as translated by Carolyn Dunlop, runs, “In the flesh Thou didst fall asleep, as a mortal man, O King and Lord. On the third day Thou didst arise, raising Adam from corruption and destroying death. O King incorruptible, the salvation of the world.” Carolyn C. Dulop, ed., Galuppi to Vorotnikov: Music of the Russian Court Chapel Choir (I) (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Press, 2000), 11. 47 the tonally ambiguous opening as a kind of harmonic representation of drowsiness, in which the uncertainty of key mirrors the loss of focus one experiences before drifting off to sleep. The introduction actually contains the bulk of the text, setting all of it save for the final address to God, “Paskha netleniya, mira spasenie” (King [or Passover] incorruptible, savior of the world). The opening section displays the same sort of attention to the relationship between key and text as is apparent in Galuppi's Latin works. After the C-minor opening the music begins to modulate, arriving at E-flat major as the text mentions the resurrection on the third day. It is plausible that the imagery of the third day influenced Galuppi's choice of C minor/E-flat major, each with three flats in the key signature. Thereafter the music returns, by way of F major/minor, to C minor, as the text mentions the redemption of Adam and Christ’s triumph over death. The tempo of the introductory section, combined with the abundance of dotted rhythms, give the work the character of a French overture. This association is strengthened by the succeeding imitative allegro moderato. Whether this was a result of something Galuppi had heard in Russia or was a conscious choice of form on Galuppi's part is not clear. It would certainly seem strange for an Italian opera composer to decide abruptly, when faced with a Russian Orthodox text, to set it in the guise of a French overture; he may have been reacting to his current environment, for although there is little to suggest that French music played much of a role in Russian court life, it is certainly the case that French language and literature had been important ever since Peter the Great (1672-1725; r. 1682-1725) had begun his love affair with Western European culture. Unlike the true French overture, however, the allegro of Plotiyu usnuv is not merely fugal but a full-fledged double fugue. The first theme enterssuccessively in the bass, tenor, alto, and soprano voices, and it is associated exclusively with the complete text of the fugue, “Paskha netleniya,

48 mira spasenie” (King incorruptible, salvation of the world). The second theme begins three beats after the first, in the soprano voice, then follows the first theme through the bass, tenor, and alto voices. It, along with all episodic material, is set on the final two words of the piece. The fugue contains some chromatic writing, especially during modulations between minor keys, but the only real harmonic surprise is an unexpected progression, moving into measure 49, from the dominant to a German sixth; the sixth chord is prolonged by a fermata and followed by a rest. In measure 50 the E-flat moves down to C, leaving an Italian sixth, which resolves to V and then to i as expected (see example 3.2). Like most choral concerti, and many of the earlier partesnyi kontserti, the writing is as much instrumental as it is vocal.

Example 3.2: Galuppi, Plotiyu usnuv, mm. 45-53.

49 The Orthodox works of Galuppi and his Italian successors are often referred to as “Italianate.” This is, of course, both undeniable and unsurprising. To leave it at that, however, is to miss part of the picture. Listening to Plotiyu usnuv, it is immediately obvious that there are some differences between it and the works examined in the previous chapter. First- and second-inversion chords occur with greater frequency than in the Latin works; this may be partly explained by the lack of an instrumental bass to supply the root, and Galuppi may simply have desired to avoid in the vocal bass line the angular, “instrumental” quality that tends to result from root progressions. Beyond this, however, there is the question of mood. Writers on Russian music refer to something called torzhestvennyi, described by Kuzma as “an affect perhaps unique to Slavic culture and best described as a combination of solemnity and celebration." This is a difficult thing to pin down, but it is a part of what makes Russian music sound so unmistakeably Russian and shades even the most cheerful music with a hint of melancholy or lugubriousness. It would perhaps be an exaggeration to assert that Galuppi managed, during his three-year stay, to absorb this characteristic and make it his own, but nonetheless he managed to capture at least something like it in Plotiyu usnuv. Indeed, the dotted rhythms of the opening section are particularly apt for conveying both pomp and festivity, and the relative exuberance of the more rhythmically driving fugue section is still held somewhat in check by the formality of the counterpoint. Despite excursions into the relative and subdominant major, the overall tonality of the piece is very definitely minor, which also lends the piece a certain weight and solemnity even when the mood of the text is brightest. Although the piece is written in four voices, at least one is frequently silent, especially in the fugue. This evokes both the duets and trios of the later choral concerto and the Russian Orthodox style of kant, a type of sacred or semisacred partsong in three voices, whose style and homorhythmic texture

50 were often incorporated into the partesnyi kontsert. These kant-like sections were generally more conjunct in melody and more limited in range—i. e., more vocal—than the rest of the kontsert. These evocations of the kant were oftenfollowed by a reentrance of the complete choir in block chords. Although the character of Galuppi's writing remains fairly consistent thoughout the fugue, the piece does end with a series of block chords sung by the full choir. Another of Galuppi's Orthodox works is Slava Edinorodnyi Syn, which may be roughly translated as "Glory to the only-begotten son." It, too, is a four-voice SATB work in two parts. Unlike in Plotiyu usnuv, there are no contrasting tempo indications, but the sections are in contrasting meters—3/2 for the first and common time for the second. The choice of triple meter for the first section is probably not a happy accident but a deliberate choice, for the text of the first section addresses a triune God and reads in translation, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and everlasting throughout all the ages." The text is from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and the first sentence is divided from the rest by an amen (or "amin" in Church Slavonic), a division Galuppi preserved musically by setting the word to a plagal cadence in long note values. Slava Edinorodnyi Syn is in C major, although it modulates with almost breathtaking frequency over the course of the piece's sixty-five measures. It is often difficult to determine exactly which key it is in. There are extended passages in A minor and D minor, and the music passes frequently, if briefly, through F major and G minor en route to other keys. The emphasis on F echoes the plagal cadence that ended the introductory section. The relationship between key and text is not quite so clear in this piece, although, as with "natus Maria virgine" in the Et Incarnatus, the reference to the incarnation of Christ is set in minor. However, from the context this seems to be a symbolic representation not of the pains of birth but of the brevity of mortal existence or of Christ's inevitable death on the cross.

51 In spite of brief imitative passages beginning in measures 22 and 55, the texture of this piece remains largely homophonic. There is none of the strictcontrapuntal treatment found in Plotiyu usnuv. There are passages in this piece, too, that suggest that Galuppi had at least a passing familiarity with earlier Russian choral music. For instance, there is a long trio section beginning in measure 33, in which the tenor voice remains silent while the other three continue. This is followed immediately, in measure 44, by the reentrance of all four voices in block chords. The use of the trio texture and the method of reintroducing the full chorus recall the partesnyi kontsert and its method of evoking the kant. Additionally, the range of the soprano part narrows from an octave (g1 to g2) in the outer sections to a minor sixth (a1 to f2) in the kant section, and that of the alto narrows from a minor ninth (c1 to d2) to a minor seventh (e1 to d2). The passage is reproduced in Example 3.3. Although these works are indeed Italianate, to leave it at that is an oversimplification. It would be an exaggeration to suggest that Galuppi, in justthree years, managed to encapsulate the whole tradition of Russian Orthodox music in his choral concerti, but these works have certain Russian qualities that are not limited only to superficial characteristics. One has but to examine the Orthodox works in comparison to the music he wrote for the Roman Catholic church to realize that, basic rules and procedures of Western music aside, there are substantial differences in the way Galuppi approached the composition of these pieces. He succeeded in capturing something of the Russian spirit in his music. This fact has been obscured in part due to the desires of later, nationalistically-inclined composers and scholars to distance themselves from the Italian influences of Galuppi, Sarti, and even Bortnyans'ky. However, the Russian qualities of Galuppi's music from his stay

52 Example 3.3: Galuppi, Slava Edinorodinyi Syn, mm. 33-47. in St. Petersburg are not mere freaks or surface-level imitations but must be the result of a conscious effort on Galuppi's part to emulate the style in use around him.

53 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The previous two chapters have looked specifically at various aspects of Galuppi's Catholic and Russian Orthodox sacred music. In both cases Galuppi seems to have drawn freely on the numerous musical styles around him during the period when he composed these works. In the case of the Russian Orthodox works this must surely have been deliberate, as he took pains to incorporate elements of Russian sacred music in his own compositions. The question that remains is how uncommon Galuppi's stylistic “absorbency” was during his own lifetime. It seems likely that it was not very uncommon and resulted partly from his operatic background and the times in which he lived. In a paper titled “Galuppi, Tenducci, and Montezuma: A Commentary on the History and Musical Style of Opera Seria after 1750,”1 Dale Monson looks at a number of arias for the castrato Tenducci written by Galuppi and other composers over a fifteen-year span. These include arias from Galuppi's (1757) and Demofoönte (1758), which he compares to two arias by Jommelli from the same period. In the year and a half or so between the productions of Ezio and Demofoönte, Galuppi's manner of writing for Tenducci changed perceptibly, either because of increased familiarity with Tenducci's voice or because Tenducci's voice itself had changed. The same general trends, namely the fairly narrow range and the emphasis on cantabile over bravura singing, assigning the elaborate passagework to the orchestra if necessary, obtain in the Jommelli arias, as well. Monson also examines settings from a libretto of which Tenducci appears to have been quite fond, Cigna-Santi's Montezuma;

1 Dale Monson, “Galuppi, Tenducci, and Montezuma: A Commentary on the History and Musical Style of Opera Seria after 1750,” in Galuppiana 1985, 279-300.

54 this version of the story was set at least twelve times in the eighteenth century. Two of those twelve are by Paisiello and Galuppi, both in 1772, only months apart. Again, two composers writing for the same voice at the same time—with the same text, in this case—arrive at similar styles of writing, with Galuppi's setting only slightly more technically demanding.2 Monson states,

We have long acknowledged that composers had to know their singers before writing the arias of an opera in the 18th century. . . . What this meant was this: much of the nature of the composition was determined by the singer. From simple things, like range and tessitura, to more complex aspects, like preferred kinds of ornament, and the shape, expression, and contour of the vocal line, all this could be influenced or determined by the singer's desires. It was only a natural result that the pasticcio . . . was, in reality, the archetypical example of the sociological state of opera in the 18th century.3

In other words, the eighteenth-century opera composer would have been expected to pay diligent attention to the specific needs of his singers and to tailor the music to suit them as well as possible. This was certainly true of Galuppi’s operatic works, and by extension we can assume that he was very much aware of the capabilities and needs of his performers outside of the theater, as well. His pedagogical roles in the Ospedali, too, would have taught him to respect the strengths and limitations of his performers. This must have been no less the case in Russia, for he could not have gained a knowledge of the Court Chapel Choir's capabilities without listening to them and to the music in their repertoire. It must also be remembered that Galuppi, born in 1706, belonged to a transitional generation of composers, the same generation as Pergolesi, Sammartini, and the two eldest Bach sons. All of these composers have

2 Ibid., 292-98.

3 Ibid., 298-300.

55 presented problems of classification, as they inhabit an uncertain musical landscape that is no longer fully Baroque but is not yet Classic. One of the reasons that Galuppi adopted so many styles in his music, in and out of the church, may simply be that so many styles were still in use around him. Galuppi was a middle-aged man when Handel, Rameau, and Telemann died; Haydn, Boccherini, Vanhal, Dittersdorf, and even Mozart prospered during his lifetime. It is not surprising that his music, especially his operatic music, tended to become more Classic toward the end of his life; this would have been a necessity, for had he not kept at least broadly abreast of musical fashion until the early 1770s, when his last opera was written, he would surely not have remained as popular as he did. However, it was also during the 1770s that Burney visited Venice and remarked that some of Galuppi's music was representative of his idea of the “true church stile.” Similar vacillations can be seen in the works of Galuppi's short-lived contemporary Giovanni Battista Pergolesi (1710-36). His most famous piece of church music is probably his setting of the , followed by the C minor , which uses some of the same music. Like Galuppi's Confitebor tibi of 1733, the Stabat mater is in twelve movements for multiple voices and orchestra; it must of necessity have been written about the same time, and various apocryphal traditions would have it as Pergolesi’s final work. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, in the list of Pergolesi's works, assigns it to 1736. Also like Galuppi's Confitebor tibi, the musical style of the Stabat mater changes frequently. In Pergolesi's case the music retains a feeling of restrained theatrical style throughout, but the movements shift freely between a more Baroque and more Classic style. The opening movement, which states the first verse of the text, displays a number of prominent Baroque characteristics; most notable are the walking bass line that underlies the entire movement and the chains of suspensions between the soprano and mezzo-soprano soloists. The resultant texture is akin to that of the trio sonata.

56 The fourth movement, which sets the verse beginning “Quae morebat et dolebat” (Who mourned and grieved), sounds much more Classic. There is polarization between bass and treble lines, and the texture is unequivocally homophonic. The bass line plays only downbeats, and after the entrance of the solo mezzo-soprano the upper strings play only chords between the beats. The melodic line consists mostly of symmetrical phrases, monotony of phrasing being avoided by the occasional extension of a phrase via repetition of melodic material. The sacred music of neither the preceding nor succeeding generations displays anything like this range of styles. Vivaldi's (1678-1741) Stabat mater, RV 621, for soloist and orchestra, is unmistakeably Baroque throughout. This is especially obvious in the irregular phrase structure and, in the second and fifth movements, a style of vocal writing between recitative and arioso. The date of this work is uncertain, but it seems likely to date from after 1727, when the Stabat mater was officially readmitted into the liturgy. In contrast, Johann Christan Bach's (1735-82) 1757 setting of the Dies irae manifests very little Baroque influence. Aside from the plainchant incipit, the only references to earlier styles are the few movements that make (limited) use of counterpoint, particularly the verse beginning “Juste judex ultionis” (Fair judge of punishment). Otherwise, the choral, solo, and ensemble movements are all in the same early Classic, light symphonic/operatic style, despite the fact that the Mass is the most serious of all the Catholic sacred texts and the Requiem an especially solemn example. The same general trends can be seen in the early Masses of Mozart and Haydn. Galuppi's stylistic adaptability is therefore not quite so extraordinary as it might at first appear, at least during his early career. He had a number of styles available to him and consequently drew upon them freely, often with great creativity and sensitivity, something that his operatic training and the changing fashions during his musical upbringing would have encouraged him

57 to do. Still, Galuppi does seem to have drawn from a wider palette, as it were, than many of his contemporaries. Burney counted him among the greatest Italian composers of his generation, mentioning the lyricism and simplicity of his writing in operatic music and his gravity and taste in compositions for the church. The skill with which he grafts one style to another, sometimes in the same movement—galant melody with contrapuntal texture, for example—is nonetheless noteworthy, and it may even be unique among his generation.

58 APPENDIX A

Robert Browning, “A Toccata of Galuppi's.” From Men and Women, 1855.1

I Oh Galuppi, Baldassaro, this is very sad to find! I can hardly misconceive you; it would prove me deaf and blind; But although I take your meaning, 'tis with such a heavy mind!

II Here you come with your old music, and here's all the good it brings. What, they lived once thus at Venice where the merchants were the kings, Where Saint Mark's is, where the Doges used to wed the sea with rings?

III Ay, because the sea's the street there; and 'tis arched by . . . what you call . . . Shylock's bridge with houses on it, where they kept the carnival: I was never out of England—it's as if I saw it all.

IV Did young people take their pleasure when the sea was warm in May? Balls and masks begun at midnight, burning ever to mid-day, When they made up fresh adventures for the morrow, do you say?

V Was a lady such a lady, cheeks so round and lips so red,— On her neck the small face buoyant, like a bell-flower on its bed, O'er the breast's superb abundance where a man might base his head?

VI Well, and it was graceful of them—they'd break talk off and afford —She, to bite her mask's black velvet—he, to finger on his sword, While you sat and played Toccatas, stately at the clavichord?

VII

1 The text used here is taken from Representative Poetry Online, ed. Ian Lancashire, , accessed 6/30/03.

59 What? Those lesser thirds so plaintive, sixths diminished, sigh on sigh, Told them something? Those suspensions, those solutions—“Must we die?” Those commiserating sevenths—“Life might last! we can but try!

VIII “Were you happy?”—“Yes.”—“And are you still as happy?”—“Yes. And you?” —“Then, more kisses!”—“Did I stop them, when a million seemed so few?” Hark, the dominant's persistence till it must be answered to!

IX So, an octave struck the answer. Oh, they praised you, I dare say! “Brave Galuppi! that was music! good alike at grave and gay! “I can always leave off talking when I hear a master play!”

X Then they left you for their pleasure: till in due time, one by one, Some with lives that came to nothing, some with deeds as well undone, Death stepped tacitly and took them where they never see the sun.

XI But when I sit down to reason, think to take my stand nor swerve, While I triumph o'er a secret wrung from nature's close reserve, In you come with your cold music till I creep thro' every nerve.

XII Yes, you, like a ghostly cricket, creaking where a house was burned: “Dust and ashes, dead and done with, Venice spent what Venice earned. “The soul, doubtless, is immortal—where a soul can be discerned.

XIII “Yours for instance: you know physics, something of geology, “Mathematics are your pastime; souls shall rise in their degree; “Butterflies may dread extinction,—you'll not die, it cannot be!

XIV “As for Venice and her people, merely born to bloom and drop, “Here on earth they bore their fruitage, mirth and folly were the crop: “What of soul was left, I wonder, when the kissing had to stop?

60 XV “Dust and ashes!” So you creak it, and I want the heart to scold. Dear dead women, with such hair, too—what's become of all the gold Used to hang and brush their bosoms? I feel chilly and grown old.

61 APPENDIX B

Comparison of Galuppi’s Division of Psalm 110 with the Vulgate

Text, Confitebor tibi Vulgate, Psalm 110

I. Confitebor tibi, Domine, in toto 1 alleluia reversionis Aggei et corde meo in consilio iustorum, et Zacchariae confitebor tibi Domine in congregatione. toto corde meo in consilio iustorum et congregatione II. Magna opera Domini exquisita in omnes voluntates eius. 2 magna opera Domini exquisita in omnes voluntates eius III. Confessio et magnificentia opus eius et iustitia eius manet in 3 confessio et magnificentia opus saeculum saeculi. eius et iustitia eius manet in saeculum saeculi IV. Memoriam fecit mirabilium suorum, misericors et miserator 4 memoriam fecit mirabilium Dominus; escam dedit timentibus suorum misericors et miserator se. Dominus 5 escam dedit timentibus se V. Memor erit in saeculum testamenti sui. Virtutem operum memor erit in saeculum testamenti suorum annuntiabit populo suo, sui 6 virtutem operum suorum adnuntiabit populo suo VI. ut det illis haereditatem gentium. Opera manuum eius 7 ut det illis hereditatem gentium veritas et iudicium. opera manuum eius veritas et iudicium VII. Fidelia omnia mandata eius, confirmata in saeculum saeculi, 8 fidelia omnia mandata eius facta in veritate et aequitate. confirmata in saeculum saeculi facta in veritate et aequitate VIII. Redemptionem misit populo suo; mandavit in aeternum 9 redemptionem misit populo suo testamentum suum. mandavit in aeternum testamentum suum sanctum et terribile nomen IX. Sanctum et terribile nomen eius eius. Initium sapientiae timor

62 Domini. 10 initium sapientiae timor Domini

X. Intellectus bonum omnibus intellectus bonus omnibus facientibus eum. Laudatio eius facientibus eum laudatio eius manet manet in saeculum saeculi. in saeculum saeculi;

XI. Gloria patri et filio et spiritui [Doxology] sancto,

XII. sicut erat in principio et nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

63 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burney, Charles. An Eighteenth-Century Musical Tour in France and Italy: Being Dr. Charles Burney's Account of His Musical Experiences as It Appears in His Published Volume with Which Are Incorporated His Travel Experiences According to His Original Intention. Edited by Percy A. Scholes. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.

______. A General History of Music from the Earliest Ages to the Present Period. 1935; reprint, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1957.

______. The Letters of Dr. Charles Burney. Edited by Alvaro Ribeiro. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.

Callahan, Patricia J. “The Magnificats of Baldassare Galuppi,” Choral Journal 33, no. 5 (December 1992): 21-26.

Chiuminatto, Anthony L. “The Liturgical Works of Baldassare Galuppi.” Ph.D. diss, Northwestern University, 1959.

Coover, James. Music at Auction: Puttick and Simpson (of London), 1764-1971. Warren, Michigan: Harmonie Park Press, 1988.

Dunlop, Carolyn C. Dunlop. The Russian Court Chapel Choir 1796-1917. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 2000.

Fétis, François-Joseph. Biographie universelle des musiciens et bibliographie généralle de la musique. Paris: Firmin-Didot et cie., 1877-78.

Galuppiana 1985: Studi e ricerche: Atti del convegno internazionale (Venizia, 28- 30 ottobre 1985). Edited by Maria Teresa Muraro and Franco Rossi. Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1986.

Jackman, James L. “Galuppi, Baldassare.” In The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. Stanley Sadie, vol. 7: 134-138. London: Macmillan, 1980.

Kuzma, Marika C. Dmitrii Stepanovich Bortnianskii (1751-1825). Ph.D. diss., Indiana University, 1992.

Marpurg, Friedrich Wilhelm. Kritische Einleitung in die Geschichte und Lehrsätze der alten und neuen Musik. Berlin: G. A. Lange, 1759.

64 Monson, Dale E. “Galuppi, Baldassare.” In The New Grove Dictionary of Music Online, ed. L. Macy. (Accessed 28 May 2003). .

Mooser, Robert-Aloys. Annales de la Musique et des Musiciens en Russie au XVIIIme siècle. Geneva: Mont-Blanc, 1948-51.

Newman, William S. The Sonata in the Classic Era. 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1983.

Piovino, Francesco. “Baldassare Galuppi, note bio-bibliografiche,” Rivista Musicale Italiana 13 (1906): 676-726; 14 (1907): 333-65; 15: (1908) 233- 74.

Smith, William C. and Charles Humphries. A Bibliography of the Musical Works Published by the Firm of John Walsh during the Years 1721-1766. London: The Bibliographical Society, 1968.

Weiss, Piero. “Brusa, (Giovanni) Francesco [Gianfrancesco],” in The New Grove Dictionary of Music Online, ed. L. Macy. Accessed 15 January 2004. .

Wiesend, Reinhard. Studien zur Opera Seria von Baldassare Galuppi. Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 1984.

Wotquenne, Alfred. “Baldassare Galuppi (1706-1785): Étude bibliographique sur ses oeuvres dramatiques,” Rivista Musicale Italiana 6 (1899): 561-79.

65 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Keith Knop was born on 17 July 1979 in Decatur, Georgia. His musical training is as a pianist, and he has also studied double bass and viola da gamba. He graduated cum laude from Rhodes College in May, 2001, and is a member of Pi Kappa Lambda. He began graduate studies at the Florida State University in August, 2001.

66