Handel's Orientalist Operas the Royal Academy Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, xxxvi:3 (Winter, 2006), 419–443. HANDEL’S ORIENTALIST OPERAS Ellen T. Harris With Eyes on the East and Ears in the West: Handel’s Orientalist Operas The Royal Academy of Music, established in 1719 for the production of Italian opera on the London stage, operated as a full-ºedged business enterprise. Supported by venture capital and created on the model of a joint- stock company, the Academy was managed by a board of directors personally invested in the enterprise. Surprisingly, however, there has been no serious examination of the potential impact of the di- rectors’ ªnancial goals on their artistic management of the opera. Although the effect of individual directors is not easily dis- cernible, board inºuence in general might be revealed in an un- usual artistic feature of the Academy. Throughout the course of its existence (1719–1728), the Academy produced a large proportion of operas with librettos set in the Orient, particularly in its later years when it was suffering successive losing seasons. The direc- tors’ willingness to continue its support of the opera during this period may have been due to the Academy serving as a loss leader for their larger ªnancial investment goals and trade interests. Not only did opera itself, given the large number of ªrst-rate foreign artists attracted to work for it, provide putative value as an em- blem of England’s cultural supremacy in Europe, but also, more speciªcally, the directors’ personal connections to the East Indian trade—through investments, naval operations, or direct management—suggest that librettos with Eastern settings had value as lobbying or marketing tools to keep the image of the East in front of those who might assist them politically. This article argues that the unusual number of Oriental set- Ellen T. Harris is Professor of Music, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She is the author of Handel as Orpheus: Voice and Desire in the Chamber Cantatas (Cambridge, Mass., 2001); Handel and the Pastoral Tradition (New York, 1980). The author thanks Theodore Rabb and Lewis Lockwood for their invitation to partici- pate in the conference “Opera and Society,” Princeton University, March 25–28, 2004, and the Institute for Advanced Study, and the staff of its Humanities and Social Science Library, for the opportunity to think, research, and write across discipline boundaries. Thanks also is due to the Princeton University libraries. Harvard University and Queen’s University, Belfast, provided additional opportunities to present, discuss, and reªne this work. A special debt of gratitude is owed to Ruth Smith for her insights about, and criticisms of, multiple drafts of this article. © 2005 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Inc. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219506774929863 by guest on 25 September 2021 420 | ELLEN T. HARRIS tings in the Academy’s operas, especially from 1724 to 1728— Riccardo primo (1727) by George Frideric Handel being a prime example—was a direct result of the investment and mercantile in- terest of its directors. The evidence for this conclusion is fourfold: (1) the structure of the Royal Academy of Music and the interests of its directors; (2) the speciªc political crisis that ensued from the establishment of an Austrian company out of Ostend in 1722 that threatened direct competition with the English East India Com- pany; (3) contemporary London’s fascination with the East as a re- sult of its increasing international trade, as reºected in literary, dra- matic, and visual representations; and (4) the decision of the directors of the English East India Company to place art in the ser- vice of commerce by hiring visual artists and architects to create a public image for the company. the royal academy of music and its directors The idea for the Royal Academy of Music blossomed during the speculative fervor of 1718/19. International trade became the nexus for the threads of government and ªnance, after the almost total conver- sion of the national debt in 1717 to short-term issues, which were held and sold by the East India Company, the South Sea Com- pany, and the Bank of England. The Academy may well have been the ªrst cultural organization to be created on the same principle as these companies—that is, as a partnership or corporation in which individuals could invest in ownership shares with the antic- ipation of making a proªt. The subscribers and directors of the op- era were typically men of business, actively engaged in investment, government, and international trade, especially with the East In- dies. Although their aims were undoubtedly related to a love of opera, a ªnancial component must have been involved. The establishment of the Foundling Hospital in 1737, as de- scribed by Colley, presented a parallel situation, outside the con- text of art and culture. Although the “375 [hospital] governors ap- proved by George II...contained some very illustrious names... the majority were merchants”; many, like the founder Thomas Coram, a shipwright, were self-made. “From the outset, the char- ity [Foundling Hospital] was run in their commercial image. As a voluntary corporate body with its own directors and legal identity, it was modeled on London’s joint-stock companies, the ªrst time an organization of this kind had been extended to the work of Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219506774929863 by guest on 25 September 2021 HANDEL’S ORIENTALIST OPERAS | 421 philanthropy. The hospital’s avowed aim was mercantilist as well as humanitarian: to rescue young lives that would otherwise be wasted and render them useful to the state. Once grown, the girls were sent out as servants; the boys went to sea or worked in husbandry.”1 That the ªnancial interests of the directors have not been taken more seriously into account seems a signiªcant oversight. According to the “Proposall for carrying on Operas by a Com- pany and a Joynt Stock” (1719), the plan was for a capital base of £10,000, with the expectation that calls for money pledged would not exceed 20 percent of the subscribed capital and with the stated prospect of a 25 percent proªt. From a close analysis of the docu- ments, Milhous and Hume concluded that these ªnancial propos- als were “overoptimistic” and “naïve,” and they referred to the “amateurishness of the whole operation.” Gibson disagreed, add- ing “in any event, ªnancial considerations were not the primary motivation that led the patrons of the opera to become involved”; aesthetic and ethical considerations were. Having “spent a good deal of time abroad—either on the Grand Tour, in a diplomatic capacity, or on service during the Continental campaigns of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough . [,] [the investors] wanted to recreate in London the luxurious and prestigious art-form they had come to admire.” According to Gibson, one of their aims and successes was to choose librettos of a “highly serious nature,” “drawn from the classical and historical stock which was the staple diet of a gentleman’s education and...intended to illuminate how the great should behave.”2 Notwithstanding the partial truth of Gibson’s position, the evidence suggests that the directors made their decisions largely on the basis of ªnancial self-interest, whether or not realistic. Al- though the history of the directorship of the Royal Academy of Music is incomplete, ªve separate lists of directors survive: that from autumn of 1719, when the opera was still in the planning stages; spring of 1720, when the ªrst performances took place; the ªrst full season, 1720/21; and the years 1726/27 and 1727/28. In 1 Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation (New Haven, 1992), 59. 2 For a detailed discussion of the planning documents for the Academy, see Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, “New Light on Handel and The Royal Academy of Music in 1720,” Theatre Journal, XXXV (1983), 149–167. Elizabeth Gibson, The Royal Academy of Music: 1719– 1728 (New York, 1989), 17 (emphasis added), 285–286. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/002219506774929863 by guest on 25 September 2021 422 | ELLEN T. HARRIS her discussion of the Academy’s directors, Gibson focused on “what is known about their musical and operatic tastes,” and her capsule biographies of them emphasized the importance of the Grand Tour, their years abroad, and the dates of their signiªcant appointments. Retracing her steps through the standard biograph- ical sources that she consulted reveals what Gibson chose to omit.3 Although few, if any, of the directors were outright scoun- drels, few of them were simply selºess patrons of the arts. Many were not only heavily invested and involved in international trade but also risk takers or hoarders dedicated ªrst and foremost to the acquisition of wealth and power. Among other documented activ- ities, they gambled, spent money excessively, and engaged in illicit liaisons. The same ironic words written about Baron Richard Edgcumbe (director in 1727/28)—”Though he was corrupt with the political corruption of the age, Edgcumbe seems to have been in other respects a worthy person”—seem to apply just as well to other directors of the Academy. A few speciªc examples sufªce to illustrate the less savory side of the directors’ lives.4 William Keppel, Lord Albermarle (director 1726/27, 1727/ 28) was a known spendthrift who piled up debts and ran through vast amounts of money. Horace Walpole alleges that at the time of his marriage in 1723, Albermarle had £90,000 in investments and that his wife brought him £25,000 more, but that at his death, he left nothing for his creditors or his children.