Opera Production in Late Seventeenth-Century Modena: The Case of _L’ingresso alla gioventù di...

Opera Production in Late Seventeenth-Century Modena: The Case of L 'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone (1692)

Degree: Doctor of Philosophy

Paul Andrew Atkin StudentID: 100111008 Music Department Royal Holloway College University of London

Declaration

I, Paul Andrew Atkin (Student ID: 100111008), certify that the thesis hereby presented for the examination of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy is solely and entirely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated and referenced the work of others, and that the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified therein.

JL~ Paul Andrew Atkin March 2010

2

Abstract

L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone (music: Antonio Giannettini, libretto: Giambattista Neri) was commissioned by Duke Francesco II d'Este for the formal entrance of his bride, Princess Margherita Farnese, into Modena on 9 November 1692. Set against a tense political environment that centred around issues of succession and government, this lavish gala production represented a statement of propagandist display and conspicuous 'court' celebration given in the somewhat contradictory context of the 'public' Teatro Fontanelli before honoured guests and an 'upper'-class ticket-buying public. In 1685, Duke Francesco had effectively contracted out opera in Modena to this privately-run theatre. While L'ingresso appeared to represent the culmination of this strategy, its indulgent extravagance seemingly caused the huge loss on production. Opera under Francesco came to an abrupt end.

L'ingresso has since lain virtually untouched by musicologists; and while there have been a number of valuable studies into music under the duke (most noticeably with regard to oratorio, cantata, and instrumental music), there has been no in-depth study of opera. This thesis seeks to rectify this oversight by reporting upon opera production under Duke Francesco through a review of the Teatro Fontanelli archives, and a full reconstruction and audit of the L 'ingresso financial accounts. These not only offer an extraordinary insight into the administration and staging of L 'ingresso (and the cause of the loss suffered), but also identify the existence of a mutually beneficial policy that delivered opera for Francesco against a seemingly autonomous and potentially profitable Teatro Fontanelli through an accounting system which protected the impresario from his losses and liabilities on production. L 'ingresso thus presents a rare opportunity to document the mechanisms of opera patronage and production under Duke Francesco II d'Este, and to provide a valuable insight into the reality of provincial Italian opera towards the end of the seventeenth century.

3

Table of Contents

List of Tables List of Music Examples List of Accounts Examples and Extracts Map of Modena

Preface Abbreviations:

i. FOOTNOTES ii. GENERAL REFERENCE iii. MONETARY SYSTEMS AND EXCHANGE RATES iv. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES v. L 'INGRESSO ALLA GIOVENTU DI CLAUDIO NERONE, SOURCES vi. SIGLA: MODENA vii. SIGLA: OTHER LIBRARIES

Points of order and notes on transcriptions Acknowledgements

Chapters:

1. Princes and Polemics 2. Patronage and Production 3. A Gala Wedding Celebration 4. Ducal Display and Conspicuous Consumption 5. "Profit" and "Loss"

Appendices:

5

6 6 7

8

17

19

21

23

50 108

179

232

A. The Este (1598-1780) 311

B. Chronology of Operas Given in Modena (1653-1705) 312

C. List of Operas Given in Modena (1653-1705) 313 D. Operas Given at the Teatro Fontanelli (1685-1692) 317

E. Transcription and Translation of Libretto Dedication Serenissima Altezza 326 F. Transcription and Translation of Libretto Argomento allettore 329 G. L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone: Aria Structures 331 H. The L 'ingresso Accounts 334

Bibliography Printed Sources 397 Archival Sources 404

i. I-MOos MODENA, ARCHIVIO DI STATO ii. I-MOe MODENA, BIBLIOTECA ESTENSE UNIVERSITARIA

4

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Ducal patronage of opera in Modena (1653-1705) 65

Table 2.2: Comparison of performance dates at the Teatro Fontanelli 85

Table 2.3: Days of performance at the Teatro Fontanelli 86

Table 2.4: II figlio delle selve (1700): Profit and Loss Account (summary) 93

Table 2.5: Comparison of revenue streams for Flavio Cuniberto (1688) and 101 L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone (1692)

Table 3.1: Oratorios supporting the Este cause 116

Table 3.2: Schedule of'interlocutori' for L'ingresso 133

Table 3.3: Appearances of singers at the Teatro Fontanelli (1685-1691) 136

Table 4.1: Comparison of costs on Flavio, L ';ngresso and II figlio 185

Table 4.2: Comparison of declared 'direct running costs' per night of Flavio, 189 L 'ingresso and II figlio

Table 4.3: Comparison of singers' 'regali' in Flavio and L'ingresso 217

Table 5.1: Revenue streams from 'public' sources for Flavio and L 'ingresso 238

Table 5.2: Flavio and L ';ngresso: ticket sales per night 239

Table 5.3: Comparison of ticket sales against attendance at opera for Flavio 241 and L'ingresso

Table 5.4: Projected receipts from box rental and sale of bollettini at the 248 Teatro Fontanelli, as per Gandini in comparison to L'ingresso

Table 5.5: Comparison of declared revenue streams from 'public' sources 256 for Flavio, L ';ngresso and llfiglio

Table 5.6: Shortfall on ticket sales for L 'ingresso 258

Table 5.7: Flavio Cuniberto (1688): Profit and Loss Account 263

Table 5.8: Flavio Cuniberto (1688): jottings computing 'loss' on production 265

5

List of Music Examples

All music examples are taken from L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone (Teatro Fontanelli, 1692), I-MOe Mus. F. 499. Each example details the characterls and song title, followed (in parenthesis) by act, scene, and song numbers, with score page and bar numbers cited.

Ex.3.1: Curtio I Illisa. '0 sospirato nodo, 0 dolci amori.' 155 (III.xiii.35. p. 525. bars 60-63)

Ex. 3.2: Claudio I Tigellino. 'Oiscendete astri dell'etera.' 157 (lII.xiii.39. pp. 530-31, bars 102-112)

Ex. 3.3: Tigellino. 'Ecco il sol dell'alta Roma.' 157 (I.i.1. p. 11, bars 1-4)

Ex. 3.4: Claudio I Tigellino. 'Oiscendete astri dell'etera.' 158 (1II.xiii.39. p. 537, bars 197-9)

Ex. 3.5: Aspasio. 'In forma di nave.' 161 (lI.vii.28. p. 249, bars 63-6)

List of Accounts Examples and Extracts

All accounts examples are taken as extracts from the L'ingresso accounts (,Conto della spesa, e cavato fatto per il Oramma intitolato L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone'): I-MOe y,V.4.10.8. A full transcription and translation of the L'ingresso accounts (together with facsimile) is given in Appendix H. Extracts from the final loan reconciliation are taken from the loose documents (LO) held at the rear of the accounts, but under the same reference. Please note that the set-up of the accounts means that most examples are self-titled. Specific headings have been added only where identification is required.

Ex.4.1: Scenery operators during performances (f. 12r) 194

Ex. 4.2: For the printing of the libretto (f. 20r) 201

Ex. 4.3: Extras (f. 13r) 203

Ex. 4.4: Cost of costumes (ff. 3v-4r) 208

Ex. 4.5: List of costumes consigned to Princess Margherita, 1694 (LO) 211

Ex. 4.6: Singers (ff. 15r-15v) 215

Ex. 4.7: Payment to Francesco Oe Grandis, 1694 (f. 14v) 216

Ex. 4.8: Orchestra (f. 14r) 223

Ex. 5.1: Profit and Loss Account: end summary, 1692 (f. 20v) 236

Ex. 5.2: Fontanelli's proposal for the loan settlement, 1694 (LD) 279

Ex. 5.3: End summary and post-production amendments, c.1694-1698 (ff. 20v-21r) 285

Ex. 5.4: Final settlement and loan reconciliation, 1698 (LO) 287

Ex. 5.5: Payments by Cassiere Roncaglia, 1694 (LD) 289

6

Map of Modena

Map of Modena showing the seventeenth-century locations of:

I Chiesa di S. Agostino 2 Chiesa del Crocefisso 3 Oratorio di SS. Annunciata 4 Chiesa dei Terziari di S. Domenico 5 Chiesa del Voto 6 Duomo di S. Geminiano 7 Chiesa del Paradiso 8 Chiesa di S. Bartolomeo 9 Chiesa di S. Giorgio

10 Palazzo Ducale II Teatro Fontanelli

Source: after Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, p. xi .

12 Chiesa di S. Carlo Borromeo 13 Collegio di S. Carlo (dei Nobili) 14 Convento Salesiano 15 Oratorio di S. Carlo rotondo 16 Monastero dei Teatini 17 Chiesa di S. Vincenzo 18 Chiesa di S. Giovanni del Cantone 19 Chiesa di S. Biagio 20 Con vento delle Cannelitane Scalze 21 Teatro Ducale di Piazza 22 Teatro di Corte

The above map is reproduced by the kind permiss ion of Oxford University Press. I have then added 'Via Farini' and entries 21-22: Martinelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', pp. 139, 142.

7

Paul Atkin, Preface

Preface

It is well known that opera emerged in Florence in the 1590s and then spread through

the courts and public theatres of Italy during the seventeenth century. We also know

increasingly more about the mechanisms of production and dissemination of both

'court' and 'public' opera in this period. But while much work has been done on major

cities such as Venice, Rome and Naples, less attention has been paid to what may be

termed as the 'secondary' centres of opera towards the end of the seventeenth century.

Thus the identification in the relatively provincial city of Modena of a full and richly

detailed accounts ledger for the production of L'ingresso alla gioventu di Claudio

Nerone (Teatro Fontanelli, 9-29 November 1692), together with a collection of loose

documents which detail the complicated agreements reached in the aftermath of the

death of the opera's patron, Duke Francesco II d'Este, offers a rare and unprecedented

opportunity for an extended investigation not only into the staging of one particular

opera, but also into the duke's much overlooked reign (1674-94), his patronage of

opera, and the genre's function as propagandist tool in the service of His Most Serene

Highness.

The extent to which Duke Francesco can now be seen as one of Italy's most

generous and enthusiastic patrons of music can be quantified by what remains of his

music library held today at the Biblioteca Estense Universitaria in Modena (I-MOe). As

well as being home to the opera's accounts, the library contains an invaluable collection

of manuscript scores and printed librettos, including those of L 'ingresso. Where studies

have specific links to the Este family, then the Archivio di Stato in Modena (I-MOas) is

of equal importance covering every aspect of their illustrious reign. Here, the Teatro

Fontanelli archive reveals a limited but rich source of data relating to the administration

of opera in Modena and to the accounting strategies employed under Francesco that

8

Paul Atkin, Preface

provide context and comparison by which to investigate both L 'ingresso and broader

issues concerning opera production under the duke's patronage at this time.

Yet despite Francesco's legacy as a great patron of the arts, and music In

particular, his polemical reign has until recently been substantially overlooked by

Modenese historians, often out of embarrassment, and often out of disapproval at its

indulgence. The primary cause for such unease was Francesco's usurping of his mother

(Duchess Laura Martinozzi, then regent) in 1674, when, on his fourteenth birthday, the

young duke had used his political coming-of-age to secure his right to rule in his own

name. Francesco had been encouraged to secure power by his confidant and cousin

Prince Cesare Ignazio d'Este (aged twenty-one), on whom he doted. Shortly after,

Francesco duly installed his cousin at the head of his new government and, thereafter,

their intimate relationship became the source of much of the later polemics of the duke's

reign as, unrestrained and uninhibited, the princes ruled effectively in unison. By 1690,

having long resisted marriage for Francesco, the pair yielded reluctantly as part of a

complex settlement which protected the long-term fortune of Cesare Ignazio as the price

for securing the succession of an already gravely ill Francesco by either a natural-born

male heir or the imposition on the duke's death of his uncle, the then Cardinal Rinaldo

d'Este.

On 14 July 1692 Francesco married Princess Margherita Farnese by proxy in

Parma. Two weeks later he commissioned L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone

(with music by Antonio Giannettini, maestro of the ducal cappella, and libretto by the

Bolognese poet Giambattista Neri) for the formal entrance of his bride into Modena on

9 November. With Cesare's political aspirations now limited to the lifespan of

Francesco, Margherita represented the first woman to enter government since Laura had

been overthrown. A political statement was needed to warn her to mind her place in

9

Paul Atkin, Preface

court and not to challenge the union of the two princes. L 'ingresso appears to have been

the perfect tool by which to deliver that message.

It is in this tense political environment that we come to address this lavish gala

production as a statement of power and of propagandist display through conspicuous

'court' celebration in the somewhat contradictory context of the 'public' Teatro

Fontanelli before honoured guests and an 'upper' -class ticket-buying public. In 1685,

Duke Francesco had effectively contracted out opera in Modena. having coerced the

Marquis Decio Fontanelli first to buy this seemingly autonomous and privately-run

theatre, and then to act as his and its impresario. While L 'ingresso appeared to represent

the culmination of this strategy. its indulgent extravagance has long since been held

responsible for the cause of opera under Francesco coming to an abrupt end. No further

opera was given in Modena before Francesco died in 1694.

It is surprising, given both the historical worth of L ';ngresso and the wealth of

sources on it, that the production has since remained virtually unexamined by historians

and musicologists for over three hundred years. This thesis seeks to rectify this

oversight first by addressing the duke's patronage of opera before then undertaking a

full audit and reconstruction of the L'ingresso accounts. The audit will extend to the

subsequent reconciliation of the opera's loss against advances given to the theatre's

owner and impresario with the consequent aim of being finally able to offer an

introductory report upon opera production under Duke Francesco.

The archives and related documents not only offer an extraordinary insight into

the administration and staging of L 'ingresso (and the cause of the huge loss suffered on

production), but also identify the existence of a mutually beneficial policy that delivered

opera for Francesco against a seemingly autonomous and potentially profitable Teatro

Fontanelli through an accounting system which protected the impresario from his losses

and liabilities. Indeed. it is the process by which this system is manipUlated post-

10

Paul Atkin, Preface

production, specifically to arrive at a desired settlement, that not only provides an

insight into the complex mechanisms employed in Modena at this time, but which, in

turn, now also raises similar questions for our wider reading of provincial Italian opera

towards the end of the seventeenth century.

To date, Modenese historians have devoted relatively little attention to

Francesco's reign. All histories appear to originate from three eighteenth-century

sources: Maoro [sic] Lazarelli's InJormazione dell'Archivio del Monistero di San Pietro

di Modena, 5 (1710-12), Ludovico Muratori's Delle antichita estensi, 2 (1740), and

Annali d'Italia dal principio del/'era volgare sino all'anno 1749, 11: Dal/'anno 1601

del/'era volgare fino all'anno 1700 (1749), and Girolamo Tiraboschi's Biblioteca

Modenese 0 Notizie della vita delle opere degli scrittori natii degli stati del Serenissimo

Signor Duca di Modena (1781). The principal later studies are Giacomo Beltrami's '11

ducato di Modena tra Francia e Austria (Francesco II d'Este, 1674-1694), (1957),

Luciano Chiappini's Gli Estensi (1967), and Mauro Bini's (ed.) Gli Estensi, 2: La corte

di Modena (1999), within which chapters by Emesto Milano ('Gli Estensi: La corte di

Modena'), Roberta lotti ('La politica dell'amore, 2'), and Alessandra Chiarelli ('Fonti e

vita musicale estense tra corte, collezionismo e accademie. Raccolta bibliografica e

tradizione inventariale') shed some much needed light on Francesco II's reign and love

of music.

While Lazarelli appears to have been a source for Muratori, the latter has

become undoubtedly the single most important Modenese archivist, with Lazarelli being

somewhat overlooked as a consequence. Muratori's insights into the reign of Francesco

II have, therefore, become the standard which subsequent historians have followed. In

this light I have generally sought to refer first to Muratori and then Lazarelli as my

primary sources. While all subsequent histories of Francesco's reign are primarily

drawn from Muratori, they tend not to be so generous to the duke, and in the main they

11

Paul Atkin, Preface

attack him for both his failure as a statesman and his weak judgement in falling under

the influence of Cesare Ignazio and allowing him in effect to govern Modena. All blame

Cesare Ignazio as the primary culprit of the perceived shambolic rule, most especially

with regard the issue of the overthrow of the duke's mother in 1674. More recently, the

contributions from Milano, Chiarelli, and Iotti and have offered a greater and wider

understanding of the period. Milano's valuable account gives much needed insight into

the critical events that so blighted Francesco's reign, while lotti's chapter challenges

accepted perspectives, not least i~ terms of Francesco's right to claim the throne at

fourteen.

Politics aside, the lack of research on the cultural achievements of Duke

Francesco II d'Este is quite remarkable, given the wealth of sources held by the

Modenese archives. The obvious exceptions are Victor Crowther's The Oratorio in

Modena and 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse: The Management of the Ducal

Cappella in Modena in the Reign of Francesco II d'Este', which represent the only

attempt to document the duke's patronage of oratorio and his management of the ducal

cappella. Crowther's identification of some of the ground-rules in respect of the

financial management of the cappella has proven an invaluable platform for my own

investigation into the administration of opera. Thereafter, Owen lander's 'The Cantata

in Accademia: Music for the Accademia de' Dissonanti and their Duke, Francesco II

d'Este' (1975) and Alessandra Chiarelli's aforementioned 'Fonti e vita musicale

estense' have addressed the duke's use of the cantata through the Accademia de'

Dissonanti. Other important works, such as William Klenz's on Giovanni Maria

Bononcini and Carolyn Gianturco's on Alessandro Stradella, have also shed much

needed light on music for smaller ensembles that depict musical life in Modena at this

time.

12

Paul Atkin, Preface

Above all, however, it is almost solely down to the conscientious efforts of

Alessandra Chiarelli that we are only now becoming aware of the sheer mass of musical

output during Francesco II's rule. As a consequence, the real value of his reign is finally

being properly assessed. Chiarelli's work has also extended to an important pulling

together, and building upon, of earlier histories and catalogues by Alessandro Gandini

(1873), Vincenzo Tardini (1902), and Pio Lodi (1926), in her documentation of all

music held at the Biblioteca Estense (l eodici di musica della raeeolta Estense), which

has become an invaluable tool for any scholar seeking an insight into the library'S

collections.

Gandini and Tardini's role in documenting all operas staged in Modena under

Francesco should not be undervalued. Together with Sartori's I libretti italiani (1990-

94), they have provided the backbone of my initial documentation of precisely which

operas were staged during the duke's reign. Their work has been more recently updated

and expanded by Giuseppe Gherpelli's L 'opera nei teatri di Modena (1998), which

provides a welcome overview of opera throughout Modena's history, though it touches

only briefly on the Teatro Fontanelli and Duke Francesco II's reign. In contrast,

Gandini's deeper analysis of the potential sources of income extraneous to ticket sales

and box rentals has been critical in getting to grips with the financing and underwriting

of opera at this time. However, there are in essence only four works that touch on the

subject of L 'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone other than in passing reference.

There is no previous study that focuses on L'ingresso alone and absolutely no analysis

undertaken of either its text or its music, even by way of a minimal examination. The

most significant, and most authoritative, contribution to date is Lorenzo Bianconi and

Thomas Walker's brief reference to the L'ingresso accounts in their well-known

'Production, Consumption and Political Function of Seventeenth-Century Opera'

(1984). But even here, their consideration of the work (covering less than two pages) is

13

Paul Atkin, Preface

no more than a small item in the Appendix of their main article, and consequently it is

unable to address the primary issues that emerge from a more in-depth study.

The earliest recorded scholar to visit L 'ingresso is Giovanni Ferrari Moreni, who

published a brief article on the accounts in 1852. As Bianconi and Walker note with

some justification, this amounts to 'a not very reliable summary' of the production. The

only volume solely dedicated to Antonio Giannettini (1648-1721) as a composer is by

Elisabetta Luin (1931), though she, too, touches only briefly on the L 'ingresso. As

much as Luin should be applauded as the sole biographer of Giannettini (for whom an

up-to-date life and works study is long overdue), her comments in respect of the staging

of L'ingresso contain a number of inaccuracies to the extent that it, too, must be

considered unreliable. In addition to assuming the loss to be a commentary on the opera,

she wrongly notes its premiere as 9 September 1692, as opposed November; she also

she misreads the accounts, citing the sum detailing total income received as being for

the cost of the first night, and the sum of the total expenses for the production as being

the cost of the remaining eleven performances. Finally, her reading of the score as

Giannettini's autograph has since been updated by Chiarelli who identifies it as being in

the hand of the copyist Giovanni Braida.

Graziella Martinelli Braglia's valuable 'Il Teatro Fontanelli: Note su impresari e

artisti nella Modena di Francesco II e Rinaldo I' (1984) is the only work which has

endeavoured to pursue sources beyond the L'ingresso accounts. Her essay remains the

sole account of opera production at the Fontanelli theatre and a source of various leads

in the Modenese archives. She also gives a brief account of the loss on L'ingresso,

though again without going beyond a mere overview. Jennifer Williams Brown's

excellent survey of aria-borrowing in "Con nuove arie aggiunte ": Aria Borrowing in

the Venetian Opera Repertory, 1672-1685 (1992) and 'On the Road with the "Suitcase

Aria": The Transmission of Borrowed Arias in Late Seventeenth-Century Italian Opera

14

Paul Atkin, Preface

Revivals' (1995) gives some useful insights into the more practical issues of opera

production in and around Modena, but again offers little on L 'ingresso itself. The fact

remains that to date there has been no detailed and extended survey of opera production

under Duke Francesco II and specifically with regard the Teatro Fontanelli (although

Jennifer Williams Brown has announced her intention to undertake such an

investigation in the future).

The present case-study of L 'ingresso is a first step towards addressing this lack

of research. Ideally, it would have gone beyond a careful examination of the documents

pertaining to the opera to a full analysis of the score and libretto. Certainly I intend to

produce an edition of the full score at a future date. However, the necessity of mapping

the realities of opera production in Modena at this time has meant that such pleasures

have to be left for another day. Moreover, as this thesis in effect offers the first

overview of dramma per musica in Modena under the reign of the Este, and of

Francesco II, there has been a more pressing need to establish its place in Modenese

history and to identify the mechanisms of production. To this end, it is important note

that my case-study is limited to Modena (the capital), and does not extend to the duchy

as a whole, and to Reggio Emilia in particular. Here, a different political dynamic was at

play, which has been well documented primarily by two works: Paolo Fabbri, 'II

municipio e la corte: II teatro per musica tra Reggio e Modena nel secondo Seicento'

(1984), and, Paolo Fabbri and Roberto Verti, Due secoli di teatro per musica a Reggio

Emilia: Repertorio cronologico delle opere e dei bal/i 1645-1857 (1987). Likewise,

similar issues of volume have restricted me from developing the thesis towards more

modern concepts of 'soundscape' and 'urban musicology' as addressed by Peter Burke,

among others. I have, instead, been encouraged towards my goal by the recent

publication of Beth and Jonathan Glixon's ground-breaking and comprehensive insight

into the business of opera in Venice: Inventing the Business of Opera: The Impresario

15

Paul Atkin, Preface

and His World in Seventeenth-Century Venice (2006). The work has achieved an insight

into opera production in Venice that I can only wish to emulate in Modena.

To this end, I am hopeful that my experience of some twenty-three years as a

practising accountant, specialising in small businesses, sole-traders and partnerships,

and, particularly, in incomplete records, may have given me some advantage in

addressing the exceptionally complicated procedures employed in the final

reconciliation of Fontanelli's liabilities. For all their detail, the L'ingresso accounts

remain (from an accounting perspective) an incomplete set of records, by which I mean

they are not confined or governed by the existence of either a system of double entry or

an audit trail that regulates and records the movement of the accounting data they

document. As such, it is essential in any study of their contents to remember that this

fact alone allowed their accountant to manipulate and direct the data recorded to

whichever goal or objective he was charged with securing. This is, indeed, what

ultimately happened and is what makes the accounts so intriguing.

The wide range of sources pertinent to L'ingresso consequently affords the

potential for a comprehensive interdisciplinary examination of all aspects of Modenese

opera under Duke Francesco II d'Este from its production, staging, consumption,

administration, accounting, and function. Central to securing this objective has been the

undertaking of the first full and thorough audit of the L'ingresso accounts ledger, its

Profit and Loss Account and the statements that secured the reconciliation of

Fontanelli's liabilities when he ceased to promote opera. Furthermore, these same

accounts and archives have permitted an almost complete reconstruction of the opera's

staging, including the costumes. Finally, I have used these insights, and my study of the

work itself, to draw some important broad conclusions about the content of this opera in

particular, and the purpose of Modenese opera in general, in terms of their political

environments.

16

Abbreviations

L FOOTNOTES:

NG

NGO

ii. GENERAL REFERENCE:

1. c. lib. ms. [?]

Paul Atkin. Preface

Footnotes are given in short fonn with full title given in the Bibliography.

Sadie, Stanley and Tyrrell, John (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 29 vols. (2nd

. edn., London, Macmillan, 200 I). Sadie, Stanley and Bashford, Christina (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, 4 vols. (London, Macmillan, 1992, reprinted 1997).

Librettist. Composer. Libretto. Manuscript. seemingly so, but unconfIrmed.

iiL MONETARY SYSTEMS AND EXCHANGE RATES:

MI VI £ s. d. Dobbla/e and Doppia/e

Scudoli

Zecchinoli

iv. WEIGHTS AND MEASURES:

B.o/a

lb. oz.

I Gandini, Cronistoria, 1. p. 69.

Modenese lira/e. Principal monetary unit for daily life in Modena. Venetian lira/e. In the 1692 accounts, I VI = 1.35 MI. Modenese /ira/e (unless otherwise specifIed): only used in the accounts. Modenese soldol; = 20 sold; to 1 MI. Modenese denaroli = 12 denar; to 1 soldo. Interchangeable expressions of the same currency of doubloon/s. The dobbla, or doppia, was the primary coin for the payment of musicians and singers, and for court transactions such as advances to the impresario. Three different exchange rates (to 1 doubloon) are given in the accounts, two of which are applied to one opera: 33 MI (income) and 36 MI (expenditure) for Flavio Cuniberto (1688), and 38 MI for the L'ingresso accounts, through to the review and fInal reconciliation (therefore, 1692-98). In 1705,300 scudi were roughly equal to 1600 MI (at c.S.33 MI), which (at 38 MI) would equate 1 dobbla/doppia to c.7.13 scudi.' The scudo is used to document the sale of the Teatro Fontanelli and rent earned from the earlier Teatro Valentini. Although a common currency at this time, there is no reference to this currency in any Modenese archive consulted. The use of the £ sign (Le., 'L' for lire) directly on a straight line that extends from the respective journal entry to identity the monetary value of the transaction within the L'ingresso can give the false impression of being a 'Z' for zecchino. However, the accounting data clearly confinns these entries to be in Ml.

iI bracciolle braccia = unit of measurement (literally an arm's length; a yard). la Iibbra/le Iibbre = unit of weight (a pound). I'oncia/le once = unit of weight (an ounce, 12 oz. to lib.).

17

Paul Atkin, Preface

v. L 'INGRESSO ALLA GJOVENTU DI CLA VDJO NERONE, SOURCES:

L'ingresso, accounts

L'ingresso, accounts: LD

L'ingresso, libretto

L'ingresso, dedication

L'ingresso, argument

L'ingresso, score

L'ingresso, Rvat arias

vi. SIGLA: MODENA

I-MOos I-MOasA I-MOasCS I-MOasMM

I-MOas SP I-MOasR I-Mae

I-MO Poletti

vii. SIGLA: OTHER LIBRARIES

B-Be D-Bds F-Pn GB-Lbl 1-Be Bu Fm Fn FZe Lg Mb Mcom Ne PAe Re Rli Rn Rvat REPanizzi Ve Vge Vnm US-We US-Ws

The L 'ingresso accounts ledger and Profit and Loss Account: 'Conto della spesa, e cavato fatto per i1 dramma intitolato L'ingresso aI/a giovenlu di Claudio Nerone'. I-Mae ,,(,VA. 1 0.8. Loose documents held at the rear of the L'ingresso accounts: 'Conto della spesa'.I-MOe ,,(,VA. 10.8. The libretto for L'ingresso by Giambattista Neri I-Mae LXX.G.6. Full listing given in Appendix C. Six identical versions of the libretto are also held at: I-Be, Fm, FZe, Rn, RE Panizzi. The L'ingresso dedication: 'Serenissima Altezza' by Decio Fontanelli, I-Mae LXX.G.6. The L'ingresso argument: 'Argomento al Lettore' by Giambattista Neri (unsigned), I-Mae LXX.G.6. The L'ingresso manuscript as composed by Antonio Giannettini (and copied by Giovanni Braida), I-Mae Mus. F. 499. Collection often arias from L'ingresso are contained within a song-book of 40 arias (of which 39 are listed), I-Rvat Barb.lat. 4206 (Antonio Zannettini [Giannettini), 'Arie diverse di una commedia fatta per Modena. Novembre 1692'), ff. 29-38.

Modena, Archivio di Stato. MOos ASE (Archivio Segreto Estense), 'Accademia'. MOas ASE, 'Casa e Stato'. MOas ASE, APM (Archivi per materie), 'Musica e musicisti compositori sec. XV-XVIII'. MOos ASE, APM, 'Spettacoli pubblici'. MOas Camera Ducale, 'Registri di bolletta de' salariati'. Modena, Biblioteca Estense Universitaria (the library's new title in contrast to RISM's 'Biblioteca Estense e Universitaria'). MO, Biblioteca Comunale Poletti.

Belgium: Brussels, Conservatoire Royal de Musique, Bibliotheque. Germany: Berlin, Deutsche Staatsbibliothek. France: Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale. Great Britain: London, British Library. Italy: Bologna, Civico Museo Bibliografico Musicale. Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria. Florence, Biblioteca Marucelliana. Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale. Faenza, Biblioteca Comunale. Lucca, Biblioteca Statale. Milan, Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense. Milan, Biblioteca Comunale. Naples, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica S. Pietro a Majella. Parma, Biblioteca Palatina. Sezione Musicale in Conservatorio di Musica. Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense. Rome, Biblioteca dell' Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei e Corsiniana. Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale. Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Reggio Emilia, Biblioteca Municipale Panizzi. Venice, Biblioteca del Conservatorio di Musica Benedetto Marcello. Venice, Fondazione Giorgio Cini. Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana. United States of America: Washington D.C., Library of Congress. United States of America: Washington D.C., Folger Shakespeare Library.

18

Paul Atkin. Preface

Points of order and notes on transcriptions

Throughout this thesis, I refer to the historical person, Nero Claudius Caesar (AD 37-

68) as Nero, but to his character within the opera as either Claudio or Nerone, or both.

Attention should be taken not to confuse Nero with references to Neri, the opera's

librettist (Giambattista Neri). Although there has been much debate on the correct

understanding of the Italian term dramma per musica, this study does not need to enter

that argument. L'ingresso describes itself precisely in this way, and I draw no

distinction or inference from my use of the word 'opera' as meaning anything different.

Where I reference musical pitches, these are indicated according to the 'Helmholtz'

system whereby c' equals 'middle C'. Also, I refer to the final computation of the loss

on L 'ingresso as being prepared within a Profit and Loss Account. Given that one might

argue that the Teatro Fontanelli was ultimately a not-for-profit organisation operating

primarily to provide a service ahead of its ability to make a profit or incur a loss, some

accountants might correctly argue that it would be more appropriate to refer to this

record as an Income and Expenditure Account, identifying a surplus or deficit. While I

acknowledge the validity of this point, I do not believe the distinction significant within

the remit of this analysis. The facts that the Teatro Fontanelli was established under

private ownership (incurring a loss on the purchase and sale of the theatre) adopting the

same risk-based business model as its predecessor, and that its impresario did indeed

make efforts to secure a profit and avoid a loss, suggest that a Profit and Loss Account

remains the most appropriate term of reference.

Important documents such as the L 'ingresso dedication and ' Argomento'

(Appendices E and F), and the L'ingresso Accounts (Appendix H), have been

transcribed in their original Italian and translated into English. Otherwise, all

transcriptions and citations, which occur in the main body of the thesis, are given in

19

Paul Atkin, Preface

their original language without translation. Extracts from the accounts and libretto have,

however, generally been given in English except where the particular significance of the

Italian wording (as occurs in Chapter 3) is an important issue. All Italian text has been

reproduced as per the original source in an effort to maintain a sense of the time and

flavour of the period, so that practices such as 'ij', variations in capitalisation (except in

poetic text), punctuation, use of accents and so on, which occur naturally, are left

unaltered; however, where appropriate, changes to both punctuation and spelling have

been made to aid clarity, and original inconsistencies (such as in the use of 'u' and 'v'

etc.,) have been standardised; abbreviations have been extended and identified by the

use of italics within roman font, or roman within italics, in line with normal practice.

Where appropriate, I have identified seemingly deviant spellings with [sic].

All names referring to characters, individuals and institutions are given in their

original language and have not been anglicised. Foreign towns and countries appear in

English in the main body of work, but keep to their original language in transcriptions

and citations. I have also sought to apply consistent spelling to names of the principal

protagonists and other similar references. Where there has been need for

standardisation, I have relied upon NG and NGO, and thereafter on Crowther, The

Oratorio in Modena. Therefore, I have maintained the spelling Antonio Giannettini,

even though his name is often spelt as Gianettini, Zanettini, or Zannettini. Likewise, I

refer to the librettist as Giambattista Neri as per NGO, and not as Giovanni Battista. All

operas cited are given in their full title when first listed, but thereafter are frequently

given in short form, so that Flavio Cuniberto becomes Flavio. The same applies to their

listing and dating within table headings. Full archival references for all operas cited are

given in Appendix C, but oratorios are cited fully in the footnotes as they occur.

20

Paul Atkin, Preface

Acknowledgements

On a technical note, lowe a great debt to Stefano Patuzzi for his proof reading

of all the transcriptions presented here, and in particular for his identification,

clarification, and advice on the many passages of Italian text that were not always clear

to see, read or interpret. I must also thank Ben Kennedy for his knowledge and

assistance in engraving the L'ingresso music examples.

I also thank the Italian Consulate in Belgravia for its initial award which allowed

me to travel to Modena and identify my subject from the outset. Thereafter, I am

grateful to all of my staff (both past and present) at Brian Alfred Associates Ltd for their

unending dedication and sheer hard work which has allowed me to finish this thesis. I

am especially grateful to my Finance Director, Dina Janmohamed, and my management

team of Liesle van Eeden and Alena Dahoo. I also thank my friends in Italy (Andrea

Del Vecchio, Pietro Triolo and Alessandro Battistin) for their support, hospitality and

taxi services. In Modena, I remain extremely grateful to my friends and colleagues at

the Biblioteca Estense and Archivio di Stato for their unequivocal devotion to their

archives and for helping me bring this story to its completion. In particular, I am

grateful to the Biblioteca Estense for its permission to reproduce a facsimile of the

L'ingresso accounts in Appendix H ('Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e Ie

Attivita Culturali'). I would also like to thank both Victor Crowther and Lorenzo

Bianconi for their guidance and insight into Modena and its music at the very outset,

and especially Alessandra Chiarelli for her constant support and wealth of insight on

Modenese opera production (and specifically L'ingresso) which enabled me to plumb

depths of understanding of which I would otherwise have been unaware. I also send a

heartfelt thank you to the esteemed Lowell Lindgren whose belief in me and enthusiasm

for this project kept me going over all these years. Similarly, this thesis would never

21

Paul Atkin, Preface

have reached its conclusion without the help and support of Julian Johnson, Stephen

Rose and Henry Stobart at Royal Holloway. However, above all, lowe my biggest debt

of gratitude to Professor Tim Carter on too many different levels to list here. Suffice, I

hope, to note that I do not believe any supervisor could have been more patient and

understanding of a mature student with a separate business career in hand. Such

benevolence went far beyond any duty of care that I could possibly have had a right to

expect or claim. But, far beyond that, his seemingly endless knowledge of so many

different subjects within so many fields is simply baffling. There is no question that the

project would not have reached its final conclusion without his remarkable insight.

Thank you does not seem sufficient, but it is recorded with the utmost sincerity.

Finally, and on an extremely personal note, I must thank my beautiful wife,

Viivika, and my two darling daughters, Helena and Emily, who were not born when this

project started. On a professional level, Viivika's help with translations and with the

reading of various drafts has simply been priceless and her comments indispensable.

But, more than anything, I must apologise from the bottom of my heart for time lost as a

husband and father. It is a debt which I shall happily spend the rest of my life repaying

and it is for your immeasurable sacrifice, given always without any regard for self-

interest or personal needs, that leaves me dedicating this effort to you all. You have

quite simply taught me the meaning and value of selfless, unremitting love: '831'.

Paul Atkin Royal Holloway March 2010

22

Paul Atkin, Chapter 1

Chapter 1.

Princes and Polemics

La verita nondimeno si e, che piil trattati si fecero in vari tempi per dare una consorte ad esso Duca [Francesco], rna che i medesimi ancora rimasero imperfetti per la prepotente e poco giudiziosa politica del Principe Cesare [Ignazio], i1 quale spaventava sempre, che i1 grado confidente di una moglie avesse da ecclissare la confidenza ed autorita, di cui egli godeva presso i1 duca. Ma veggendo egli [Cesare Ignazio] in fine, che sempre piil dec1inava la sanita del Duca medesimo, e che se questi fosse mancato senza successione maschile, andava parimente per terra tutta la macchina della sua fortuna: allora, rna troppo tardi, consenti che si trattasse e conchiudesse i1 maritaggio d'esso Duca Francesco con Margherita Farnese, figliuola di Ranuccio II [Duke of Parma]. 1

History, or so it seems, is often shaped by intriguing coincidences that mark the events

they capture and so provide fortuitous points of departure and arrival that neatly help to

illuminate the topic we seek to investigate. The reign of Duke Francesco II d'Este is one

such example, framed as it is by two formal entrances into Modena that in one way or

another centred on the issue of succession and so threatened significant changes to the

balance of power within the duchy. One entrance delivered power to Francesco's

government, the other failed to hold on to it; and while the latter is where the present

story is ultimately concentrated (L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone was, after

all, commissioned by Francesco as the culmination of the day's festivities

commemorating the formal entrance of his new bride, Princess Margherita Farnese, into

Modena on 9 November 1692), the former (on 5 March 1674) saw the duke's mother,

Duchess Laura Martinozzi, being overthrown as regent and announced the beginning of

Francesco's reign.

The premature death of Francesco's father (Alfonso IV) in 1662-while the

young prince was just two years old-had meant that his mother had governed as regent

I Muratori, Delle antichila eSlensi, 2, p. 600.

23


on her son's behalf while he remained a minor. All was to change when in October

1673 political necessity required Laura to leave Modena for London, where she

delivered the hand of her daughter Maria Beatrice d'Este (Mary of Modena) as the new

bride of James Stuart, the future King of England.2 From Laura's perspective, the timing

could not have been worse, as Francesco's impending fourteenth birthday on 6 March

1674 would not only mark his arrival at the legal age of political maturity in Modena,

but also deliver to him the right to claim the throne in his own name. Surely aware of

the political danger, Laura had timed her return for the day before the duke's birthday,

precisely so that she could pick up the reigns of government before her son was legally

able to do so; but, Laura had misjudged the situation and all was too late - her absence

had allowed a political momentum to build and the duke's claim to rule was

incontrovertible.

At first, Laura's entrance had appeared to be a triumphant home-coming with a

cannon salute from the fortress as the 'celebratory' procession that greeted her arrival

led the duchess to the steps of the city's cathedral.3 It was only on entering inside for the

Te Deum that the duchess became aware that change was on hand. There she saw, and at

once appreciated the significance of, the lower position of the canopy displaying her

stemma to that of the duke's: Francesco had mounted 'due Ombrelle, distinguendo la

sua propria d'un gradino pili alto, denotante il Dominio'.4 Infamously aided, if not

driven, by his elder cousin and confidant Prince Cesare Ignazio d'Este, then aged

twenty-one-but also backed by Cesare Ignazio's brothers Luigi and Foresto, and more

l For an account of the marriage and James's later coronation, see Severi, /I matrimonio reale di Maria dl Modena. Testi e immaginl dall'/nghilte"a (1674-1688), and, therein, reproductions of: Anonymous, A Discourse of the Dukedom of Modena, pp. 28-72; Sandford, The History of the Coronation of the Most High, Most Mighty, and Most Excellent MONARCH, JAMES II, pp. 73-93.

3 Muratori, Delle antichita eslensi, 2, p. 594.

4 Carandini, Memorie pubbliche della cilta di Modena, p. 20, cited in Milano, 'Oli Estensi', p. 56.

24


significantly by the governmental Consiglio di Stato-Francesco duly claimed his

birthright and the next day Laura was forced to step aside. S

From the outset, the duke had turned to Cesare Ignazio as his confidant and

political partner. Their dual reign would remain united until the duke's death in 1694,

and without the presence of any senior female figure until Margherita's formal entrance

into Modena in 1692. Both were descendents of the illegitimate Duke Cesare d'Este,

who had been forced to relocate from Ferrara to Modena in 1598. Cesare Ignazio's

father (Borso) was the younger brother of Alfonso III. This made Cesare Ignazio-and

his two brothers Luigi and Foresto-first cousins to Francesco's grandfather Francesco

I, who was the son of Alfonso III. Francesco I had two boys, both of whom would

become duke: Alfonso IV was Francesco II's father, and Rinaldo was Francesco II's

uncle and ultimate successor. Cesare Ignazio was, therefore, the duke's elder second-

cousin (see Appendix A).

But it is Muratori's stark indictment of Cesare Ignazio cited at the beginning of

this chapter that exposes the balance of power and political manoeuvrings that lay

behind Duke Francesco's government. Muratori's citation reveals the politically

strained environment in which this 'celebratory' gala-opera was produced, and exposes

the perceived reality of an administration seemingly dedicated to the service of Duke

Francesco but often subverted and manipulated by the ambition of the duke's cousin:

Fu nondimeno creduto, che maggiore sarebbe stata la gloria di lui [Francesco], se minore affetto e stima egli aveste mostrato al Principe Cesare, il quale sembrava usurpare l'autorita del Sovrano, e invece di ubbidire comandava talvolta a lui medesimo, non senza meraviglia di molti, come un signore di tanto talento, si lasciasse in certa guisa signoreggiare da chi era cotanto inferiore a lui non solo di dignitA, rna anche d'animo e di senno.6

5 Lazarelli, InJormazione dell'Archivio del Monis/ero di San Pietro di Modena, pp. 278-9.

6 Muratori, Delle antichilil estensi, 2, p. 602.

25


Nevertheless, whatever the view of historians, there is little doubt that Francesco's own

perception of Cesare Ignazio and of their political union was one of mutual devotion,

united in defiance of the constant attempts to disrupt 'their' reign and to undermine

Cesare Ignazio's influence. Indeed, the depth of Duke Francesco's affection for his

cousin can be seen in a letter written to Maria Beatrice during the 'French' polemic of

1684-85 (addressed below): 'vadi 10 stato, vaddi ogni cosa, io non l'abandonero mai, ne

mi separero mai da lui' .7

It is in the context of such statements, and the controversies which caused them,

that Francesco has often been criticised as a poor statesman.8 He seems to have cared

little for politics and even less for the administrators and officials of government. Indeed

Muratori depicts a sensitive and infirm duke not well suited to the political arena:

Gareggiava poi nel Duca Francesco la penetrazion della mente colla bellezza del cuore. Era ne' suoi raggionamenti, e nelle sue azioni cavaliere; era benigno, e sincero, ne discordavano Ie sue parole dai fatti, odiando in altri la bugia, e piil nella sua bocca, e sofferendo mal volentieri gli adulatori .. .Insigne poi fu la sua pieta e divozione, incomparabile la sua pazienza ne' dolori della colica, e della podagra, che tanto l'afflissero; e serviva di specchio a tutti l'amore e cura dell'onesta e purita, che in lui fu considerate qual mirabile prerogativa, e che anche si dava a conoscere ne gli occhi, ne' gesti, ene' discorsi suoi, ne' quali niuno giammi desidero la Modestia.9

Not surprisingly then, within months of his accession, the duke had in effect handed all

political power to Cesare Ignazio, whom he duly installed in December 1674 as

'generale in capo e direttore di tutte Ie rendite camerali' and 'iI vero depositario e

referente di ogni potere' .10 In effect, Cesare Ignazio became 'il vero duca' ,II Freed from

his tyrannical mother and from much of the responsibility of government, and profiting

7 Cited without footnote in Chiappini, Gli ESlensi. p. 491, but held at [-MOas CS, 'Minute di lettere a principi esteri', b. 1: IS luglio 1685.

• Ibid., pp. 494-6.

9 Muratori, Delle anlichila eslensi, 2, p. 602.

10 Milano, 'Gli Estensi', p. 57.

\I Beltrami, 'n ducato di Modena', p. 104.

26

Paul Atkin, Chapter I

from the extended peace achieved by his administration's policy of consistent neutrality,

Duke Francesco set about the pursuit of the pleasures his title bestowed upon him.12

The duke's reign heralded the return of music and theatre, and the re-opening of

the taverns closed down by Laura (the Modenese had responded to this loss by rioting

and by writing obscenities against the duchess on the city walls). 13 In marked contrast to

their dislike of Laura, the people of Modena (and, it must be noted, those members of

the Consiglio di Stato and the Modenese nobility who had actively looked to the duke to

free them from Laura's reign) greeted Francesco's succession with celebration. Under

Laura, Modena had become a city without music,14 Now, under Francesco, there was an

immediate shift in favour of spectacle:

Diede dunque principio al suo governo it Duca Francesco II con applicazione alla Giustizia; e coll'aprire la porta all'allegria, confacevole alla sua giovanile eta, piacque molto al popolo, allevato per molti anni addietro in pensieri piu serio Comminciarono ad essere frequenti i divertimenti delle commedie, delle opere, e degli oratori in musica. Le corse dei cavalli, Ie quintanate [jousting], Ie corse all'anello, Ie caccie, Ie feste da ballo, Ie mascherate e slittare di carnevale con altri solazzi, si facevano spesso vedere con piacere e plauso della Citta. 1S

As a consequence, Modena enjoyed arguably its greatest era of cultural renewal as Duke

Francesco II employed a policy of raising his profile through patronage which

effectively mirrored that of his grandfather (Francesco I). But whereas Francesco I had

focused his investment on art and on architecture, Francesco II turned to music and to

learning, the latter of which became apparent with the founding of new academies and

of Modena's first university.16 But, above all, Francesco II was passionate about music.

Under his rule, Modena witnessed some 'venti melodrammi e stampati sessantun libretti

12 Muratori, Annali d'ltalia. II, p. 392.

13 Milano. 'ali Estensi', pp. S3-4. Milano does not date precisely when Laura closed the taverns.

14 Ibid., p. S3.

IS Muratori, Delle antichitO estensi, 2, pp. S9S-6.

16 Jander, 'The Cantata in Accademia', pp. S24-8; for Francesco I, see Southam, Power and Display in the Seventeenth Century; Jarrard, Architecture as Performance.

27

Paul Atkin. Chapter 1

di oratori,;17 the musicians of the ducal cappella increased from the eight inherited from

Laura to a height of twenty-nine; 18 the Accademia de' Dissonanti was founded for the

sake of musical debate;19 and, a mass programme of purchasing and re-copying of

music manuscripts and of keeping librettos was undertaken for incorporation into his

library. Today, that collection is held at the Biblioteca Estense and provides one of the

most valuable resources in Europe for research into seventeenth-century music.2o

Whereas Laura had in effect banned opera in Modena for the entirety of her

twelve-year regency-the sole production being II Ciro in Lidia (Teatro di Palazzo,

1665),21 which, notably, was dedicated to the five-year old Francesco as Duke of

Modena-two operas were staged six months after the young prince had taken the

throne?2 In 1685, the duke radically changed the pattern of opera production in

Modena. The old-fashioned and infrequent court performances were replaced by annual

productions seemingly for public consumption at the newly and purposely refurbished

Teatro Fontanelli, which now opened under what appears to have been something

approaching the Venetian impresario model of privately run 'public' theatres

established earlier in the century.23 Francesco's preference for music ahead of politics

led the city to heights and pleasures never seen before or since. As Chiappini, generally

a critic of Francesco, records: 'Modena rappresento nel campo musicale quello che

17 Chiappini. Gli Estensi. p. 495.

II Crowther. The Oratorio in Modena. pp. 4-6.

19 Jander. 'The Cantata in Accademia', pp. 519-44.

20 Chiarelli, 'Fonti e vita musicale estense tra corte. collezionismo e accademie·. pp. 263-310.

21 All works cited are listed with full reference in Appendix C, List of Operas Given in Modena (1653-1705).

22 II prencipe corsaro (Teatro di Modena. 10 November 1674); La schiavafortunata (Teatro di Modena. 20 November 1674). This is not to say that there was no music under Laura. Sartori,llibretti italiani. lists productions such as Le garre del merito (1664), p. 264, reE 11305, La virtu bambina nel ritrovamenlo d'Achille (1666). p. 497, ref. 24985, and L 'impudici;;ia schernita (1667). p. 423. 1295 I. All appear to have been occasional entertainments. but have not been documented as operas.

23 See Appendix B for a Chronology of Operas Given in Modena (1653-1705) and Appendix 0 for a more detailed record of Operas Given at the Teatro Fontanelli (1685-1692). See also Rosand, Opera in Seventeenth-Century Venice. pp. 66-109; Worsthome. Venetian Opera in the Seventeenth Century. pp. 28-36; Kimbell. Italian Opera. pp. 113-20.

28


Ferrara era stata negli ultimi decenni del '500'.24 This had been achieved, in part, as a

consequence of a consistent and obstinate policy of neutrality which had kept the duchy

free of war and occupation and had, in tum, created a safe environment suitable for

financial growth and, therefore, for investment in the arts. And yet despite this, the

duke's poor management of his affairs had led to overspends which induced financial

crises in 1689 and 1694 (to which the loss incurred on L'ingresso undoubtedly

contributed). In terms of the ducal cappella alone, Victor Crowther reports that

Francesco's over-enthusiastic rebuilding programme ultimately caused its own downfall

and led to cut-backs which resulted in the number of its salaried singers and musicians

falling sharply from a height of twenty-nine in the spring of 1689 to seventeen in 1691,

and to just four instrumentalists by 1694.25 Nonetheless, as we shall note, the investment

in oratorio and opera continued unabated.

Yet, notwithstanding such cultural advances, the duke's government was never

to recover from the brutal usurping of Francesco's mother and the polemics that ensued

thereafter. By 1690, years of controversy and obstinate displays of unity by Francesco

and Cesare Ignazio had earned the contempt and alienation of the surrounding courts

and had seen a complete reversal in the political fortunes of the Este. The duke's

government stood alone; time was moving on, and Duke Francesco was nowhere nearer

finding a bride. The matter was becoming critical, as serious concerns were raised about

the duke's ability to sire an heir to succeed him. Having lost Ferrara to the Pope in

1598, the Este fear of a second humiliation was exacerbated by the duke's constant ill

heath and the bitter rivalry between Cesare Ignazio and Cardinal Rinaldo d'Este for

nomination as heir-apparent in the expectation that no son would be forthcoming.

24 Chiappini. Gli Es/ensi. p. 495.

2S Crowther, 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse', pp. 209-19; The Oratorio in Modena. pp. 4-5,117-19.

29


Rinaldo and Cesare Ignazio shared a mutual hatred.26 Rinaldo, in his role as

'tutore' to the three brothers, Cesare Ignazio, Luigi and Foresto, had been responsible

for sending them away from Modena to reduce their influence on the education of

Francesco. Luigi and Foresto were sent to war, and Cesare Ignazio to the court at

Versailles. All three quickly returned, their loathing of Rinaldo being such that they are

each documented as wishing him dead.27 In 1686, Cesare Ignazio had been behind

moves to make Rinaldo a cardinal, thus technically restricting his ability to succeed

Francesco.28 Rinaldo is recorded as having resisted the idea precisely because of his

ambition to become the next duke?9 But as complicated political manoeuvrings came

into play and pressure mounted to resolve the issue of succession, we need first to

revisit the tense political environment which surrounded Francesco's own grasping of

power and the subsequent difficulty his government had in dealing with the aftermath of

Laura's expulsion.

In 1674, and despite her concerns over maintaining power, Laura must have

viewed with some satisfaction her part in the remarkable recovery of Este fortunes as

(accompanied by Rinaldo) she returned home to Modena from England. The marriage

of Maria Beatrice had been of enormous political value in raising the Este profile within

the courts of Europe and represented a milestone in Laura's efforts to restore the Este

capital to something reflecting the political glory last witnessed in Ferrara. Following

Alfonso IV's death in 1662, Laura had governed as a strong, even severe, regent to the

young duke, but she was not without considerable political acumen, and she deserves

credit for seeing Modena through a difficult period. She was the daughter of Count

16 Beltrami, 'II ducato di Modena', p. 11.

27 Muratori, Delle antichita estensi, 2, p. 594.

21 Milano, 'Gii Estensi', p. 59.

29 Miller, James II, p. 74.

30


Girolamo Martinozzi and Marguerite-Laure Mazarin, sister to King Louis XIV's

'celebre ministro', Cardinal Jules Mazarin (Giulio Mazzarini). Muratori records that

following the death of her uncle in 1661:

11 Cardinal Giulio Mazzarini lascio in perpetuo alla sua nipote Laura una rendita annua di quaranta mila lire di Francia ossia di dieci mila dobble sopra i diritti del sale di Brouage e nella casa della citta di Parigi, e in oltre cento cinquanta mila scudi in contante, e quaranta mila lire in mobili e gioie ad arbitrio degli esecutori testamentari. 30

While this inheritance was to play a critical role in the eventual succession of

Francesco, Laura now held a considerable position both financially and politically. Her

regency was marked by a mixture of rigid government (Litta cites her as executing

counts Boschetti and Malvasia over political disputes)31 and some disquiet over the

excessive French influence over Modenese affairs (Alfonso IV's receipt of the rare

honorary title of 'Maresciallo di Francia' on their marriage being indicative of such a

perception) that had ultimately made her unpopular with the Consiglio di Stato. It was

this close affiliation that had in part led to Maria Beatrice being chosen at the behest of

Louis XIV as the next bride for the future English king.32 The French were desperate to

secure a Catholic bride for the newly converted James, and to return England to

Catholicism. Even so, the duchess had initially been unwilling to lose her daughter and,

perhaps, was even more reluctant to leave Modena.33 Nevertheless, and despite her

personal feelings on the matter (she also distrusted James' conversion), Laura's duty

both to her faith and to the Este name would, in all probability, have left her with no

option but to embark for London.34 With Maria Beatrice about to become the next

30 Muratori, Delle antichila es/ensi, 2, p. 584.

11 Litla, Famiglie celebr; d'l/alia, 'Voce "d'Este", lV., lav. XVI', p. 43; I·MOas CS, 'Oocumenti spettanti a principi estensi; ramo ducale - non regnanti', b. 399, sottofasc. 2049·1; II; III.

12 Oman, Mary of Modena, pp. 35·8; Miller, James II, pp. 12·5.

II Miller, James II, p. 74.

14 Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, p. 11.

31


Queen of England, the stage seemed set, or so it appeared, for the Este to benefit from

excellent and intimate relationships with both the French and the English court for years

to come. No one could have predicted the disasters that would befall Maria Beatrice in

the execution of her Catholic duties, resulting in her eventual exile from England in

1688.35 And yet, as Laura returned to Modena, her world was thrown into turmoil as

Francesco quietly seized power. Marginalized politically, and deprived of any influence

on the new government, the duchess finally left Modena in 1676 and went into self

imposed exile. She finally settled in Rome until her death on 19 July 1687.36

Laura's ousting from power has generally been construed as a bitter surprise for

an unsuspecting duchess caught unprepared by her son's over-ambition and by Cesare

Ignazio's scheming.37 While this reading of Cesare Ignazio's influence appears well

founded, the suggestion that Laura was in any wayan innocent party fails to recognise

her acute political ability and ruthless record in government.38 It also denies the degree

to which her determination to cling to power far outweighed any mother-son

relationship. This was reflected by the precision with which Laura timed her

homecoming to the day before Francesco's fourteenth birthday. The strategic date of her

arrival has tended to be ignored by Modenese historians, as has the relative speed with

which she hastened back from London.

Roberta lotti, however, has recently shed new light not only on Laura's

awareness of her son's threat prior to her departure, but also on their relationship as a

consequence of the political power-struggle that would come to divide them. lotti makes

)5 For an account of the overthrow of King James 11 and Maria Beatrice's flight and exile, see Miller, James II, pp. 188·233; Oman, Mary of Modena, pp. 122-247.

16 For varying accounts of Francesco's succession, Laura's self-exile and her eventual death, see Murator~ Delle anlichila eslensi, 2. pp. 593-8; Chiappini, Gli Eslensi, pp. 487-8; lotti, 'La politica dell'amore, 2', pp. 147-52; Milano, 'Gii Estensi', pp. 56-8.

)7. Murat?r.i, Delle anlichila eSlensi, 2, pp. 594-5; Chiappini, G/i Eslensi, p. 487; Milano, 'Gii Estensi', p. 56; Luin, 'Antonio GlannettlDl c la musica', p. 171; Jander, 'The Canlala in Accademia', p. 534.


32


the case that prior to Laura's departure for England five months earlier, on 5 October

1673, she had issued a number of new edicts and proclamations that in effect sought to

prevent Francesco from assuming any fonn of control over government in her absence.

All authority was passed to the Consiglio di Stato. Laura's refusal to accommodate

Francesco politically at this point was not only a strategic error, but in hindsight might

have been seen as an act of humiliation for the young duke that gave reason to those

who would advise his future action.39 This, in tum, suggests a policy not of nurturing

Francesco towards his succession, but, rather, of advancing her own ambition at the cost

of denying her son's claim beyond his political and legitimate coming-of-age.

However, Cesare Ignazio's political ambitions more than matched those of

Laura. While the fourteen-year-old duke must have felt as if he was releasing himself

from a torturously rigid regime, the perception in other quarters was of him effectively

replacing one master with another. Milano notes:

Suo mentore ed ispiratore e Cesare Ignazio, marchese di Montecchio, di qua1che anno piit vecchio, volitivo, ambizioso e ingiusto, il quale insoddisfatto degli spazi che una piccola corte di provincia puo offrire a lui che ha conosciuto e frequentato la mondana Versailles, con la sua notevole intelligenza, non incontra quindi difficolta a subordinare, ispirare e controllare la fragile personalita di Francesco, tenuto per tutta la sua fanciullezza sotto la tutela rigorosa bigotta e restrittiva della madre Laura, istruito da mediocri maestri ecclesiastici, e fin dall'infanzia, malfenno in salute, rimasta sempre precaria e seguita costantemente da pur illustri clinici.4o

While Duke Francesco's ill health would be a lamentable legacy of his reign, Milano's

insight confinns the historical perception of the duke as first suffering under the rigid

command of Laura before succumbing to the indulgences of Cesare Ignazio. Despite

having immediately ceded to the legal right of Francesco to rule without regent, Laura

19 lotti, 'La politica dell'amore, 2', p. 148.

«> Milano, 'Gli Estensi'. pp. 56-7.

33


struggled to adapt.41 As Cesare Ignazio's position became unassailable, so did Laura

become embroiled in a bitter struggle with the prince for control over Francesco's ear:

Intanto si mise a' fianchi del giovane Duca il Principe Cesare ... per aiutarlo nel Governo; e vi s'introdusse con S1 fatta confidenza, e con un tale ascendente, che piu erano prezzati i consigli di lui, che quei della Duchessa Laura sua Madre. Pero fra lei, e il Principe Cesare nacque gara, ne potendo la buona Principessa sofferire un competitore S1 forte, assistito non gia dal merito di una gran mente, 0

di qualche rara virtu, rna solamente dal capriccio della fortuna, detennino di ritirarsi aRoma. 42

The death, in 1675, of the duke's tutor, Count Girolamo Graziani, effectively closed the

last door on Laura's influence over Francesco. Cesare Ignazio's authority was now

complete. In 1676, the duchess ceded defeat and left Modena, never to return. In

October 1686, Francesco (accompanied by Cesare Ignazio) made his only visit to Rome,

apparently moved to see his mother again. Once there, he seemingly sought and failed

in his attempts to placate her dogged refusal to accept the new regime and to return

home with them to Modena. Five months later, Laura died (aged forty-eight) from a

sudden fever.43

But, there is no doubting that Laura's earlier ousting and exile had agitated the

closed world of the royal establishment in Europe. The succession had been not only

swift but brutal and the new government marked a diametric change in policy that in

some quarters became subject to ridicule. Severi notes:

Among the surrounding courts, the little dukedom inspired envy and probably also the childish dubbing of "Modena la pazza". Modena in this period could be accounted foolish for other reasons, pertaining to internal affairs ... Shortly after [the usurping of Laura], with the aid of his [Le., Francesco's] advisers Girolamo Graziani and the Princes Luigi, Foresto and Cesare Ignazio the atmosphere of the court definitely changed. In particular, Cesare Ignazio, who in 1675, after the death of Count Graziani, became the most influential presence at court, introduced in that very rigid, conservative, Jesuitical ambiance, a gay and dispassionate style of living which was highly disapproved of by the elders, in

41 Ibid., p. 56.

42 Muratori, Delle antichita estensi, 2, p. 596.

43 Ibid., p. 598; Milano, 'Oli Estensi', p. 56.

34


particular by Laura Martinozzi, the deposed regent, who wanted the court to lead a pious and sober existence.44

Whatever reading one chooses to place upon Cesare Ignazio's influence over Francesco,

it is clear that both Laura and broader opinion held the duke's cousin to be the guilty

party, and saw his removal from Modena as the only way of bringing the new regime to

task. As time moved on, the pressure against Cesare Ignazio grew from both abroad and

within the Este hierarchy.

The French posed the most immediate and critical threat to Francesco. King

Louis XIV's allegiance was to Laura and his political debt to her made him an opponent

of the new regime. Modena had effectively lost its greatest ally overnight and gained a

daunting adversary. Thereafter the court of Francesco would be at continual unease with

its French counterpart. Crowther notes how:

Notions of family honour obliged Francesco to accept a political role subservient to the will of Maria's powerful and imperious protector, King Louis XIV of France. Francesco ... stubbornly resisted Louis's attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of his duchy, but he was tr'rped through loyalty to his sister, into collaboration with Louis's grand designs.4

In 1684, matters came to a head when the hurried and secret marriage of Cesare

Ignazio's sister, Angela Maria Caterina d'Este, to Prince Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia-

Carignano finally provided Louis XIV with the opportunity he had sought to attack

Francesco.46

The French king was upset because he had wanted to secure relations with

the House of Savoy through the marriage of one of his own daughters and thus maintain

a pro-French orientation in this geographically significant state. As Angela had been

under the duke's protection, Francesco appeared a natural target for his fury. But, the

44 Severi, II malrimonio reale di Maria di Modena, pp. 19-20 (bilingual presentation; citation from the English translation).

'5 Crowther, 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse', p. 208, credits Chiappini, Gli ESlensi, pp. 459-82.

06 Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia-Carignano (1628-1709). Chiappini, Gli ESlensi, pp. 490.92; Beltrami, '1\ ducato di Modena', pp. 126·32; Milano, 'Gli Estensi', pp. 58·9; lotti, 'La politica dell' amore, 2', pp. 157.9.

35


king's true motivation soon became apparent, as his suggested resolution of the

controversy makes clear:

A Modena Ie cose si presentavano piil difficili e complicate: il prestigio offeso di Luigi XIV doveva in qualche modo essere soddisfatto e si pretendeva, oltre al Matrimonio del duca Francesco II con Madamigella di Bouillon, l'allontanamento di Cesare Ignazio.47

It might be argued that this unnecessary conflict served as no more than a diversionary

tactic, which in reality sought through the exile of Cesare Ignazio and proposed

marriage of the duke to MIle de Bouillon to break the union of the Este princes and

bring Duke Francesco, and Modena, back under French control. Crowther records how

'Francesco II was personally detested by Louis XIV for stubbornly refusing to comply

with the king's marriage plans for him, and for giving Prince Cesare Ignazio too much

executive power' .48 It seems that Louis XIV never really forgave Francesco, and later

(in 1687) obstinately rejected the duke's enquiry after his illegitimate daughter, MIle de

Blois.49

Moreover, the dispute was more complicated than has often been reported.

Oman suggests that Cesare Ignazio had initially proposed Angela Maria as a bride for

Francesco:

In November [1683], the duchess [Maria Beatrice] had heard that her brother, whom she had been urging to marry, was thinking of a match which annoyed her. For the lady whom he was considering was the sister of his favourite, Prince Cesare. 'It would be ridiculous, she being older than you, without a farthing, and not even of equal condition' .50

It would seem that it was only his failure to secure his sister's marriage to Francesco

that prompted Cesare Ignazio to tum to Emanuele Filiberto as an alternative groom. As

the dispute developed, so Cesare Ignazio became increasingly vilified for his sway over

Francesco. Maria Beatrice made her feelings abundantly clear to the duke: 'per parlarvi

47 Cited without reference in Chiappini, Gli Estensi. pp. 490-91.


49 Milano, 'Oli Estensi', pp. 58,61; Chiappini, Gli Estensi, p. 495; Beltrami, '1\ ducato di Modena', p. 139.

so Oman, Mary of Modena, p. 77.

36


chiaro tutti credono in Francia che il principe Cesare vi meni per il naso, I' Ambasciatore

di Francia medesimo me I 'ha detto con frase pill civile e questo vi e di gran danno' .51

Yet, Francesco's faith in his cousin was absolute, and if anything, the crisis

strengthened their resolve and underlined their unity. Indeed, the duke now showed a

defiant courage with which he has not been generally associated. In the end, a

compromise was found: Francesco's resistance succeeded in averting his marriage to

MIle de Bouillon, but failed to prevent Cesare Ignazio from being sent to Faenza in

exile on 23 June 1685. Within a month, the duke's inability to rule without his cousin

became apparent, as he wrote to Maria Beatrice:

Contentatevi. .. che vi dica con la maggiore sincerita, che l'allontamento del Principe Cesare mi riesce oltremodo pill incomodo e fatticoso di quello che mi ero figurato, poiche convenendomi assistere e tenere I' occhio sopra tutte Ie cose dello Stato, dell' Azienda, e della Casa, senza solievo di nissuno, non mi resta un momento di quiete, ne di respiro, il che pur troppo conosco di quanto nottabile pregiudizio risulti alla mia salute, che certo longamente non potro resistere a tanta fattica, et applicazione.52

Francesco's delicate, and deliberate, reference to his inability to maintain good health

without Cesare Ignazio suggests that even at this early stage there was much concern for

his longevity. Perhaps it was this fear that allowed Cesare Ignazio to return to Modena

just over a year later in the autumn of 1686, French honour having been duly satisfied. 53

Francesco's relief at Cesare Ignazio's return was clear: 'Cesare Ignazio era accolto a

braccia aperte nella capitale Estense dal duca Francesco, che non poteva fare a meno di

lui,.54 Thereafter, perhaps weary of further attempts to break their bond, the cousins

resisted all subsequent suggestions of suitors for Francesco, presumably aware of the

51. Ci~ed.~ithout reference in Chiappini, Gli Estensi. p. 491;, and with footnote in Milano, 'Gii Estensi', p. 58. I-MOas CS, 'Lettere dl pnnclpl esteri', 'Inghilterra', b. 2: 'Varie lettere della Duchessa di York al fratello', 14 gennaio 1685.

52 Ibid.~ Gli Estensl. p. 492, and with footnote in Milano, 'Gii Estensi', p. 59. I-MOas CS 'Minute di lettere a principi esteri' b. 1: 15 lugho 1685. "

53 lotti, 'La POlitica dell'amore, 2', p. 159.

54 Cited without reference in Chiappini, Gli Estensi. pp. 491-2, and likewise in Milano, 'Gli Estensi', p. 59.

37


political threat to their partnership. Their mutual bond unconditionally confirmed, the

whole affair had proven, nonetheless, terribly damaging to the perception of their reign.

Maria Beatrice's conciliatory stance towards Francesco and her loathing of

Cesare Ignazio meant that two quite contradictory relationships developed with the

young princes which ultimately left her as an opponent of the regime but, nonetheless,

as a close correspondent of Francesco, through whom she tried to moderate their

behaviour as best she could. 55 Like her mother, Maria Beatrice never returned to dwell

within Francesco's court, but unlike Laura, she did not pose a political threat to her

brother. Despite being the sole remaining child of Alfonso IV, it ,is important to

recognise that the Este line of succession was a strictly male-only affair. 56 Furthermore,

by the time such matters became relevant, her concerns were for the greater (yet

ultimately unsuccessful) issue of restoring her own son, James 'III' Stuart ('The Old

Pretender') to the English throne. It is worth noting that Maria Beatrice's aggression

towards her cousin was not forgotten in 1688 when she later fled England for the court

of Louis XIV. Francesco, no doubt influenced by Cesare Ignazio, refused her request for

assistance in favour of a policy of neutrality. Nonetheless, England's return to a

protestant king (William III 'of Orange') and the treatment of Maria Beatrice would

cause an uncomfortable and insurmountable rift between the English and Modenese

governments.

The earliest attempts in earnest at finding a bride for Francesco seem to have

been started, and thwarted, from about 1687.57 There has been some speculation on the

duke's reluctance to take a bride, but the matter was again more complex. Beltrami

55 Milano, 'G1i Estensi', p. 66.

56 See Appendix A. The Este succession is established by two separate legal sources: (i) by male precedence, Maria Beatrice was older than Francesco II, but as a female was not entitled to become Alfonso IV's legitimate heir or to succeed Francesco II as the last remaining progeny; (ii) the wedding contract of 1692 and Francesco II's last will and testament of 1694 both explicitly confirm that the first male born will become heir to the duke, while females born will be given suitable dowries. I-MOos CS, 'Copie del testamento di Francesco II e scritture relative aile sue onoranze funebri, 1694-1696', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974.11.

57 Milano, 'ali Estensi', p. 61, cites from I·MOos CS, 'Ambasciatori', 'lnghilterra', b. 5: 1687,6 Ill, 4 XII, and 15 V; 1688.

38


argues that while the failure to secure a wife was more a reflection of his own delusions

of grandeur, it was also a matter of mistrust by the surrounding COurtS.58 But it is

Muratori who, while acknowledging the general misapprehension that years of suffering

from gout had left the duke ill-disposed to marriage, returns us once more to the crux of

the problem-Cesare Ignazio's continual obstruction of any marriage:

Credevano non po chi, che l'animo di lui [Francesco] fosse alieno dalle Nozze a cagion della sua debil complessione, con cui si era in oltre molto dimesticata la chiragra e podagra, male ereditato dal Padre, di maniera che egli spes so languiva, e si facevano correre a Modena e a Sassuolo anche i primari medici di Bologna ... La verita nondimeno si e, che piu trattato si fecero in vari tempi per dare una consorte ad esso Duca, rna che i medesimi ancora rimasero imperfetti per la prepotenza e poco giudiziosa politic a del Principe Cesare. 59

By 1690, concerns were mounting over Francesco's failure to resolve the single most

important duty of any monarch; with ever-increasing concern over his health, the duke

had still not married and, as a consequence, he remained far from producing a legitimate

heir. It is here, no doubt, that the secession of Ferrara to the Papacy in 1598 became a

significant factor. It had remained a painful memory that simply could not be allowed to

be repeated: Modena needed to resolve the issue and protect its interests.

It is in this respect that documents found in the course of my research at the

Archivio di Stato, Modena, may now shed new light on how these fears were addressed,

and how, as a consequence, the issues of marriage and succession were ultimately

resolved. One sub-file, entitled 'Documenti relativi al matrimonio di Francesco II con

Margherita Farnese, 1692', contains a number of copies of administrative minutes

collated together that, in one way or another, share some reference to the wedding and

the issue of succession.6o In addition to the expected marriage contract of 1692, two

51 Beltrami, '1\ ducato di Modena', pp. 139-40.

59 Muratori, Delle antichila estensi, 2, p. 600.

60 I-MOos CS, 'Documenti relativi al matrimonio di Francesco II con Margherita Famese, 1692', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-1. It would be entirely wrong and misleading to lay claim to having found this source and the documents held therein. I merely suspect that in terms of the larger history of Modena it has until now not been seen as particularly relevant and accordingly has been passed over.

39


documents in particular now contribute to improving our understanding of the political

manoeuvrings that occurred at this time: the first, is a copy of a donazione made to

Cesare Ignazio in 1690, but which is otherwise undated; the second, is one of the duke's

last will and testament of 13 April 1694.

The contents of the testament offers a remarkable insight into the relationship

between Francesco and Cesare Ignazio, to which I shall attend later; however, for now,

its primary function of nominating Cardinal Rinaldo as the duke's successor in lieu of a

natural-born male heir, together with its presence next to Cesare Ignazio's donazione in

a file dedicated to the duke's wedding two years earlier, provides the first indication that

in some way or other the issue of succession had gone beyond being resolved by

marriage alone. To understand the change at hand, we need first to view the donazione

in full:

10 Francesco d'Este Duca di Modena con la piu valida forma, e modo, che io possa, e valendomi in cio dell'authorita ducale, della quale io sono insignito, e con derogazione a qual si voglia cosa, che potesse fare in contrario in qualsiasi modo all'infrascritta mia volonta, et atto dono e voglio, che sia donato al Signor Principe Cesare, mio cugino, et ai suoi Eredi di tutti gli effetti si mobili, che stabili, ragioni, et azioni, e in conclusione tutta I' eredita, che mi e pervenuta per disposizione della Serenissima Signora Duchessa nostra signora e madre niuna cosa eccettuatane volendo, et intendendo, che detto Signor Principe, e suoi sia, e si intenda in detti effetti, come se fosse stato liberamente istituito erede da detta Signora Duchessa: obbligando i1 Serenissimo Duca mio successore ad havere rata, e ferma, e non mai contravenire a questa mia volonta, e disposizione, quale voglio, e dispongo come sopra, che vaglia in ogni miglior modo, e non possa mai da chi si sia qualsivoglia pretesto inofficiosita, difetto di insinuazione, 0

aItra qualsiasi solennita maggiore anche delle espresse et in specie all' obbligo d' Archiviare la presente essere impugnata, 0 posta in dubbio, togliendo a qualsiasi Giudice, 0 Tribunale di questi miei stati faculta di dirla, 0 dichiararla, 0

pretenderla invalida, 0 insussistente per qualsiasi capo, scrivendomi in cio di tutta quella authorita ducale, che io ho, e che tengo con derogazione di qUalsivoglia Cosa che potesse ostare ancor che fosse tale di cui si havesse a fare specifica mentione, quale voglio, che si habbia per fatta, e cosi ordino, e dispongo,. e che alIa presente sottoscritta da me chiamo dio senza la presenza di alcun testlmonio si habbia da prestare inti era fede, e dare compieta esecutione da chiunque succedera, ne miei eifetti, quali obbligo, et ippotheco tutti nel piu amplio modo per l'osservanza di questa mio atto, e volonta niuno eccettuato a dichiarando valermi in fare questa obbligazione della authorita, che mi vien data da dio, e dal posto, che tengo: con I'espressione, come esprimo di venire a cio

40


per l'interesse dello stato, e perche cosi so essere, e volere, che sia, ho sottoscritta la presente di mia mano, e fattala sigillare col mio sigillo.61

Francesco confirms over, and over, again that this decree cannot be revoked under any

circumstances whatsoever and that it is made of sound mind. There is a clear sense of

agitation, which in turn suggests discontent, and, moreover, an obvious concern that his

command will not be honoured in the fullness of time. But this aside, the resolution is

unequivocally clear that Cesare Ignazio will receive all that is decreed to him. The

donazione is unsigned, although this is not exceptional given that it is only a minuted

copy. This noted, I am not aware of any previous reference to, or citation of, it in any

previous commentary. Moreover, the fact that a civil servant was required to copy the

donazione into a file concerning Duke Francesco's wedding suggests that the one action

related to the other. The donazione was also confirmed in the duke's last will and

testament of 1694:

Al Serenissimo Signor Principe Cesare suo amatissimo cugino, come quello, i1 quale con assidua, et indefessa premura ha per cosi lungo tempo assistito a Sua Altezza Serenissima nei piu importanti affari, oltre it confermare in quanto faccia di bisogno, et ad abbondante cautela tutto cio, che in vita a favore dello stesso Signor Principe Cesare tanto per instromenti quanto in scritture scritte e sottoscritte di proprio pugno di Sua Altezza Serenissima, che si trovano appresso il Medesimo Signor Principe, in qualsivoglia tempo, et occasione ha dichiarato fatto, et ordinato, volendo, che tutto sia puntualmente et inviolabilmente osservato, et adempito ... 62

But it is when the donazione is read in tandem with the Modenese histories and, in

particular, with Lazarelli's chronicle, that not only does its existence find a purpose, but

more significantly a hypothesis emerges whereby one might suggest that the Modenese

establishment (most probably the Consiglio di Stato and Cardinal Rinaldo) had come to

realise that steps had to be taken via a two-part strategy to secure Modena's future.

61 I-MOas CS, 'Oocumenti e scritture varie relativi a Francesco II, 1666-1694', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-111: 'Minuta di donazione fatta dal Duca Francesco II al Signor Principe Cesare suo cugino e figlio del Principe Borso d'Este essere cad it 1690: I', I am especially grateful to Tim Carter and Stefano Patuzzi for their invaluable assistance in verifying all of the transcriptions now addressed and relevant to the marriage, the donation, the testament, and the health of Francesco, and, thereafter, for comments and amendments with regard clarification of meaning therein.

6l I-MOos CS, 'Copie del testamento di Francesco II e scritture relative aile sue onoranze funebri, 1694-1696', b. 347, sottofasc 1974-11, pp. 4-5.

41


First, Cesare Ignazio would need to be persuaded to withdraw his constant obstruction

of potential brides and the duke forced to face his responsibilities and accept a wife;

second, a legitimate heir-apparent would have to be agreed upon to allow for growing

concerns that Duke Francesco's failing health might in any event prevent the siring of a

male heir,

Until now, little has been written on how the issue of succession was resolved.

We know only that by virtue of a male-only succession, Rinaldo had always been next-

in-line to the throne, and that Luigi, Foresto and Cesare Ignazio technically remained

second, third and fourth respectively. But no one has explained why Cesare Ignazio

disappeared from contention having spent the majority of his political life as a bitter

rival of Rinaldo for Francesco's title. It would seem that some time in late 1689 or early

1690 the Consiglio di Stato and Rinaldo may have brokered a deal with Francesco and

Cesare Ignazio to resolve the issue, as a consequence of which Margherita Famese was

identified as a potential bride, subject to the approval of her father, Duke Ranuccio II

Famese of Parma. Reference to both Lazarelli and Milano confirms that the contract

negotiations between the Este and Famese for the duke's marriage with Margherita

were satisfactorily concluded in March or April 1690, the year in which the donazione

was granted.63 It would seem that the agreement provided Francesco with the required

bride and one final opportunity for a natural succession. More significantly, although

not openly declared, it also ensured that Cesare Ignazio would accept the right of

Rinaldo to succeed Francesco should the union prove unfruitful. In return, Cesare

Ignazio's future and fortune were to be guaranteed both politically and financially. First,

his position, though not his authority, would be respected in Modena; he was later

63 Lazarelli, Informa::ione dell'Archivio del Monistero di San Pietro di Modena, p. S44; Milano, 'Gii Estensi', p. 61, cites I-MOas CS, 'Ambasciatori: Parma', b. 17.

42


named by (now) Duke Rinaldo as governor of Reggio Emilia.64 Second, and as the

donazione of 1690 makes plain, Cesare Ignazio would become the recipient of the

wealthy estate of the duke's mother Laura Martinozzi, who had earlier been the

beneficiary of a substantial inheritance from her uncle, Cardinal Mazarin. The State

Archive confirms the final balance of Laura's inheritance in July 1689 as being

557,732.14.5 MI credit, with debts totalling 81,056.2.2 Ml. Thereafter, the monthly

statements (of which there are only three) stop, apparently because the Mazarin

inheritance was at that stage blocked by the French whom we might now suppose would

have taken great exception to any accord that siphoned their money over to the detested

Cesare Ignazio.6s Nonetheless, the sum made over to the prince was clearly not

inconsiderable.

However, matters became complicated by Maria Beatrice's inheritance of

Laura's bequests on her death in 1687, and also by her claim on Francesco's will from

1694 onwards. While Oman records Maria Beatrice as receiving an inheritance from her

mother, essentially of 'some Mazarin rents in France and Rome, "a considerable sum in

cash" and some very good jewellery', there is absolutely no mention of the Mazarin

legacy, as one might otherwise have expected, and certainly no record of her claiming

any lost inheritance. By contrast, on Francesco's death, her struggle with Duke Rinaldo

(who stubbornly refused to divulge to her what she had been left by her brother) is well

documented, as is the extended claim which ensued. Oman blames Cesare Ignazio for

'having been present at the time the last will had been made and having persuaded a

failing master to make alterations' .66 With Cesare Ignazio having initially fled on the

64 Milano, 'Oli Estensi', p. 64.

65 I-MOas CS, 'Oocumenti spettanti a principi cstcnsi; ramo ducalc - non regnanti', h. 399, sottofasc. 2049-1II: 'Scritturc relative al testamento e all'credit! di Laura Martinozzi, 1686-1715'. I am indebted to Lucia D'Angelo ofthc Archivio di Stato for her insight into the treatment of Laura's inheritance from Cardinal Mazarin.

66 For an insight into Maria Beatrice's inheritance, see Oman, Mary of Modena, pp. 100-102, 108, 140, 184-5,240 ..

43


death of Francesco, it seems that Maria Beatrice focused her energies on petitioning her

uncle until, in 1700, she received the full balance of her inheritance in the sum of

£15,000 sterling. Whether or not this payment was either part, or all, of the donazione

signed over to Cesare Ignazio is difficult to quantify. Nonetheless, it is not insignificant

that Maria Beatrice felt cheated of the estate of her brother both at the time of his death

and also subsequently when Duke Rinaldo's 'younger son succeeded to the property of

Prince Cesare Ignazio [on the latter's death in 1713], which in the queen's opinion

should have come to her as the late duke's heir' .67 We might, therefore, presume

somewhat tentatively, that, whether in part or in whole, the sums she pursued related in

some way to the donazione of 1690. However, that was a matter for the future. What is

unequivocal in 1690 was that the donazione had been made over to Cesare Ignazio,

seemingly, in lieu of him renouncing any claim to succeed his cousin.

In May 1690, with contracts agreed, Duke Francesco was the guest of Duke

Ranuccio II for the wedding of his son Odoardo Farnese, when he would have seen

Margherita dance on stage before him.68 Ranuccio's involvement at some stage of this

process is identified by a brief reference cited in Lazarelli with regard to his apparent

reluctance to commit his daughter, Margherita, to Francesco without assurances that the

issue of succession had been resolved. As such, his concerns crucially identify the

extent to which negotiations in respect of marriage and succession were mutually

dependent, and thus concluded simultaneously:

Fu per altro detto allora, che intanto fU permessa la conchiusione di questo matrimonio, in quanto Ranuccio Duca di Parma, che non mai havevola voluta intendere, rivolsesi di dar it titolo d' Altezza agli tre fratelli prencipi d'Este Luigi, F oresto, e Cesare Ignazio.69

67 Ibid., p. 240.

61 0 . rel,l Farnese, pp. 245-6; Muratori, Annali d'ltalia, II, p. 304.

69 ~lIlarel1i, lnforma::ione del/'Archivio del Monistera di San Pietro di Modena, p. 545. I am especially grateful to Alessandra Chiarelli and Stefano Patuzzi for their guidance in resolving the correct meaning of'rivolsesi di dar' as 'avert from giving'.

44


It would seem that Margherita's father was only prepared to agree to a marriage he did

not want in order to prevent Cesare Ignazio (or either of his two brothers) from

succeeding Francesco. This is not to suggest that Ranuccio II dictated policy to the Este,

but it does indicate that Ranuccio II was fearful of a sustainable challenge from Cesare

Ignazio, which in some way the wedding accord then prevented. Whether or not

Ranuccio II's fear was based on concerns for the duke's poor health and doubts over his

ability to sire an heir remains speculation; but presumably he would have wanted to

ensure that Modena did not end up with a strong leader who might then threaten his own

territories. What is also clear is that as per normal practice the marriage contract ensured

the repayment of the wedding dowry (itself agreed in instalments) should Francesco die

heirless.7o

Despite the facts that Rinaldo was the legal heir-apparent in the absence of a

natural-born successor and that Cesare Ignazio had no rightful claim to the throne,

Ranuccio must have been anxious that Cesare Ignazio would stay and fight. Oman notes

how, on Maria Beatrice's flight from England, Francesco was reluctant to come to her

aid in person for fear that had he 'left his duchy there was (said her uncle, the cardinal)

Prince Cesare waiting to pounce on it' .71 Likewise, Rinaldo would need Papal

dispensation to resign his cardinalate to take the throne, and while precedent would have

granted it, there is no evidence to suggest with any certainty that it would have been

guaranteed in 1690.72 Either way, the matter needed to be secured, and this on its own

might have sufficiently encouraged a collective willingness to offer Cesare Ignazio so

considerable a pay-off and allow him to maintain some limited power despite the

70 Multiple copies of the twenty-three page marriage contract are held together at /-MOas CS, 'Oocumenti relativi al matrimonio di Francesco II con Margherita Famese, 1692', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-1: 'Strumento dotale della Serenissima Signorina Principessa Margherita Famese, promessa in lssosa al Serenissimo Signore Duca Francesco II'.

71 Oman, Maryo! Modena, p. 140.

12 Milano. 'Gli Estensi', p. 66.

45


obvious resentment against him. By the same measure, given the combined force of his

opponents, it might also have seemed a good deal to Cesare Ignazio, as Milano

suggests: 'Cesare Ignazio, uomo sicuramente dotato di intuito politico, comprende che

la fine di Francesco e anche la sua e che non pub certo continuare la sua diarchia col

cardinale Rinaldo'. 73

But, there are a number of postscripts to this accord. The duke's last will and

testament of 1694 offers one final insight into the thinking of Francesco and Cesare

Ignazio at this time. Duke Francesco conferred on his cousin and confidant full power

and control over both Maria Beatrice and Margherita Famese.74 While this was

technically a symbolic discharging of Francesco's responsibility for the two senior

females under his protection, Cesare Ignazio's effective guardianship over both of his

perceived political adversaries of the Este court still counted for something even despite

Maria Beatrice's permanent residence in France and Margherita Faroese's subsequent

return to Parma. In effect, Cesare Ignazio was protected both ways: if Francesco had a

male heir, Cesare Ignazio would have to playa part in any regency; and if not, Rinaldo

(whom Cesare Ignazio had no legal grounds to supplant) was still forced to protect him.

It was probably the best solution all round.

Certainly, Cesare Ignazio appears to have given Francesco's wedding his full

support, travelling first to Rome to obtain the due dispensation required for the duke to

marry his second cousin; 75 and then, when Francesco was too ill to travel to Parma, he

was called upon to act as proxy to the duke.76 Both actions underline the extent to which

Francesco was still reliant upon his cousin. Margherita, in her letter to Francesco on

13 Ibid., p. 64.

14 I-MOos CS, 'Copie del testamento di Francesco II e scritture relative aile sue onoranze funebri, 1694-1696', b. 347, sotlofasc 1974-11, pp. 2-3.


16/_MOas es, 'Oocumenti c scritture varie relativi a Francesco 11,1666-1694', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-1.

46


their wedding day, 14 July 1692, applauded Cesare Ignazio's conduct: '11 Signor

Principe Cesare, c'ha adempite si bene, con tanto decoro ed intiera soddisfazione di tutti

noi, Ie parti dell' Altezza Vostra in dare, e ricevere la scambievuole donazione de' nostri

cuori,.77 A week after the wedding, on 21 July 1692, both Cesare Ignazio and Francesco

travelled from Modena to greet Margherita at Rivaltella and to escort the new duchess

to the duke's summer palace in Sassuolo.78

When, finally, on 9 November 1692 Margherita Farnese made her formal

entrance into Modena, the public celebration that marked her procession and the

consumption of L'ingresso as a gala court festivity clearly reflected the aspiration of

most for the swift provision of a male progeny from an increasingly infirm duke. Yet

hindsight was to show that all had been left too late. As we shall note in Chapter 3,

despite the wedding pleasantries in Parma, the magnificence of her procession, and the

hopes of the Modenese public as Margherita entered the city, this was the business end

of the marriage, and the memory of Laura would have ensured that Cesare Ignazio and

Francesco were keen to establish the limits of her powers. Now, for the first time since

Laura's exile, a significant female figurehead was within range of the duke's

confidence.79 While the evidence is that Margherita was welcomed in Modena,

regardless of the chances for a fruitful marriage, her presence, and Francesco's

deteriorating health, would nonetheless have threatened irrevocable changes to the old

regime.8o Cesare Ignazio still needed to protect his position in court and to ensure that

the new arrival would not come between the two princes and their administration.

77 I-MOas CS, 'Lettere di Margherita Famese moglie di Francesco II, duchessa di Modena fino al settembre 1694: al marito Francesco II, 14/07/1692 - 08/1111692', b. 266.88: Parma, 14 July 1692.

78 Ibid.; Muratori, Delle anlichila eslensl, 2, pp. 600-601.

79 The only female to have stayed 'within' Francesco II's court for the duration of his reign was the widow of Duke Francesco I, 'Madama Serenissima Lucrezia Barberini' who became the duke's third wife in 1654. Her lack of mention in the Modenese chronicles suggests that she had by then 'retired' from any position of influence.

80 Margherita's life has not generally attracted the historians. Drei, I Farnese, and Nasalli Rocca, I Farnese, therefore, provide the best of a very limited insight into her life.

47


Whatever was required of Francesco, the priority for his confidant, it seems, became not

one of delivering succession, but of holding onto and controlling power. Thus in 1692,

as in 1674, a darker political agenda lay behind the fa~ade of festivity that greeted the

arriving procession. Privately within court, it would appear that while supporting the

wedding, the two princes used L 'ingresso to convey a direct warning to the bride that

they remained at the helm of government and that their partnership was not to be

disputed. To this end, the function of L'ingresso as a 'wedding' opera will become

apparent in Chapter 3 when we will see how the duke's patronage of music was built

upon a tradition of making political statements at key historical moments for the Este

dynasty. By 1692, such a practice had long become a regular feature of the duke's reign,

and while political readings in opera can often be open to interpretation and

contradiction, we will see how L 'ingresso was one such occasion where opera served as

the perfect vehicle for ducal propaganda. While the staging of L 'ingresso undoubtedly

sought to impress Margherita through the magnificence and grandeur of its investment

in costumes and scenery, the message contained within the drama was not merely one of

a celebration of the union of bride and groom, but more potently one which trumpeted

the partnership of Francesco and Cesare Ignazio. The warning to the new duchess was

to take heed of Laura's fate and leave the government of Modena to the joint rule of the

duke and his cousin.

And yet all was to end with more than a sense of anti-climax. As an opera,

L'ingresso mirrored the reign of the two princes in so many ways. It was extravagant,

indulgent and lavish, but failed to deliver on a number of levels, as we shall come to

see. When it was commissioned in honour of Margherita in 1692, it seemed to mark the

culmination of seven successful years of opera patronage and to bring the duke's reign

to its long-awaited climax with a promise of a bright tomorrow; instead, at its height,

opera imploded in Modena, contributing to a financial crisis that left the ducal coffers

48


unable to settle its accounts until March 1694. Within two years of the production, Duke

Francesco had died without a son and heir. But while the lavish investment in

L'ingresso undoubtedly contributed to its failure, it also ensured the need to keep

records of the costs incurred at the time and of the processes of reconciliation thereafter;

and, it is to these records that we are now able to tum in an effort to understand better

the complex machinations by which opera was produced under Francesco, and what, in

tum, the duke sought from his investment. For all his failings politically, the young

duke is still remembered as a passionate patron of music. This, then, is a review of one

more part of his legacy.

49


Chapter 2.

Patronage and Production

Come io non ho per oggetto d'ambizioni, che quell'umilissima Servitu, con che Ia Sorte mi fa. attualmente illustrar Ie prove d'un singolar rispetto, e decorar gli atti d'un profondissimo ossequio, che mi dicchiara di Vosfra Alfezza Serenissima ... Humilissimo, Devotissimo, & Obligatissimo. Suddito, Vassallo, e Servitore. I

The patronage of music by Duke Francesco II d'Este's government-by which I mean

the two princes, Francesco and Cesare Ignazio-was quite simply unprecedented in the

years since the Este had made Modena their capital, and arguably even exceeded the

halcyon days of Ferrara. With Cesare Ignazio proving, despite his critics, to be an able

governor, Duke Francesco was free to indulge his passion not only for music, but also

for culture.2 In addition to investing in both architecture and art, he can be credited with

establishing the city's first university, founding the Accademia de' Dissonanti, with first

saving and then reconstructing the ducal cappella, and with restoring both oratorio and

opera to Modena before taking both genres to unprecedented levels in respect of

investment, production and, indeed, consumption. As a consequence of his benevolence,

Francesco was able to recoup some of his political losses and to use music as a

propagandist tool in support of his reign.

The motive for this investment was simple. Laura had brought up her children to

believe that although the size of their domain had dwindled, no royal family 'could

boast of a more illustrious descent', and Duke Francesco (described by Crowther as 'a

typical hereditary prince, proud of his ancestry and imbued with high ideals of family

I L'ingresso, dedication by Decio FontaneIli. See Appendix E. For all archive references, names of composers, librettists, and dates of operas cited here and throughout, please refer to Appendix C for my 'List of Operas Given in Modena (1653-1705),.


50


honour [where the] ... guiding principle of his policy at home and abroad was the honour

of the dynasty') seems, with the aid of Cesare Ignazio, determined to pursue this ideal

by using his undoubted passion for music as a vehicle to raise the Este, if not his own,

profile.3 Indeed, Milano perhaps best encapsulates the duke's reign in his description of

Francesco as 'un duca debole che sa esaltarsi con "idee da monarca",.4 From a political

perspective, the duke had overseen a polemical reign, as exemplified by his public

falling out with Louis XIV in 1684. The resulting exile of Cesare Ignazio on 23 June

1685-just five months before the opening of the new Teatro Fontanelli-until his

return in the autumn of 1686 gave the two princes a cause celebre (i.e., their perceived

persecution by Louis and others) against which the indulgence of opera would serve as a

vessel to celebrate and promote the duke's reign as a retort to the French king and, of

course, to those who still lauded the deposed regent Laura.5 Ironically, the two princes

probably took their inspiration from Louis. Cesare Ignazio had, in his youth, attended

the king's court in Versailles where the famed spectacles patronised by Louis must

surely have served as the standard against which the extravagant promotion of opera at

the Teatro Fontanelli would now be measured.6

Thus as Duke Francesco set about his patronage of music, it soon becomes clear

that his investment was not made in a haphazard or ill-defined way. Instead, the

structure, form and apparent function of the duke's patronage across genres suggests the

existence of some strategy, whether conscious or unconscious, which appears to have

categorised music into specific functional elements defined by their formal

consumption, but which always served at its various levels as an instrument to promote

3 Oman, Mary of Modena, p. 13; Crowther, 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse', pp. 207-208.


'Chiappini, G/i ESlensi, p. 491.

'Ibid., p. 487; Milano, 'Gli Estensi', pp. 56-7.

51


the Este name in general and to defend and support Francesco's reign in particular.

Whether or not such clearly defined distinctions existed in practice or, indeed, within

the music, there is no escaping the designation of what were sometimes purpose-built

facilities for the consumption of specific genres. What remained constant despite these

formal settings was the homogeny of purpose that existed across differing genres in

what seems like an unerring desire to produce music in direct response to the changing

needs of the ducal cause.

At first, from 1677 onwards, this practice became manifest in the 'state'

oratorios produced by the duke's cappella, the majority of which were given at the

oratory of San Carlo Rotondo next to the royal chapel of San Vincenzo, where the

octagonal prayer-hall was 'furnished with a special tribune to accommodate the Este

princes,.7 In c.1683, this sea-change in music production extended the number of genres

at the duke's service to include 'private' cantatas produced by the Accademia de'

Dissonanti, and then later both 'public' and 'private' settings of operas given

respectively at the newly opened Teatro Fontanelli (1685) and Teatro di Corte (1686).

It is important to appreciate from the outset that, despite the expansion in music

production seen under Francesco, those who administered and therefore controlled

musical output in Modena operated as a closed and intimate circle within the Modenese

court. This naturally facilitated a cross-pollination of ideas and a unity of purpose that I

shall explore in Chapter 3, but it also suggests (as indeed we might expect) that the

direction of music in Modena lay as much with its administrators as it did with those

musicians who composed and performed for a living; indeed, the two often became one,

as we shall note of Giovanni Battista Giardini, the duke's private secretary and a

7 Crowther, The Oralorio in Modena, p. 186.

52


prominent librettist, whose service to the duke often seems to have placed him at the

very core of music production in Modena.

Essentially, we can identify five key figures who served to administer the court

music. Pietro Zerbini held the purse strings. As treasurer to the privy chamber, he was

responsible for the administering of all payments to the musicians of the ducal cappella

and to those responsible for larger-scale productions, His role will become more

apparent later when we examine the L'ingresso accounts and the reconciliation of the

loss suffered on production against the loan initially granted to the impresario, Decio

Fontanelli, on the establishment of 'public' opera at his theatre in 1685. Fontanelli's

role as owner and impresario of the Teatro Fontanelli clearly places him at the centre of

this study and, as such, he is considered when we come on to opera production further

below. Likewise, Antonio Cottini-originally a bass singer in the duke's cappella, who

sang the role of Aspasio in L'ingresso and is identified by Jennifer Williams Brown as

one of the most prominent aria-brokers active in Modena at this time-appears to have

earned his living through both on- and off-stage opportunities as they arose, and very

much worked within the same confines as Fontanelli.8 Indeed, Cottini appears often as

the link that made the system work. He is often cited as acting as an intermediary for the

duke and is almost omnipresent behind the scenes of Modenese opera.

The fourth figure is Antonio Giannettini, whose position as maestro di cappella

and the composer of L ';ngresso makes his contribution self-evident. Relatively little is

known of the composer, who has been the subject of just a single in-depth biography, by

Elisabetta Luin in 1931, although Crowther has since added significantly to our

knowledge.9 Giannettini had effectively been head-hunted from Venice and arrived in

• Williams Brown 'On the Road with the "Suitcase Aria"', pp. lJ-IS; and more generally "Con nuove arie aggiunle".

9 For Giannettini, see Luin, Antonio Giannel/ini e Ja mus/ca a Modena; Crowther, The Oratorio In Modena, pp. 109-32; Walker and B. Glixon, in NGO, 2, p. 404.

S3


Modena by barge, having travelled with all his worldly possessions via the canal system

then so dominant in Italy.lO In his time in Modena he apparently developed a very close

friendship with Francesco. As Luin reveals:

11 Giannettini nonostante Ie sue molte occupazioni a Modena, ha trovato pure tempo per dar lezioni, e par che come insegnante di canto, abbia god uta la speciale fiducia del duca ... Per Giannettini la morte del principe fu il colpo piil grave che 10 avesse colto durante la sua vita ... Egli in Francesco II perdette non solo it suo duca, rna anche un amico. II

As maestro of the duke's cappella (1686-1702) and as a prominent composer of cantata,

oratorio and opera, Giannettini (who sang bass and played the organ) was the most

significant musician of Duke Francesco's reign. His teaching of voice to Francesco

helps provide a picture of a music-loving duke, whom we know also played the

violoncello and the violin.12 The many letters from Giannettini to Francesco (sent via

Giardini) that remain extant in the Modenese archives suggest that the maestro regularly

corresponded with his duke on specific matters relevant to music production. One letter

of note written to Giardini (dated 23 March 1688) shows Giannettini seeking specific

instruction from Francesco:

Supplico Vostra Signoria Illustrissima farmi I'honore d'intendere dal Prencipe Serenissimo che l'Altezza Sua comanda che canti nell' oratorio di Santa Dimna accio io possi far l'invito della prova per dimani dopo it pranzo; scusi l'incommodo: la supplico non venendo io in persona per non sentirmi molto bene a causa di questa mia flussione che per anco non cessa di darmi non poco di fastidio; Gli raccomando, venendogli l'apertura, l'affare del Signor Al . 13 emanru ...

10 Crowther, The Oralorio in Modena, p. \09.

II Luin, Antonio Giannellini e 10 musica a Modena, pp. 20, 50.

Il Lazarelli, Injormazione dell'Archivio del Monislero di San Pietro di Modena, is speeific in noting that Duke Francesco played the violoncello, while Crowther, The Oralorio in Modena, p. 14, notes-prior to Giannettini's arrival-that 'by 1671, [Francesco was] showing some promise as a violinist under the tutelage of Giuseppe Colombi'.

\J I-MOos MM, Casso n. 1.b. Antonio Alernanni (or A1lemani, as is more commonly used) duly entered the cappella and later played first violin in L'ingresso.

54


The letter not only suggests that Giannettini had no idea about which singers had been

selected for Lanciani's oratorio, Santa Dimna,14 but, I think, supports the supposition

that Francesco had some direct input into basic practical issues within Modenese music

production. Not least, in noting Giannettini's excuse for not coming in person, it would

seem that Giannettini and Giardini engaged in regular face-to-face discussions about

such productions that possibly extended to the duke.

By cross-referencing Giannettini's many activities, a pattern emerges which

identifies a well-structured musical calendar that neatly orchestrates all genres into their

respective seasons. The year would start with Giannettini attending the carnival in

Venice, where, as can be witnessed in the case of Allemani, he would recruit musicians

for the duke's cappella and no doubt view operas that might suit revival in Modena; he

would then return to the city for the start of the oratorio season during Lent; July would

see a retreat to the duke's summer residence at Sassuolo 'for the summer season of

chamber music and divertissements' .IS Once back in Modena, the duke would enjoy a

second oratorio season before the return of opera in November.16 Indeed, such was the

duke's passion for oratorio that four or five different works were often produced over

the course of one year. The arrival of December would presumably end the year with

sacred works as Christmas beckoned. It should be noted, however, that Giannettini's

involvement in opera production under his duke was seemingly limited. Luin notes how

'durante it regno di Francesco II ha diretto opere in teatro soltanto una volta, e

precisamente la sua opera L'ingresso alia g;oventu di Claudio Nerone'}' By contrast,

his later duties under Duke Rinaldo must have changed somewhat, for he went on to

14 G. A Lorenzani (1.), F. Lanciani (c.): I-MOe Mus. F. 618 (ms.). Crowther. The Oralorio in Modena, pp. Ill, 19S, records SonIa Dimna being given in the Oratory of San Carlo Rotondo in 1687 (a year earlier than the citation in Giannettini's letter).

15 Crowther, The Oralorio in Modena, p. 109.

16 For the dates of four opera seasons, see Table 2.2 below; for oratorio seasons, see Crowther, The Oralorio In Modena, p. 187.

17 Luin, Antonio Giannellini e /0 musica a Modena, p. 3S.

55


direct at least nine of the subsequent ten known productions in both the Teatro di Corte

and the Teatro FontanellL18

But it is with the aforementioned Giardini that we come onto the most

significant contribution to the administration of music as a whole in Modena. As

'Segretario di Lettere Ducale', Giardini appears to have been at the fulcrum of all the

various musical activities in the city.19 In addition to being an accomplished poet and

librettist (not least of oratorios and of opera), he was also responsible for the purchase of

music scores and was effectively the director of the duke's now famed library.20 When

the Modenese intelligentsia formed what was to become the influential Accademia de'

Dissonanti-founded between 1680 and 1684, though probably around 1683-Giardini

became its first secretary.21 It is no surprise that both Alessandra Chiarelli and Owen

Jander are agreed upon Giardini's critical value to Francesco and to music production in

Modena. Jander, in particular, gives us an invaluable insight not only into Giardini, but

also into the function of the academy:

In many ways the Secretary of the Academy [Giardini] had an even more important role than that of the Prince [the society's highest office]. He had to have been a member for at least eight years, and, once elected, retained, the post as long as he wished ... There is something opportunistic about the pattern of his [Giardini's] output. His opera libretto II prencipe corsaro, for example, was created for the celebration of Francesco II's assumption of ducal rule in 1674 ... When the pious Francesco's tastes turned to oratorio, Giardini emerged as the foremost poet on the scene, with a regular output of libretti between 1678 and 1691. .. Along with his abilities as secretary and poet, Giardini appears to have had considerable skill as an entrepreneur. During his years of service to Francesco II, for example, payments to musicians and copyists were made under Giardini's signature of approval ... All of this points to the enterprising Giardini

II Tardini, I teatri di Modena, passim., lists Giannettini as 'Oirettore d'Orchestra' on: /I Giustino (Teatro Fontanelli, 1697), Non do freno all'amor disuguagliallZQ (Teatro Fontanelli, 1697). Amore fra gl'impossibli (Teatro di Corte, 1697). End;m;one (Teatro di Corte, 1698), II dittatore romano (Teatro di Corte, 1700), Demetrio (Teatro di Corte, 1701).lljiglio delle selve (Teatro Fontanelli, 1701), La n;nja bi="a (Teatro Fontanelli, 1701) and La Semiramide (Teatro Fontanelli, 1703). Lo scioglimento de' nodi del Fato (Teatro di Corte, 1697) is not listed in Tardini.

19 Chiarelli, 'Fonti e vita musicale estense', p. 290.

20 Ibid., pp. 276, 290. See also Jander, 'The Cantata ;n Accodemia', p. 539, on Giardini's qualities as I librettist. See also Klenz, Glo'l'ann; Maria Bononcln; of Modena, p. 17, for an insight into the original establishment of the Este library and its transfer from Ferrara 10 Modena in 1600-01.

21 Jander, 'The Cantata ;n Accadem;a', p. 526, credits Tiraboschi, Biblioteca Modenese, I, p. 24. who records its founding in and around 1680, while Chiarelli, 'Fonli e vita musicale estcnse', p. 290, revises this date to around 1683; rc Giardini, sec p. 293.

56


as the logical liaison between Duke Francesco II and the Accademia de' Dissonanti. If he was not in fact the poet of every one of these [Le., the Academy's] texts, Giardini was almost certainly the instigator of these productions. While the duke proudly gave patronage to his new Modenese academy, and while the Dissonanti paid homage in return, Giovanni Battista Giardini, privy to the concerns of both parties, seems to have created an intimate arena for his somewhat political instincts to communicate in poesia per musica.22

Effectively, Giardini became what Chiarelli describes as the 'traft-d'union' between the

Accademia and music production in Modena. His position thus naturally ensured that

both he and the ideas of the Accademia strongly influenced the texts set to music in

genres other than the cantatas produced by the Dissonanti. 23 To this end, while my

primary concern remains opera production in Modena, and while I shall address the

political content of the academy's cantatas in the next chapter, we should not

underestimate the academy's significant role in effectively setting the tone and style of

music production in Modena at this time.

There has been, however, some dispute over whether Duke Francesco should be

credited for its founding.24 Tiraboschi notes that it was entirely down to the enterprise of

Doctor Dario Sangiovanni, a professor of theology and founding member of the

Accademia, though I suspect that Jander is right in acknowledging Michele Maylender's

suggestion that the Accademia was ultimately founded 'per cura privata [Sangiovanni],

rna non senza il ducale favore' .25 This use of an individual to do the court's bidding

would be repeated when it came to opera.

Careful consideration of the original list of thirty-eight members (attributed to

1684) provides much insight into the make-up of the group, and therefore into those

22 Jander, 'The Cantata in Accademia', pp. 530, 539-40; Chiarelli, 'Fonti e vita musicale estensc', p. 276.

2l Chiarelli, 'Fonti e vita musicale estensc', pp. 292.3.

:14 Chiappini, Gli Estensi, p. 435, argues against the duke's involvement, while Muratori, Delle anlichi/lJ estensi, 2, p. 601, credits Francesco with having taken the initiative.

25 Tiraboschi, Biblioteca Modenese, I, p. 24; Jander, 'The Cantata in Accademia', p. 526, credits Maylender, Storie della Accademle d'ltalia, 2, p. 198.

57


who were responsible for the commissioning of its cantatas.26 The most senior position

in the Accademia (the 'principe') went to its highest-ranking member Marquis

Bonifazio Rangoni, governor of Carpi and Reggio. In addition to Rangoni, a further

eight members held some noble title; Giardini, himself, is one of five senior civil

servants; seven more were professors, probably from the newly formed university, and a

further seven simply carried the title of 'Dottore'; finally, Modena's vicar (Canon

Giovanni Battista Toschi) provided an ecclesiastical presence. The remaining members

are listed by name only and without any form of title.

The influence of Duke Francesco can be seen from how the initial thirty-eight

members in 1684 fell after his death to just twenty in 1696 before Duke Rinaldo

intervened and reinvigorated the academy by opening its membership to the

surrounding area. Indeed, the society's archive notes how 'dopo il matrimonio di

Francesco II (1692) diminui Ie sue tornate e per la lunga malattia e morte immatura di

quel suo insigne protettore ed Amante appassionato delle lettere venne a poco a poco

languendo,.27 As with the list of 1684, the details given in 1696 confirm a similar make-

up of members: from the twenty names listed, eight were of the nobility, nine doctors,

and three others identified by name only. There is no record of Decio Fontanelli having

been a member, though given the thirteen-year gap between the two listings-which

were seemingly produced only to record, first, its founding members and, second, those

still remaining when Duke Rinaldo came to the society's rescue-it might simply be

that their timing was unfortunate, given that the list of 1684 may have come just before

his entrance into opera, while by 1696 he had already retired from producing it.28

26 'Albo Accademica 1684-1822", in Memorie della Regia Accademica, 20/3, pp. vii-i,,; and Maylender, Storia delfe Accademie d'/talia, 2, pp. 197-200, provide full listings of members and their roles in this period. I am also grateful to Paola Oi Pietro at the Biblioteca Estense for her assistance in locating these listings of members.

l7 'Albo Accademica 1684-1822", in Memorie della Regia ACCademica, 20/3, p. "i.

211 am grateful for Chiarelli's insight into this matter and to ber view tbat Fontanelli's membersbip was likely, if unproven.

58


Nonetheless, in both lists it becomes clear that composers, musicians and singers

were excluded from membership, while poets were welcomed. This is entirely as we

might expect, given the general status of musicians at this time. It thus appears that

while musicians were 'invited' to compose and perform the cantatas for the private

sittings of the Accademia, their role must have been a professional and subservient one

along much the same lines as their usage elsewhere in Modena.29 This helps to define

the role of the musician in Modena at this time and in our understanding of his

contribution to the setting and performance of texts, whereby we can view him quite

simply as an employee of the ducal cappella being directed from one piece to another,

precisely as we might expect. Even so, this rather passive role is somewhat ironic, given

that the Accademia had been founded explicitly for musical debate. With this in mind,

the make up of the academy's membership would suggest in turn an intellectual priority

within the society of verse over music, which indeed becomes more apparent in Chapter

3 when we come to consider the academy's output and its influence on other genres

prevalent in Modena at this time.

Opera in Modena

While Duke Francesco's patronage of the academy serves to provide a context

through which he brought about the rejuvenation of music in Modena, it was to oratorio

and opera, above all, that the duke looked for public declarations of artistic revival. To

this end, the work of Victor Crowther in The Oratorio in Modena provides an

invaluable and comprehensive study of the role of this genre under Duke Francesco.3o

:19 Sadly, I am not aware of any extant records, which might shed light on whether or not payments were made for commissions on behalf of the Accademia.

:10 Crowther, The Oratorio i1l Modena.

S9


While I shall come on to to address political statement in oratorio in Chapter 3,

Crowther's work relieves me of much of the need to expand upon its production under

Francesco, other than to note for present purposes that Crowther records a total of

eighteen oratorios that were given in direct and public support of the Este during the

duke's reign.31 In total, he lists a remarkable eighty-six oratorios produced within the

last seventeen years of the prince's lifetime.32 But while the sheer volume of oratorios

produced suggests its dominance as the staple musical diet of the deeply spiritual

Francesco, it is the twenty operas we know to have been given under the duke's reign,

and in particular the eight produced at the Teatro Fontanelli leading up to and including

L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone, that-freed of the restrictions of religious

texts-seem to have functioned not merely as entertainment for the princes, but as a

cause for ducal display, conspicuous consumption and public promotion. As the court of

Louis XIV, and those of the Medici and the Gonzaga, had done before. the Este princes

now turned to the patronage of music as a means to glorify the magnificence of their

reign. In terms of opera, the Teatro Fontanelli would become the chosen location for the

pursuit of this policy and while, as the citation of the L'ingresso dedication given at this

chapter's head suggests, the environment in which the theatre was conceived and

administered appears, on the face of it, to be one of total and absolute devotion to the

duke, we will learn that the reality of how such patronage was administered soon

becomes more complicated than the records would first wish to reveal.

Excepting Horatio (Orazio) Vecchi's 'Comedia Harmonica in 14 quadri, prologo

e licenza', L 'Amphiparnaso, 0 Li disperati contenti (given at the 'Sala della Spelta',

Palazzo Comunale, 1594), the first we know of opera coming to Modena is under

Francesco I (Francesco II's grandfather) when Ersilla (1653) and then Gli amori

31 Ibid., 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse', p. 216.

11 Ibid., The Oratorio in Modena, pp. 192-9.

60


d'Alessandro con Rossane (1654) were also given at the same 'Sala della Spelta' in

what were almost certainly 'private festive performances,.33 These and all operas given

in Modena between 1653 and 1705 are identified in Appendix B, which provides a full

chronology of the movement of opera through the Modenese theatres, and by Appendix

C, which provides a full list of all operas given there in this period, including names of

librettists and composers, and full archive reference, as appropriate.34

The success of these first two operas, at least in terms of state standing, can be

measured by the fact that in 1656 the prestigious Teatro Ducale di Piazza (known more

commonly as the Teatro della Spelta, but also as the Ducale Teatro Grande, the Teatro

Domestico and the Teatro di Modena) was built on the site of the Sala della Spelta by

the famous architect Gaspare Vigarani.35 It was inaugurated with a production of

Camillo Rama's II Sancio to celebrate the wedding of Laura Martinozzi and Prince

Alfonso (later Duke Alfonso IV), Francesco's mother and father. The Teatro Ducale (as

I shall refer to it) was a beautifully imposing theatre with columns, terraces, and

galleries. In every respect, it was a clear statement of ducal display on the part of

Francesco I, whose passion as a patron of art and architecture-and their exploitation

for political motives-has been well documented by Janet Southom and Alice Jarrard.36

Yet, in 1658, the duke's death brought a premature end to opera production in Modena

just five years after its inauguration. Thereafter, the subsequent reigns of Duke Alfonso

IV, then Duchess Laura (as regent) produced just one recorded opera-Padre Sisto

Reni's II Ciro in Lidia (1665}-given in what Tardini describes as the 'teatrino privato

che esisteva in Corte' .37

33 Tardini, l teatri di Modena, pp. 861, 932. n; Roccatagliat~ in NGO, 3, pp. 419-20.

14 Similar references for the oratorios cited in this thesis are given as they occur.

35 Martinelli 8raglia, 'n Teatro Fontanelli', p. 140.

16 Southom, Power and Display in the Seventeenth Century; Jarrard, Architecture as Performance.

37 Tardini,l teatri di Modena, p. 862 n.

61


It was not until Duke Francesco's assumption of power in 1674 that opera

returned to the Teatro Ducale with Pro spero Mazzi's setting of II prencipe corsaro (to a

libretto by Giardini) sixteen years after the theatre's last production, L 'Erosilda (1658).

At first, there was a real sense of enthusiasm, with four operas staged in the first two

years of the duke's reign, but after Germanico sui Reno (1677) the next opera-Helena

rapita da Paride (1681}-was not given until four years later. Thereafter, the same

theatre hosted a single production on an almost annual basis until a double promotion in

1685 of Oreste in Argo in January and L 'Alcibiade 'da recitarsi per 10 giomo natalizio

di S.A.S.li 6 marzo 1685' marked the end of its function as the duke's favoured theatre

for opera in Modena. Yet, despite this activity under the fervent patronage of the two

princes, opera failed in these early years to establish itself in Modena. As Bianconi and

Walker note, 'no coherent tradition of musical spectacle yet existed ... [in] the Duchy of

Modena (apparently "public" opera at Modena began with the opening of a theatre by

Decio F ontanelli in 1685),.38

For its part, there appears to be little recorded evidence of how the Teatro

Ducale was run or by whom, although an early indication of what was to come can be

seen by the fact that Decio Fontanelli and Antonio Cottini acted as joint impresarios for

Legrenzi's Germanico sui Reno (Teatro Ducale, 1677).39 Cottini also sang the lead role

and, as we have noted, would go on to sing in L'ingresso. While this establishes a

connection for both men with Modenese opera production some eight years before the

opening of the Teatro Fontanelli, and a role for the new owner 'su incarico sovrano', the

extent to which either man appears to have acted in any formal or long-term capacity

with regard the running of the Teatro Ducale remains otherwise undocumented. Even

so, the Teatro Ducale remained directly under ducal ownership and patronage. From

31 Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption', p. 228.

39 Ibid., p. 280; Martinelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 145.

62


what we know, it appears to have operated in every sense as a 'private' theatre

producing works directly at its patron's bequest for an invited, non-ticket-buying

audience.

Against this early system of private ducal patronage through 'court' opera, the

Teatro Valentini had existed since 1643 as a commercially run, privately owned 'public'

theatre giving commedie to a ticket-buying public. Yet despite its perception as a

'public' theatre. the Teatro Valentini seems also to have prospered from the outset under

a system of ducal patronage established by Francesco I in the form of privileges

granted, which in essence equated to a guaranteed monopoly of its trade, exemption

from taxes and a licence to supplement its income from gambling and the sale of wine

and food. It was these very same privileges that would later form the cornerstone of the

ducal patronage of the new Teatro Fontanelli.

Francesco II seems to have adopted much of his grandfather'S strategy in how he

managed and distinguished between 'private' and 'public' production. In addition to

maintaining the privileges granted to the Teatro Valentini. he also seems to have

continued the policy which separated 'court' theatre at the Teatro Ducale (and before, at

the Sala della Spelta) from 'public' theatre at the Teatro Valentini (later the Teatro

Fontanelli). Each of these 'private' and 'public' theatres appears to have remained

independent of the other but, nonetheless, both were ultimately dependent upon ducal

patronage.40 Likewise, any notion of the two differing institutions serving separate

social functions of 'private' and 'public' theatre was seemingly reinforced by their

distinct and separate uses, so that each building appears to have followed its own pre-

defined political and social direction. Moreover, it seems that such a policy emanated

from court. As Graziella Martinelli Braglia notes:

40 For a definition of what is meant by 'public' and 'public-opera' in the seventeenth century, see Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption', pp. 243-4.

63


La sala Valentini si prestava dunque ad esaudire la richiesta, espressa dalla Corte, di un locale idoneo aIle commedie, come il... Teatro Ducale, dalla grandiosa spazialita, si qualificava come il luogo deputato per Ie spettacolari mises en scene, e Ie complicate macchinerie dei drammi in musica.41

At least that was the case until the destruction of the Teatro Valentini by fire in 1681.

Francesco II seems to have used this opportunity to move what we might term 'private-

court' opera from its setting at the Teatro Ducale over to what was to become the newly

refurbished Teatro Fontanelli (on the site of the old Teatro Valentini) while

simultaneously opening up the genre for 'public' consumption. To accommodate this

move, the new theatre had been enlarged to make space for the machinery needed to

stage opera. At the same time, the Teatro Ducale ceased giving major opera

performances in 1685 and thereafter served only as host for the 'privately-staged'

productions of I Convittori del Collegio dei NobilL One year later, in 1686, opera was

re-introduced for the duke's private consumption at the newly inaugurated Teatro di

Corte (situated next to the east wing of the Palazzo Ducale, and known also as the

Teatrino di Corte, the Teatro di Palazzo and the Teatrino Privato).42 Thus, as the duke

now sought to establish 'public' opera in Modena, he chose to do so by retaining

separate environments with apparently specific and distinct 'private' and 'public'

functions, while opera was moved across the city from one theatre to another in an

apparent change of the genre's remit and function. Table 2.1 thus identifies the

movement of opera under successive reigns within its 'private' and 'public'

manifestations:

41 Martinelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 141.

42 Note that it remains unclear whether the new Teatro di Corte was an entirely new construction or a refurbishment of the old Teatrino di Corte or Teatrino Privato that existed previously in the palace.

64


Table 2.1: Ducal patronage of opera in Modena (1653-1705)

'Public' theatre

Teatro Valentini (1643-1681) (commedie only)

+ Teatro Fontanelli (1685-1705)

'Private' theatre

(opera in Modena)

• Sala della Spelta (1653-1655)

! Tut", D.",. di r'" (1653-'685)

1 I I I I I

Teatro di Corte (1686-1860)

• I Convittori del Collegio dei NobiJi (1687-1753)

The motive for this change in policy is unclear, other than the rather obvious

opportunity brought about by the fire. Whether or not he now sought to restore the glory

of his grandfather's patronage, Francesco II seems to have wanted to stamp his own

mark on opera production; and for whatever reason (possibly the fact that the Teatro

Ducale was nearly thirty years old), he now opted to reconstruct what was to become

the new Teatro Fontanelli from the remains of the old burnt-out Teatro Valentini, while

the Teatro Ducale was effectively left to ruin. For the latter, a note in the Modenese

Archives, dated 3 November 1690, includes a request for the key to the old theatre and

permission to playa ball game ('pallone') inside, given that 'it was no longer much use

for anything' .43

While the strategy adopted by Duke Francesco appears, at first glance, to have

sought to separate the production of dramma per musica by the requirements of its

formal consumption as either 'private' or 'public' opera, it soon becomes evident, as we

delve deeper into the reasoning behind the duke's patronage and the way in which opera

was used by him, that the two were merely variations on the same theme: namely,

'3 I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', Casso n. 8.b. The note is by Antonio Zanetti, not to be confused with Antonio Maria Zanetti, the Italian librettist (1706-78). Little is known of our Zanetti. He is recorded by Martinelli Braglia, 'n Teatro Fontanelli', p. 146 n. 38, as having been a co-impresario for at least one production at the Teatro di Corte.

65


'court' opera. Both existed to serve the same master and are, therefore, best perceived as

being variations of 'private-court' and 'public-court' opera. This strategy was unveiled

by a dual process.

First, the contracting-out, in effect, of 'private' opera at the Teatro Ducale to

'public' opera at the Teatro Fontanelli in 1685 was achieved within a structure by which

the new theatre simply adopted the business template established for the production of

commedie at the old Teatro Valentini. Although this template might be seen as being

based on the Venetian impresario model of a 'privately-owned', commercially run

'public' theatre, it was in reality more of a hybrid or, as Bianconi and Walker might

have described it, a 'mixed model' through which the Venetian archetype was

ultimately subverted by its absolute dependence upon and subservience to Francesco.44

In this way, despite the theatre being seen to operate as an autonomous 'public' entity, it

remained entirely under ducal control.

Second, having chosen to contract-out 'private' opera to a 'public' theatre,

Francesco immediately proceeded to re-establish 'private' opera at the ducal palace for

his own personal consumption, as we see with the opening (or re-opening) of the new

Teatro di Corte with a 'private' opera, L 'Eritrea, avera G/ ';nganni della maschera

(1686), given in celebration of the "giorno natalizio dell'altezza serenissima di

Francesco II" that immediately emphasises the clear distinction in the function of the

two venues.45 Tardini records how the libretto for L 'Eritrea was written and dedicated

by Giovanni Battista Rosselli Genesini (a founding member of the Accademia de'

4' See Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption', p. 234; Rosand, Opera in Seventeenth-Century Venice, pp. 66-\09, for her account of 'The Rise of Commercial Opera'; and Worsthome, Venetian Opera in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 28-36. See also a resume in Kimbelt, Italian Opera, pp. I \3-20, where (at p. 117) he notes, significantly, the change of management structure in Venetian theatres from 1650 onwards whereby 'partly to minimize financial risk, they [the owners] followed increasingly the practice of placing their theatrical affairs in the hands of an impresario'. More recently, B. and J. Glil(on, Inventing the Business of Opera, provide the most detailed and comprehensive insight into every aspect of opera production in Venice. In particular, note their definitions of the principal stakeholders in opera and the relationships therein, pp. 3-16.

45 Sartori, I libretti italiani, 3, p. 53 (9135). Note that Tardini, I teatri di Modena, p. 862, argues that the opera was instead staged to celebrate the wedding anniversary of Alfonso IV and Laura.

66


Dissonanti)46 specifically for perfonnance by the 'cavalieri di corte, la sera del 13 marzo

1686', among whom Fontanelli's son (Giulio) sang the role of 'Amore' in what was

clearly a private gathering 'con balli' of the duke's inner court, designed for the

personal consumption of the Este princes.47 The Teatro di Corte, it seems, became an

extremely active theatre (mainly in January and March), though its private nature is

underlined by the general lack of fonnal identification of the works given in this

period.48 The impression gained is of a rather costly theatre sponsored directly by

Francesco, but with no obvious identification with any single impresario.49 Indeed, the

wealth of documentation that remains in respect of the Teatro di Corte makes it an ideal

subject worthy of further research, as indeed does the issue of the degree to which these

productions can be classified as 'opera' in the conventional sense, rather than some

other fonn of occasional entertainment. For my part, I have relied upon the

classifications of Sartori' and the Modenese archivists, Giardini and Tardini (see

Appendix B), but these productions do raise the question of the extent to which genre

becomes determined by location and function rather than fonn and content, and whether

such classification is as dependent upon where and why a production is given as much

as upon its generic label.

Yet it was not just how opera was consumed that Duke Francesco now changed.

The switch in theatres also brought about a change in how opera was sponsored. In

contracting out opera, Francesco seems to have turned away from the traditional system

of the ducal patronage of opera established at the end of the sixteenth century and to

have looked to the kind of public-private partnership that developed in the city for

46 Note that 'Rosselli' is given as 'Ruscelli' in the academy's original list of members in 1684, but is confirmed as the same 'Rosselli' in Chiarelli, 'Fonti e vita musicale estense', p. 291, and Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, p. 24.

47 Tardini,l teatri di Modena, p. 1100.

41 I-MOos SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro di Corte, 1686', Casso n. 8.b.

49 Martinelli Braglia, 'n Teatro Fontanelli', p. 146 n. 38, identifies the names of Antonio Zanetti, Francesco Nicoli and Francesco Stringa as having been involved at different times to this effect.

67


commedie. Here the modem Teatro Valentini had successfully established a precedent

for the long-term sustainability of a 'public' theatre in its thirty-eight years of existence

precisely by the employment of the very same Venetian 'mixed-model' or hybrid

system now to be adopted by the new opera house.

The Teatro Valentini had been built in 1643 of a wooden structure, but with an

outer brick-wall, on the comer of the crossroads of what is now Via Emilia and Via

Farini (see map, p. 7), and seems from the outset to have profited from a predetermined

role to provide successive dukes with their entertainment.so Vedriani described it as 'it

piu prestigioso centro spettacolare nella Modena tra Sei e Settecento',51 and its location

was probably also significant, centred as it was at the heart of the Modenese social

scene: just a couple of hundred metres along Via Emilia (then the Strada Maggiore) was

the main Piazza Ducale and the site of the then Sala della Spelta (later the Teatro

Ducale), while three hundred metres down Via Farini (then the Rua Grande) was the

ducal palace itself. 52

The Teatro Valentini appears at first glance to have been a relatively private

venture precisely along Venetian lines between 'due intraprendenti aristocratici'

(Lorenzo Valentini and Francesco Toschi), who were able to establish Modena's first

permanent theatre and in so doing create a precedent for a ticket-buying, box-renting,

paying public from which the Teatro Fontanelli would later be able to profit.s3

Nonetheless, affidavits given later by Torquato Toschi (son of Francesco Toschi) in

support of Fontanelli's claim for privileges in 1685 reveal that Francesco I had been

50 Gandini, Cronistoria, I, p. 64; Martinelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 141. It appears, though it is not certain, that the theatre was the design of Valentini's own architect, Gaspare Vigarani (builder of the Teatro Ducale thirteen years later). The building was constructed by Giovanni Antonio Sarti (Mastro Muratore).

51 Vedriani, Historia de//'antichissima citta di Modena, 2, p. 687, cited in Martinelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 139.

52 See p. 7 for a map of Modena.

51 Martinelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 140.

68


generous in the financial support he had given to the venture.54 Moreover, the theatre's

dependence on successive dukes went beyond the privileges granted. Martinelli Braglia

is clear that from the very outset the premises were used 'alIa recita dei comici al

servizio della corte'; indeed, the comici were later known collectively as 'la compagnia

del Serenissimo Signor Duca Francesco II', and presumably of Francesco I before

that. 55 Questions with regard who paid for these performers and to what extent they

benefited from a form of indirect ducal patronage, or were paid by the theatre-and

hence, to what extent the use of the duke's compagnia might have infringed on any idea

of a privately owned theatre-remain for the present unanswered, owing to the loss of

the accounts in the same fire that closed the theatre. Certainly, no records of this type

remain extant in the Teatro Valentini files in the state archives. 56 What is clear,

however, is that the theatre was inextricably tied and reliant upon its successive dukes,

not just for finance, but also for the ability to supply its primary product to its consumer.

Yet despite the element of ducal patronage, it appears that the theatre itself was

at least to some extent self-sustaining. To this end, the operation of the Teatro Valentini,

as with all commercial theatres, must have remained a relatively risky activity. It is,

perhaps, for this reason that the theatre had adopted from the outset a policy of dividing

the business into predetermined sectors of risk, shared among Valentini and Toschi, plus

a third party, Giovanni Antonio Sarti (the muratore credited with the building of the

theatre).57 Together, they broke down the potential exposure into three separate but

interlinked administrative units: Valentini was the owner of the theatre, who having

purchased the building then leased it to Toschi. Valentini, as landlord, thus held the

54 I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a.

55 Martinelli Braglia, '0 Teatro Fontanelli', p. 141.

56/-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a.

57 Martinelli Braglia, '0 Teatro Fontanelli', p. 142, citing I-MOm SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a.

69


long-term investment of land and earned a guaranteed annual rent of 100 scudi. Toschi,

his tenant, was perhaps most exposed by needing to earn a return on rent paid from the

profit made on production. He did this in two ways: first, through the renting of the

principal boxes in the first, second, third and fourth tiers; and second, by sub-leasing to

Sarti the 'mandria, banchette, [e] palchi di sopra, cioe I'ultimo ordine'; in turn, Sarti,

held for a total of thirty years the licence (or spaccio) which allowed him to derive his

earnings from 'vino, festa e gioco', while he also held the rights for the 'interna

gestione' of those areas sub-rented to him by ToschL58 Indeed, although not

documented specifically, similar practices in Venice suggest the possibility that Sarti's

licence may well have served as his payment for having constructed the theatre. 59 But

risk was also manifest at a lower level. On at least two occasions Sarti complained to

Toschi about the theft of his benches and the fact that he was tired of having to remake

their replacements. More importantly, Sarti's spaccio establishes long before Fontanelli

the policy, practice and financial value of deriving income from what were presumably

the long-established sources of gambling and the sale of consumables and other goods.

With the theatre's records destroyed in the fire, we do not know whether or to

what extent the income generated from these sources--especially gambling, 'giochi

d'intrattenimento' and possibly other more illicit activities-were documented. It is also

unclear whether the spaccio granted to Sarti extended to all boxes or whether Toschi

maintained the rights to those under his management. What we do know is that it was

Toschi who was the official appointee to whom the privileges were granted, and that he

was most certainly the n~minated impresario who would thus have been responsible for

satisfying the needs of his ducal patron.60 Later, Camillo Valentini would inherit the

51 Ibid., citing the affidavit by Toschi.

59 Talbot, 'A Venetian Operatic Contract of 1714', pp. 32-3, provides one such example.

60 Martinelli Braglia, '11 Teatro Fontanelli', p. 142, citing I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a: Affidavit by Toschi.

70


ownership of the theatre from his father Lorenzo, and Torquato Toschi the lease from

Francesco. Both heirs would later give affidavits on behalf of Fontanelli in support of

his petition for the granting of the same rights enjoyed by the Teatro Valentini.61

Effectively, then, we can identify a relatively complex corporate structure and

hierarchy of command (theatre owner/landlord-impresario-vendor) that ran the Teatro

Valentini, and one which reveals a mechanism for production that sought to protect the

total exposure to risk by dividing it into smaller, more manageable components. The

success of the Teatro Valentini in trading for thirty-eight years unabated would suggest

that the division of risk worked, and that the additional income streams identified were

both long-established and successful.

Gandini records the fire that destroyed the theatre as having started on 20

January 1681 and notes that, despite its fury, which frightened 'la citta tutta', the duke

remained unmoved, ordering that an improvised commedia be performed in the nearby

Sala della Biada that same night.62 Formal confirmation of the royal consent to rebuild

the theatre came a year later, with Gandini noting its formal sanctioning on 26 February

1682 upon which:

Valentini in un progetto fatto al Duca per la costruzione di detto Teatro chiedeva 1000 doppie di compenso. La spesa totale da una nota dettagliata risulto di Modenesi L. 53,456:19:8 [or c.l,619 doppie].63

Whether or not the payment from Duke Francesco came in the form of a compensatory

gift or a loan is unclear, although there is nothing in the documentation to suggest any

requirement to repay the sum given, as would be the case with Fontanelli in 1685. It

appears that Valentini had initially, at least, been determined to rebuild his old theatre

and take on this new project, but that it was the duke-as principal benefactor of almost

61 For further information on the Toschi family, see Benatti, Famiglie nobili, palri:i, nelle lerre del Ducalo di Modena, p. SS.

62 Gandini, Cronisloria, 1, p. 68.

63 Ibid., p. 69. My computation is based on an exchange rate at this time of33 MI to 1 dobb/a/doppia.

71


two-thirds the cost of the work-who remained arguably the real driving force behind

the re-building of what to all intents and purposes was a privately-owned theatre. And

perhaps this is where a need for categorisation could confuse our understanding of the

reality of the situation. Clearly, the theatre was at all times under private ownership, but

its dependency on ducal patronage was such that the duke always remained the largest

investor, and ultimately it was his sway that ruled the day. Put in a modern context,

neither the Teatro Valentini nor the Teatro Fontanelli was in reality different from any

of the major opera houses in Europe today that are all ultimately tied to, and therefore

dependent upon, the generosity (or otherwise) of their respective government through

which ever bodies are chosen to manage its administration. But, however one wishes to

view the Teatro Valentini, while its operation and day-to-day management might have

been left to its impresarios, it was Francesco who always retained the controlling

interest.

Following the fire, while Duke Francesco turned to the Teatro Ducale as a

temporary home of commedie, Valentini initiated petitioning the court with a series of

'desiderata', which sought further privileges including 'una elargazione, una tantum di

duecento doppie, si da coprire la spesa dei palchi destinati alla corte, somma con la

quale il proprietario "potrebbe provedersi in parte di mutationi, di scene, e finire [ill

guardarobba con habiti da valersi nell' opere'" .64 The reference to costumes suggests

that the project was by now nearing completion. Perhaps with this in mind, Valentini's

thoughts now turned to the question of profit: also included in the petition was the right

on the part of Valentini to fix 'l'utile' of the boxes at his own discretion 'nella

circostanza di drammi musicali, "e cio per poter porre in scena l' opere con quel decoro,

che si conviene" non coprendo--secondo it postulante-i ricavi del solo ingresso Ie

64 Martinelli BragJia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 143, citing I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a: 'Prepositioni per rimettersi in piecjj iI Teatro delle Commedie'.

72


ingenti spese che simili spettacoli comportano' .65 Valentini's apparent concern seems to

support the long-held view that, on their own, ticket sales were not sufficient to cover

the costs of opera production (Carlo Vitali has estimated for seventeenth-century Italian

opera that 'income from the sale of tickets and lease of boxes seldom amounted to 75

per cent of the outgoings,).66

Given Valentini's 'desiderata', it seems that his original intent was to expand the

theatre's capacity in order to enable a switch to opera, but that, presumably some time

later, he became fearful of not being able to recuperate the higher costs that such

productions incurred. As Martinelli Braglia notes:

si conviene che Ie rappresentazioni, specie i melodrarnmi, comportassero spese superiori ai profitti, risolvendosi in disavanzi che, non di rado, determinavano situazioni fallimentari; senz'altro quella pill esposta doveva essere la figura dell'impresario privato, di cui scaltramente si serviva il proprietario dell'edificio.67

Perhaps for this reason, Valentini requested that he be given the freedom in effect to

increase the cost of box rentals for opera. Up until that point, as Gandini notes, 'era

solito il Duca di dare al proprietario del Teatro per regalo in occasione di spettacoli

comici scudi di Modena 300 annui [42 dobble/doppie]'.68 Now, Francesco responded to

Valentini's concerns by guaranteeing a payment of 70 dobble per production. In doing

so, it would seem that Francesco had effectively laid the foundation for the policy of

pre-production payments that were to underpin opera production at the Teatro

Fontanelli, though the amount would in time increase to 150 and then 200 dobble.

The series of requests from Valentini undoubtedly placed him at the centre of

the duke's original plans to bring opera to Modena on a previously unprecedented scale.

65 Ibid.

66 Vitali, 'Italy-Political, Religious and Musical Contexts', p. 37.

67 Martinelli Braglia, 'n Teatro Fontanelli', p. 143.

68 Gandini, Cronistoria, I, p. 69. In 1705,300 scudi were roughly equal (at c.S.3 MI) to 1,600 MI. which (at 38 MI) would give c.42 dobb/e/doppie.

73


At this stage, then, it would appear that Fontanelli had not yet entered the scene, or at

least, not in any documented sense. Valentini's enthusiasm and commitment to the

project even went so far as to reserve six boxes and the platea evidently 'da gestirsi'.

Meanwhile the work moved on steadily. The oak timbers and ironware needed for the

roof were charged directly to the ducal 'munizione delle fabriche', while the payment

for the acquisitions of materials and of the workforce are recorded as being dependent

on the right timing so as to secure the favourable disposition of the duke. The new

theatre was eventually rebuilt in stone and was apparently 'non meno sicuro da incendio

che capace per opere musicali' .69

By February 1682, the project had advanced to the extent that work had begun

on the assignment of the boxes and the duke's own box had been lavishly fitted out with

'oro, specchi, pittura, intagli e simili' .70 In contrast to the old Teatro Valentini, which

had been limited to just five floors and a total of 150 boxes, the new theatre now housed

166 palchi over six levels. Gandini confirms the construction of the boxes and the

placement of Francesco and the princes (presumably Cesare Ignazio, Foresto and Luigi)

as follows:

20 palchi nell'ordine terreno, di 26 nell'ordine basso, di 30 negli ordini 1,2,3, e 4. I numeri 14, 15, 16, 17 del primo ordine erano destinati pel Serenissimo Duca. Quelli dell' ordine secondo sotto gli stessi numeri erano destinati ai Serenissimi Principi.71

The structuring of the tiers is supported by surviving plans for the allocation ofboxes.72

The order of the layout suggests that the 'ordine terreno' was down at the same height

as the platea, while the 'ordine basso' was at stage level. On the basis of 166 boxes at,

69 Martinelli Braglia, 'n Teatro Fontanelli', pp. 143-4.

70 Ibid., p. 144, citing I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro FontaneJli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a: 'Prepositioni per rimettersi in piedi it Teatro delle Commedie'.

71 Gandini, Cronistoria, 1, p. 69. Gandini does not identify his source.

72 I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', Casso n. 8.b.

74


say, between four and five persons per box and, say, 500 in the stalls (the Flavio

accounts reveal that the sale of bollettini peaked at 490 on the last night) we can

estimate that the maximum capacity of the new theatre might have been somewhere

between 1,000 and 1,350. Equally, taking the lowest turnout on bollettini of 100, also

for Flavio, and assuming, say, a 50% occupancy of the boxes, the less well-attended

performances might have attracted an audience of as low as, say, 500.73 I shall return to

the question of the theatre's earning potential and to the sale of bollettini in Chapter 5.

The Teatro Fontanelli

With so much accomplished it remains a mystery why Valentini and Toschi

suddenly disappeared from the scene to be replaced by Fontanelli. Sadly, there is no

apparent documentation extant to provide an insight into the motives for, or

circumstances of, the change in direction; and while no firm answer appears to have

been recorded, it does seem likely that-as with the creation of the Accademia de'

Dissonanti and the decision to rebuild the theatre for opera-Francesco, if not directly

involved in this act, most probably remained the one who initiated the change of

management. Whatever the case, Martinelli Braglia unreservedly identifies Fontanelli's

arrival as the crucial turning point in the implementation of Francesco's desire to

produce opera in Modena.74 By contrast to the old system of risk division, the new

owner appears to have taken responsibility for the entire theatre, probably on the basis

of the appropriate reassurances offered by Francesco.

73 This is computing the potential minimum to maximum capacities at between a minimum (50%) of(166 x 50%) x 4.332 + 200-532, and a maximum of 166 x 5.830 + 400" 1,230.

74 Martinelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 144, Citing I-MOQ3 SP 'Archivio Notarile' F. 4378: 'Rogito del nOlaio Giuseppe Spilimberti, 18 nov. 1683'. "

7S


Marquis Decio Fontarlelli is described by Martinelli Braglia as a complex arid

fascinating figure who came from arI arlcient arid wealthy Reggiarlo lineage that

conferred upon itself a sense of no little importarJce, with scholars, ambassadors arid, in

the previous century, even a 'Soprintendente agli Spettacoli' .75 The Fontarlelli family

had been part of the Este inner court since before its trarlsfer from Ferrara to Modena in

1598. Decio Fontarlelli was born in Reggio Emilia on 16 June 1624-which made him

some thirty-six years older tharl Duke Frarlcesco--arld died there on 15 February

1707.76 His title by lineage was Marchese di S. Donnino di Marola. Politically, he held

the position of governor of Correggio from 1666 arid of Carpi from around 1670, arid he

later became governor of the 'Cittadella di Modena'." Given that later he also held the

title of Captain of the Guard, a post described by Garldini as being more governmental

tharl military, there is plenty to suggest that he maintained a position of trust with regard

to Frarlcesco. This was no doubt enharlced by his service with distinction on a number

of diplomatic missions in various states, including postings in TuscarlY arid Milarl,

before returning to reside in Modena, where he positioned himself within the duke's

inner court. Here, with specific reference to L 'ingresso arid the royal wedding, he

fulfilled the role of escort ('bracciere') to Margherita Farnese' .78 According to

Tiraboschi, Fontarlelli had cultivated the sciences arid enjoyed a literary inclination, in

which field he has been wrongly credited with writing the libretto of II Mauritio (Teatro

F ontarJelli, 1689).79 Of his marlY titles, one of particular interest is referenced by Pietro

75 Ibid. For more background on Fontanelli, see Milano, 'Gli Estensi', p. 54, citing Carandini, Memorie pubbliche della cit/a di Modena, filza 39, fasc. 17.b; and Litta, Famiglie celebri d'/Ialia, 'Voce "d'Este", IV., tav. XVI', p. 43.

76 Martinelli Braglia, 'n Teatro Fontanelli', pp. 144, 157 n. 30, cites Fontanelli's date of birth from Tiraboschi, Biblioteca Modenese, 2, p. 339, as 16 June 1625, while the original source confirms the year as 1624.

77 Ibid., p. 157 n. 30.

78 Ibid., p. 144.

79 Gandini, Cronistoria, I, p. 76. Fontanelli's signing of the dedication (as was his normal practice) has been taken, mistakenly, as proof of his authorship. Gandini adds to the confusion when he claims that Fontanelli did indeed write a libretto entitled /1 Mauri=io in this year, which was also dedicated to Francesco, but which he confirms was not the one given in his theatre.

76


Zerbini in the minutes confirming payment to F ontanelli of the pre-production advances

as 'gentilhuomo della nostra camera segreta, e nostro Coppiere', a title which one

assumes was in some form or other honorific, but nonetheless reflective of his secured

position within the duke's court.80 After the failure of L 'ingresso, Fontanelli retired to

Reggio Emilia, where in 1694 his wife (Donna Enrichetta Molza) died shortly before

Francesco. Thereafter, Fontanelli became a 'sacerdote', passing both his titles and his

business onto his son, Giulio, in 1704.81 Fontanelli never produced an opera again;

Cottini acted as impresario for the contemporaneous productions of II Giustino and Non

dil freno all 'amor disuguaglianza (1697), and Giulio signed the dedication for II jiglio

delle selve (1700), before Cottini returned to take charge during the French occupation,

as addressed below. 82

The acquisition of the Teatro Valentini by an aristocrat so intrinsically tied to

serving Duke Francesco's court is suggestive of a cohesive strategy in which Fontanelli

fulfilled a need for someone capable of the role, but who could also be relied upon to

ensure the duke's complete control over opera production in Modena. And while the

Teatro Fontanelli was clearly not a ducal theatre in terms of ownership, there can be

little question that it nonetheless served to increase the duke's prominence. It is no

surprise, then, that the duke was benevolent in his support of the new management, and

that following the new impresario's meticulous reconstruction of the sworn affidavits

80 I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanel1i in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a. The historic definition of 'coppiere' is simply 'cup-bearer', though presumably there is some sort of symbolic meaning in this context.

81 Ferrari Moreni, 'Un dramma in musica rappresentato in Modena nell'anno 1692', p. 563, cites Fontanelli's retirement as 1694, but Martinelli Braglia, '1\ Teatro Fontanelli', pp. 144, 157 n. 30, Tiraboschi, Biblioteca Modenese, 2, p. 339, and Benatti, Famiglie nobili e patri=ie nelle terre del Ducato di Modena, p. 27, confirm the year as 1704.

Bl II ftglio might technical1y be dated 1700-01; Sartori, I libretti italiani, p. 159 (10194), dates the opera as 1701 (as per the frontespi=io of the libretto), but the dedication is clearly dated 27 December 1700. The accounts are dated precisely (though curiously) as 'i1 present'Anno 1700', This discrepancy might be due to the calendar year followed in Modena. Nonetheless, as the accounts become the prime documents of reference in this study, I have, therefore, taken 1700 as my point of reference throughout.

77


(required, as the originals appear to have been lost in the fire) all privileges granted to

Valentini were, in turn, afforded to Fontanelli.83

Unlike the old Teatro Valentini, where the theatre's management had been

divided between Valentini, Toschi and Sarti, it appears that Fontanelli (who was sixty-

one in 1685) was disposed to assume the brunt of the risk alone. However, there is much

to suggest that in addition to singing opera at the new theatre, Antonio Cottini might

also have figured prominently in a number of roles behind the scenes, including aria-

broker and impresario. Indeed, if we note Williams Brown's confirmation of his shared

role as joint impresario with Fontanelli for Germanico sui Reno (Teatro Ducale, 1677),

in which he purportedly had responsibility for the 'musical end of the production, and

F ontanelli the technical and financial end', then there is some reason to suggest that he

might have fulfilled a similar position at the new Teatro Fontanelli.84 This is supported

by Gandini, who also notes Cottini as performing Oil doppio molo d'interprete e

d' impresario , .85

Born Antonio Pietro Galli in either Ferrara or Modena (date unknown), Cottini

is initially documented as singing professionally in Florence in 1661, and later in

Hanover (1668-69), before he is first accredited as a virtuoso of the duke's cappella on

19 January 1677, when singing in Altila at Milan.86 If we guess his age as close to

twenty in 1661, then he would most likely have passed fifty by the time of L 'ingresso in

1692. Crowther confirms Cottini's actual years of service in the cappella as from 1677

to 1681 on a monthly salary of 130 MI, making him 3 MI short of being the equal-

Il/-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705'. Casso n. 8.a.

14 Williams Brown, "Con nuove arie aggiunte". p. 81; 'On the Road with the "Suitcase Aria· ... pp. 13-14.22.

85 Gandini. Cronistoria. I, p. 81.

86 For a greater insight into Cottini's life see Besutti, in NGO. 1. pp. 998-9; Gandini, Cronistoria, 1, pp. 81-9; Crowther. The Oratorio in Modena, pp. 16, 156; Williams Brown, 'On the Road with the "Suitcase Aria"·, pp. 3-23; Bianconi and Walker, 'Production. Consumption', p. 280; Vavoulis, 'Antonio Sartorio (c. 1630-1680)'. p. 6.

78


second-best paid member of the ducal cappella.87 His appointment in Modena was

anything but restrictive, and he subsequently appeared under the duke's name in various

productions throughout most of northern Italy, including Venice, and as far away as

Dresden in 1680. His wife, Francesca Maria Sarti, was a prominent soprano with whom

he appeared in the majority of operas given in Modena and Reggio between 1677 and

1697. Francesca generally sang the lead soprano in these productions and after 1677

was normally listed under either ofCottini's surnames.88

Williams Brown further confirms that Cottini played a direct role as an 'aria

broker' in many of the productions in which he was directly involved, and often under

the instruction of Francesco. She identifies him as being involved with 'more revivals

that borrow arias than any other singer' she has studied:

Although there is no proof of such a thing, it is possible that he conducted this business for profit - selling arias to the other singers. Based on the facts presented ... we can construct the following hypothetical summary of his activities. Cottini first had copies made of arias drawn from various roles in the operas in which he or his wife had performed. He then travelled from city to city with this collection, sharing selected items with the other singers assembled for each new production. In shows where he was in charge, Cottini was probably the one who decided which arias would be appropriate for each singer and role ... However, given the Duke of Modena's documented interest in opera, it seems possible at least that he took some part in negotiating these deals.89

Despite having been released from the cappella as early as 1681, Cottini still continued

to sing under the duke's colours wherever he went. As a case in point, the 1692 libretto

for L'ingresso still lists him as 'Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissima' .90 It is conceivable,

therefore, that he might have been seconded by Duke Francesco to help produce opera

in Modena in the immediate aftermath of the fire of 1681. Certainly, the timing of his

departure from the ducal cappella would have left him free to concentrate on dramma


88 Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption', p. 280 .

• 9 Williams Brown, 'On the Road with the "Suitcase Aria"', pp. 13-16.

90 L 'ingresso, libretto, p. II.

79


per musica and fits in well with the start of the duke's promotion of the genre in

Modena. And this he did. His activity is as impressive as is his range, which perhaps

suggests a singer of great skill and versatility and therefore goes some way to explaining

his frequent employment. In L'ingresso, he sings a solitary low E, but otherwise his

range is from G to iif.'. He not only sang in a great number of operas and oratorios, but

also signed the dedication of several1ibrettos and acted as the impresario to many works

given in the duchy, even if the precise number has not yet been quantified. Of the eight

operas given at the Teatro Fontanelli in the period 1685 to 1692, Cottini was the most

frequent singer, appearing in a total of five productions.91 His wife (Francesca Maria

Sarti Cottini) appeared by his side in all but L'ingresso, for which there seems to have

been a greater political need, as will be discussed in Chapter 3. The only other singer to

match this level of activity was the great Siface, renowned as the duke's favourite

smger.

In total, Cottini's career in Modena spans twenty-six years from 1677 to 1703

before his death a year after Fontanelli in 1708. His influence seemingly touched every

aspect of opera in Modena, be it as singer, aria-seller, confidant to the duke, or

impresario. His endurance was remarkable given his profession. He even survived the

French occupation of 1702 through to the theatre's sale in 1705, acting as impresario for

its final two productions-one unknown (1702) and La Semiramide (1703}-under

what appears to have been quite hostile conditions.92 Yet despite all this activity, there is

no mention of Cottini as having taken on any formal role within the new theatre, or for

any part of the period with which we are concerned; and while Cottini and Fontanelli

must surely have collaborated at some point, not least on those five productions in

91/1 Vespesiano (\685). Flavio Cuniberto (1688).// Mauritio (1689). Eteocle e Polinice (1690) and L'ingresso alia gioventu dl Claudio Nerone (1692). See Appendix D for a record of 'Operas Given at the Teatro Fontanelli (1685-1692),.

92 Gandini. Cronistoria. I. pp. 83-9. provides a remarkable account of opera under occupation.

80


which he is known to have sung under the impresario, the surviving evidence suggests

that, at least on a formal basis, Fontanelli undertook his role alone.

Indeed, it soon becomes more than apparent that the role of impresario was a

position for which Decio Fontanelli had been made. His contribution was to establish

opera in Modena, albeit for a limited time, that simultaneously served both his own

needs and those of his patron. He did this in two ways: first, he provided Francesco with

the political platform needed for public display, and so ensured that he remained in the

duke's confidence; second, he took direct action to maximise his own income streams in

terms of revenue from the theatre and in the granting of privileges. The extent to which

he secured his objectives is highlighted by Martinelli Braglia:

Non dovrel dunque stupire se un personaggio di cosi intense e variegate esperienze diviso di intraprendere l'attivitll di proprietario-gestore di un teatro, in un settore affaristico che andava rivelandosi, se affrontato con avvedutezza e circospetto calcolo dei rischi, certamente tra i piil lucrosi. .. Ora, l'acquisizione del Teatro gill Valentini da parte di persona tanto intrlnseca alIa corte come I' aristocratico reggiano puo prestarsi a una lettura che vi colga il rinsaldarsi del ruolo preminente della Casa d'Este suI contesto dello spettacolo nel ducato.93

With regard to his second aim, it would seem that Fontanelli was a shrewd businessman

determined to maximise his earning potential from the venture:

Certo e che it F ontanelli, doveva essere padrone scaltro e accorto, pure a scapito delle compagnie d'artisti, ai quali-cosi sembra da suppliche rivolte al Ducasovente ometteva di versare il tradizionale donativo, 0 arrecava perdite economiche applicando i piil sottili accorgimenti.94

Two letters bear witness to his tight, if not ruthless, management of the theatre, which in

turn give some insight into his treatment of the artists. First, Martinelli Braglia cites 'un

ignoto capocomico al Sovrano' who complained that despite the high revenue

generated, the comici were not paid the going rates of other theatres, nor were they paid

the 500 scudi that the author claims Francesco Toschi would allocate them from the


94 Ibid., p. 149.

81


theatre's takings from the platea.95 The letter argues that previously 'la mandria del

Teatro' had been allowed to enter the Teatro Valentini for free and that, in turn, they

instead paid what they could afford directly to the comici in lieu of their share of the

profits from the production, but that Fontanelli had since put an end to this practice by

charging a fee directly upon entrance at the door. This not only ensured that the income

fell into Fontanelli's own pocket, but also had the desired effect of pricing some of the

lower classes out of the market, thus revealing a strategy that wanted to 'reservare la

sala ad un'utenza piu scelta ed elitaria' .96 Whether or not such a policy was authorised

by Francesco and whether or not it was indicative of the duke's desire to make the

theatre a social venue serving as an extension of his inner court, the author's scathing

criticism of the impresario's tight management inadvertently reveals Fontanelli as

possessing some strong business acumen and certainly as a man looking to maximise

his earning potential from the theatre. The impresario's treatment of his performers also

comes under question in another letter held in the Teatro Fontanelli files. The letter is

dated 17 January 1686, just two months after the inaugural production at the theatre of II

Vespesiano [sic] (1685), and raises concerns about Fontanelli's treatment of the

musicians:

E corsa qui una voce, che i musici che hanno nell'autunno scorso operato nel drarnma rappresentatosi in questo teatro del Signor Marchese F ontanelli, si siano costi doluti dei trattamenti ricevuti da questa parte, e che particolarmente habbiano disaggradito, e tenuto in poco preggio i regali che per ordine di questo Serenissimo Padrone si son fatti.97

More can be learned from four letters written with regard to commedie given at

Piacenza, Ferrara and Vicenza.98 The letters record Fontanelli visiting these theatres in

9S Ibid., pp. 149.50.

96 Ibid., p. 150.

97 [.MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a.

911 Ibid.

82


order to acquaint himself with how they were run, and, moreover, to watch and procure

actors and plays (and possibly singers and operas) that he might bring to Modena. The

letters, which are addressed to the duke's chamber, allude to the established practice of

sending a list of soggetti (defined by Martinelli Braglia as in fact referring to cantanti)

to Francesco for the purpose of selecting which artists were to be given his approval for

the forthcoming production. Moreover, Martinelli Braglia argues that the same process

applied with regard to the selection of operas to be perfonned, as she notes of

Alessandro Stradella's II Trespolo, tutore balordo (Teatro Fontanelli, 1686), the

composer being one of his more favoured and certainly more collected artists.99

In November 1685, the Teatro Fontanelli presented its inaugural production of

the revival of Pallavicino's II Vespesiano (first given at the Teatro San Giovanni

Crisostomo, Venice, 1677-78). In the eight years from 1685 to 1692 inclusive, the

theatre staged a total of eight operas (see Appendix D). Of these, six were revivals,

while I due germani rivali (1686) and L'ingresso (1692) seem to have been new

productions. Note, however, that L'ingresso remains the only opera where we have

documentation confirming its commission and purpose. We can also get some insight

into the extent to which these productions served as a structured ducal event from six

listings that remain in the state archives. 100 The listings are in fact no more than simple

roll-calls of the names of'servitori' in the duke's employ (ranging in number from

twenty to over forty), who on Francesco's instruction 'devono entrare esenti all'opera in

music a' for each of the operas given respectively in 1685, 1686, 1688, 1689, 1690 and

1691. While their free entry does not necessarily imply any sense of a forced

attendance, one would assume this to have been the case, especially when the duke

99 Martinelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 146, citing I-MOw SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro di Corte, 1686', Casso n. 8.h. See also Gianturco, 'II Trespolo tulore di Stradella e di Pasquini: due diverse concezioni dell'opera comica', pp. 185-98.

100 I-MOas SP, 'Progetti e spese per teatri e rappresentazioni', 'Liste dei servitori ducali che godevano del diritto di entrare esenti in teatro, 1681-1691', Casso n. 7.

83


would have been present. It also serves to confirm that everybody else was expected to

pay. There is also a seventh listing specific to an undated commedia. These lists, which

are dated in the days immediately before the OctoberlNovember productions, identify

both Giardini and Zerbini, and also on one occasion Giannettini, within those granted

free attendance. With the exception of L 'ingresso in 1692 and the double productions of

1686, these sheets thus cover the entire operatic output at the Teatro Fontanelli. The

specific motive for the listings is unclear, but they do suggest that the occasion of

staging or, rather, attending both commedie and opera was seen as part of the ducal

calendar for which the presence of officials from the duke's inner court was required, if

not expected.

The requisite number of performances of any given dramma per musica appears

to have been twelve. The productions generally commenced at the end of October or,

more commonly, at the beginning of November, thus avoiding opera seasons elsewhere,

and in Venice especially, which in tum ensured a greater availability of singers. Two

extant 'avvisi' for n Mauritio (29 October to 20 November 1689) and L'inganno

scoperto per vendetta (4-22 November 1691), plus the accounts for L'ingresso (9-29

November 1692), all reveal the dates of their twelve performances, while the accounts

for Flavio Cuniberto (3-21 November 1688) identify eleven. 101 We can therefore

compute over which days of the week each opera was staged. Although the dates of II

Mauritio and L 'inganno were advertised in advance, while those of Flavio and

L'ingresso have been sourced directly from the accounts, the manner in which a pattern

develops over all four productions does allow for a worthwhile comparison to take place

(see Table 2.2).

IOI/_MOas SP. 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a.

84


Table 2.2: Comparison of performance dates at the Teatro Fontanelli102

Flavio Cuniberto (1688) Dates Given Totals

Monday 6/11 13111 20/11 3 Tuesday 7111 14/11 21111 3 Wednesday 8/11 1 Thursday 16/11 1 Friday 3111 10/11 17/11 3 Saturday none Sunday none

II Mauritio (1689)

Monday 29/10 5111 12/11 19/11 4 Tuesday 30/10 6111 13111 20/11 4 Wednesday none

Thursday 8/11 15/11 2

Friday 9111 16/11 2 Saturday none Sunday none

L 'inganno scoperto per vendetta (1691)

Monday 10/11 17/11 2 Tuesday 4/11 11111 18/11 3 Wednesday 5/11 1 Thursday 13/11 20/11 2 Friday 7/11 14/11 2 Saturday 8111 22/11 2 Sunday none

L'ingresso aI/a gloventit di Claudio Nerone (1692)

Monday 15/11 22/11 29/11 3 Tuesday 9/11 16/11 23/11 3 Wednesday 10/11 1 Thursday 18/11 1 Friday 12/11 19/11 26/11 3 Saturday 27/11 Sunday none

All four operas had at least one day per week where no performance was given: not

surprisingly, a Sunday (primarily for religious reasons, but also given that the singers

and musicians of the duke's cappella would have been required for other duties

elsewhere), On the whole, each production also appears to have shared the same

102 Sources: Flavio, II Maurilio, and L ';nganno,I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 168S-170S.' Casso n. 8.a; L 'ingresso, accounts.

85


performance pattern of two (and sometimes three) nights on and one or two nights off

with some minor exceptions, no doubt adjusted to avoid performance on Sundays. We

might assume that such a strategy was for practical considerations and probably

designed to allow the singers a chance to rest their voices. It also appears that opera was

promoted primarily on Monday, Tuesday and Friday (see Table 2.3), with Mondays and

Tuesdays being the most common (we shall see in Chapter 5 the increased ticket sales

for Monday and Tuesday performances of L 'ingresso).

Table 2.3: Days of performance at the Teatro Fontanelli103

Mon Tues Weds Thurs Fri Sat Sun Total

F1avio (1688) 3 3 3 0 0 11 II Mauritio (1689) 4 4 0 2 2 0 0 12 L'inganno (1691) 2 3 1 2 2 2 0 12 L'ingresso (1692) 3 3 3 1 0 12

Total 12 13 3 6 10 3 0 47

Indeed, while in 1688 Flavio opened on a Friday, and in 1689 II Mauritio opened on a

Monday, thereafter both L'inganno and L'ingresso opened on a Tuesday, perhaps

reflecting not only the generally better attendances on that night, but possibly also the

evident increased importance of the social occasion.

The two extant 'avvisi' for II Mauritio and L'inganno also advertise the names

of the artists who were to star in these performances, as well as crediting their court or

place of origin. A similar pattern is apparent in printed librettos issued during Duke

Francesco's reign (but not later under Rinaldo), underpinning his approach to opera as a

vehicle for public display and for the promotion of his illustrious name. This also

reveals a thriving cross-pollination of music on a variety of levels between neighbouring

royal courts, all of which was appropriately acknowledged. As such, these librettos help

103 Ibid.,

86

Paul AIkin, Chapter 2

to support an increasingly accepted view that there was also a considerable amount of

mutually beneficial interaction amongst the Italian courts on a local level that served the

useful purposes of both sharing the cost of retaining singers and, more significantly, of

obtaining much sought-after publicity and recognition for a benevolent duke seemingly

dedicated to the patronage of arts for the benefit of the greater good.

The motive for Duke Francesco's 'generosity' in the freedom he afforded

singers such as Siface and Cottini to perform on the Italian opera circuit thus becomes

apparent. The process was hugely beneficial to all parties concerned to the extent that as

the worth of singers increased with each outside performance, so, too, did the prestige

for their patron by virtue of the reciprocal association with an increasingly famous

virtuoso; in tum, the much-vaunted publicity and prestige that these singers now

brought greatly increased the value of the cultural capital of these courtly celebrations

both in Modena and elsewhere. A case in point is noted by John Rosselli, who records

how in May 1691 Pietro Benigni was prepared to sing in Modena for a lower fee, if

Francesco was, in tum, willing to approach the Duke of Parma directly for his

services. I04 The production would have been L'inganna scaperto per vendetta (Teatro

FontanelIi, 1691); however, given that Benigni is not listed in the libretto, it would

appear that he must have been sent away with a flea in his ear. Indeed, Benigni was

already well known to the duke, having sung in both Flavia Cuniberta (Teatro

Fontanelli, 1687) and Eteacle e Palin ice (Teatro Fontanelli, 1690). Ultimately,

Rosselli's example emphasises the fact that, despite the Teatro Fontanelli assuming an

illusion of autonomy, issues such as casting were nonetheless conducted via the duke's

chamber and were not a matter solely for its impresario, if at all.

104 Rosselli, 'From Princely Service to the Open Market', p. II.

87


Despite such a degree of local integration, it is without question that Venice

remained dominant as the commercial capital of opera. Its importance to Modena can be

seen through letters sent from Venice by Giovanni Matteo Giannini, who seems to have

served as some sort of cultural attache to the duke and was responsible for reporting

back seemingly on all levels of opera production, including potential works to be

brought to Modena as well as the recruitment of new musicians and singers for the

ducal cappella. lOS Antonio Giannettini, too-as we have noted-visited Venice

annually at the time of carnival and reported back to Francesco. Of the several letters

still extant, most notable is his recommendation of Antonio Allemani (first violin in

L'ingresso) in a letter to Francesco, dated 23 March 1688, sent directly from Venice,

which led to his eventual recruitment for the ducal cappella. 106 Likewise, Giannettini's

own appointment itself came while he was a bass singer and organist at San Marco. I07

As Bianconi and Walker have corroborated with regard to Modena, 'singers were

recruited on the model ofa Venetian company,.I08

As a commissioned work, L'ingresso was an exception to the nonnal search for

possible operas to be staged in Modena carried out by Giannettini or Giannini, although

their success in other years becomes evident in the number of Venetian revivals staged

at the Teatro Fontanelli.I09 Of the six revivals staged prior to L'ingresso, five came from

operas previously given in Venice, with one from nearby Bologna. But thereafter, there

is plenty of evidence of greater interaction between the lesser-known centres, so that,

for example, II Mauritio (Teatro Fontanelli, 1689) was also given in the same year in

105 I-MOas MM, Casso n. l.b; see also Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, p. II S, where Giannini is particularly Bccredited with recruiting singers for II prencipe corsaro (1674).

106 I-MOas MM, Casso n. l.b.

107 Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, pp. 109-20; Luin, Antonio Giannellini e la musica a Modena.

I~ Bianconi Bnd Walker, 'Production, Consumption', p. 230.

109 I-MOcu MM, Casso n. l.b.

88


both Bergamo and Milan (where Domenico Cecchi sang the lead as in Modena), while

L'inganno scoperto per vendetta (Teatro Fontanelli, 1691) was also given in G:enoa,

though with a different cast. We also know from Bianconi and Walker that having

identified a suitable opera, one or two further visits to Venice might have been required

as part of the process leading up to the duke's payment for and purchase of a given

work. 110 Moreover, with Giannini's reporting on the output of the Venetian carnival so

soon after the festivities in Modena, opera production in the duchy can be seen to have

followed an annual cycle by which planning for each new season commenced more or

less immediately the curtain closed on the last performance each November. While

presumably the pace was relatively gentle, it does suggest that despite only occupying

one month out of every year of the theatre's life, opera appears to have been constantly

on the mind of its impresario and patron throughout all its processes from identification

through planning to production.

The profitability of the Teatro Fontanelli

The terms and conditions under which the Teatro Fontanelli operated force

consideration of the duke's relationship with his impresario and the agreed practice

employed in opera production at the new theatre, not least in respect of the privileges

Fontanelli would fight so hard to obtain. The impresario appears to have bought the old

Teatro Valentini (now renamed Fontanelli) through a property exchange on 30 October

1683, which then seems to have been recorded by the registrar on 18 November 1683

with the theatre valued at a precise 81,141.6.8 MI, although it is not recorded how much


89


of this valuation included or excluded the 53,456.19.8 Ml previously invested in the

theatre's re-construction. As Alessandro Gandini notes:

Adi 18 Novembre 1683 ... fu fatta cessione di questo Teatro, detto pubblico delle Commedie, dal signor Camillo Valentini al signor Marchese Decio Fontanelli, che 10 permuto con due possessioni poste in S. Martino in Rio, ed una casa in Modena. 111

Twenty months later, on 1 July 1685, and just four months before the new theatre's

inauguration, the duke advanced Fontanelli the sum of 400 dobble d'ltalia (or 13,200

Ml), which was officially recorded as a loan to aid the refurbishment of the burnt theatre

and specifically to 'far aggiustare il suo teatro pubblico delle commedie ad uso di opere

musicali, e faccia in effetto rappresentare una nel prossimo Autunno 1685' .112 The

justification for the payment is somewhat surprising given Valentini's aforementioned

'desiderata', which suggests that the major part of this work had already been paid for

some time around 1682, not to mention the precedent we have seen earlier for work

being billed directly to the duke's chamber. What appears, then, to have remained

outstanding was the final preparation for opera, for which, as Martinelli Braglia notes:

Ie maestranze attendono con alacrita al rinnovo tanto dello stabile che dell' attrezzatura; si accomoda I' orchestra, si provvede a migliorie nel sistema di illuminazione, si dota i1 corredo scenografico di 'nove mutationi con grembialine e orizonti' e di altrettante 'scena dipinte' .113

Martinelli Braglia's source is a cost sheet for the 'Spesa da farsi nel Teatro Fontanel/i'

totalling 12,540 MI, which was filed as an apparent counter credit in the Teatro

Fontanelli file and is evidently more or less equal to the sum advanced.114 While

confirming the installation of the complex machinery suitable for opera at the time,

III Gandini, Cronistoria, 1, pp. 71-2; Martinelli Braglia, '0 Tealro Fontanelli', p. 144. Both cite I-MOas SP, 'Archivio Notarile', F. 4378.

III I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel dueato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a. Also cited in Gandini, C~onist?ria, I, p. 73. Note that the original document has been misdated by a later hand as 1689, when in fact thc dating on thc mmute IS correctly affirmed by Gandini as 1685.

III Martinelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 145, citing I-MOos SP, 'Miscellanea disegni c stampc' 'Spesa da farsi nel Tealro 1685', Casso n. 10. ' ,

114/-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a.

90


close inspection of the document fails to identify whether or not this was the sum

incurred by Fontanelli or by Valentini (the sheet is originally undated and bears no

original reference either to the impresario or to the theatre: '1685' and 'F ontanelli' have

both been added at some later point). But whatever the cost, unlike the 1,000 dobble

paid to Valentini in 1682, the advance to Fontanelli was given under cover of a loan

which was officially to be repaid over ten years at 40 dobble per annum with no

apparent charge for interest. The first instalment was paid just five months later on 22

December 1685, yet by the time of the duke's death nine years later this remained the

only repayment to have been made. I IS In fact, it was only as part of the reconciliation of

the duke's estate that the debt became part of a settlement which ultimately absolved

Fontanelli from any final liability for the theatre. This matter will become central to our

understanding of how opera was administered when the loan is reviewed more

rigorously in Chapter 5.

Nevertheless, with no further repayments of the loan either honoured or enforced

during the duke's lifetime, then, regardless of the amount of renovation that was still

required in 1685, the question arises of whether or not the duke's loan was in fact a gift,

or an inducement to buy the theatre. Certainly, if the establishment of 'public' opera in

Modena in 1685 amounted to the effective contracting-out of 'court' opera to a 'public'

theatre, then the so-called loan may instead have been a subsidy paid as an inducement

to the impresario to take up this venture. However, although economics in seventeenth

century Italy was no doubt as much subject to contrasting theories as it is today, I

suspect that whatever the truth behind the payment, there would have been an

expectation on the part of the newly-created entity to be able, in turn, to earn a profit

from the actual practical operation on an annual on-going basis. 116 To this end, Tim

115 Gandini, Cronistoria, I, p. 74.

116 For a review of seventeenth-century economics, see Rapp, Industry and Economic Decline in Seventeenth-Century Venice.

91


Carter discusses the characteristics of 'court' and 'public' opera-theatres where, in

particular, he notes that while the Venetian theatre model 'often relied on the support of

noble patrons and academies in ways not so different from its court counterpart', as

opera developed so these theatres 'and their impresarios ... found a recipe for success

that, if not without risk, could generate profit' .117 It is here, therefore, that we need to

recognise the extent to which Duke Francesco instituted a sea-change in opera

production in Modena, given that the model he employed for the administration of

'public' opera was not that of the old Teatro Ducale, but of the privately-owned and

apparently commercially run Teatro Valentini. Indeed, it was the duke's transfer of the

same accounting philosophy employed at the Teatro Valentini to the Teatro Fontanelli

through an adoption of a dual strategy of pre-production payments and the concession

of privileges that now changed dramma per musica in Modena for the duration of his

reign.

The opening of the Teatro Fontanelli thus signified a definite policy change in

the way in which opera was patronised by Francesco. Up to this point, and even later

during the reign of Rinaldo, the model for opera historically seems to have been that of

a benevolent duke being seen to make good a loss incurred on production. This becomes

apparent from the accounts for 1/ jiglio delle selve (Table 2.4), given under Rinaldo at

the Teatro Fontanelli in 1700. The following summary shows clearly that the deficit of

4,274 MI was made good thanks to the traditional 'Regalo di S.A.S.' .118 It also shows

Rinaldo's contribution to have been considerably less than the amounts we shall see

invested by Francesco:

117 Carter, 'Mask and Illusion'. pp. 242-3.

118 Gandini, Cronistoria, 1, pp. 82-3; Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption', p. 284.

92


Table 2.4: Ilfiglio delle selve (1700): Profit and Loss Account (summary)119

MI MI

Somma tutto il Speso 17,012 Somm a iI Cavato 12,738

Regalo di S.A.S. [4,274]

17,012

12,738

perdesi 4,274

17,012

But under Duke Francesco, rather than his making good the end loss on a production,

opera came to be sponsored by exactly the same system of patronage as had heen so

successfully used for commedie at the Teatro Valentini, by which lump sum payments,

usually of 150 or 200 dobble (as opposed to the 40 to 70 dobble we have noted for

commedie), would be made to Fontanelli in advance for the staging of each

production. l2O We are, therefore, able to trace and confirm a procedure whereby

between 1686 and 1689, the duke's treasurer (Pietro Zerbini) advanced three separate

pre-production payments to Fontanelli in the sums of either 150 or 200 dobble (or 4,950

MI and 6,600 MI)121 in late spring or early summer 'per l'opera in musica che deve far

rappresentare nel suo Teatro it prossimo Autunno dell'anno corrente' .122 We also know

that L'ingresso was financed under this same procedure. Moreover, from the two post-

production accounts that remain intact for Flavio Cuniberto (1688) and L'ingresso

(1692), to which I shall refer below, it becomes clear that the advances were entirely

119 I-MOQIJ SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705.' Casso n. B.a.

120 Gandini, Cronistoria, I, pp. 74-5.

III Assuming exchange rates at that time of33 MI to 1 dobblaldoppia.

1ll/-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. B.a. From 1686 to 1689, the Teatro Fontanelli file records three payments. The first is dated 17 May 1686 for 150 dobble for one of either II Trespolo. tulore balordo or / due germani rivali, both of which were given in that year; the second is dated 7 July 1687 for what might now be Flavio Cuniberto (given the postponement of opera in this year due to the death of Laura); and the third is dated 8 June 1689 in the increased sum of 200 dobble for II Maurilio. We also know from the L'ingresso accounts that L'ingresso was commissioned later than usual on 29 July 1692, though the date of the pre-production payment of200 doppie is not recorded.

93


pre-production in nature and completely detached from any subsequent risk Fontanelli

might then have faced in respect of suffering a loss on the opera's completion, even

though-as we shall come to see-losses incurred would be addressed in one form or

another. The major difference under the new system was that in principle the cost to the

duke was limited to the sum of the pre-production payment and was not an open-ended

final loss figure. In many ways, then, the duke thus entered into partnership with

Fontanelli just as Valentini and Toschi had done before; the difference here, however,

was that while the impresario remained exposed to risk (at least in theory), the duke was

in effect more or less setting aside a sum which he was prepared to write off in order to

achieve his objective, be it the indulgence of royal entertainment, an investment in ducal

publicity and propaganda, or something else entirely. We shall also come to address in

Chapter 5 whether in fact these 'regali' were in reality a system of underwriting opera

by which the duke effectively pre-purchased entire tiers of boxes for himself and his

guests, as Beth and Jonathan Glixon note of individual box purchases via the emergence

of the 'regalo' and 'donativo' in Venice from around the 1670s onwards. 12l

As a consequence, once the advance had been made, Fontanelli was thereafter

left to extract his income from two sources: first, through the price of admission (Le., by

the renting of boxes and ticket sales); and second, through income generated by the

privileges (such as the sale of food and wine, and from gambling). With regard to the

income from admission, both the accounts for Flavio and L 'ingresso detail the sale of

bollettini at 3 MI per ticket. Yet, by contrast, the projections computed by Toschi in his

original budget for the theatre had priced these same tickets at '5, or 6 lire per ogni

, 124 Whil f . sera. e, 0 course, the Issue of supply and demand may well have forced down

III B. and 1. Glixon,lnventing the Business o/Opera, p. 28.


94


the price come 1688 and 1692, there remains additionally the very real potential for an

agreement by which Fontanelli (with ducal consent) received, say, 5 MI at the door,

took 2 MI for his efforts, and then declared 3 MI within the accounts. The procedure is

certainly long established and common enough. Some might say that it is one of the

oldest tricks in the book, but if this were so--and there is of course absolutely no

evidence to support such speculation (after all there never is }-then we should be clear

to note that this would not have been an act of fraud on the impresario's part, but a self

sustaining and mutually advantageous method of Francesco compensating his

impresario for his efforts without need of delving directly into his own purse. Such

methods of payment are always beneficial, because although the sums paid are

ultimately the same (5 MI declared with 2 MI paid to the impresario, still equals a net

income of 3 MI), they allow the person providing the service (in this case Fontanelli) to

take their share of the income, but without any payments being made out. As such, they

aid cash flow and are a cleaner way of accounting, in that a gross receipt is not

countered by a payment out; instead the net receipt is simply recorded in its own right.

Indeed, this was exactly the procedure used for counting the income from ticket sales

for Flavio, whereby the nightly running costs were deducted directly from the 'cavato',

so that only the net nightly income was declared within the final profit and loss

summary.

No doubt with the increased risk in mind, the most significant concession sought

by Fontanelli upon acquiring ownership of his new theatre was the granting of the same

privileges established at the Teatro Valentini. The value of these privileges to Fontanelli

becomes more apparent from the time taken over their agreement and the precise

wording of the relevant documents.125 It seems that the impresario had to work hard for

115 I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e net ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena. 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a.

95


these rights given that the final agreement, which effectively equated to a 'terms of

conditions' upon which the new theatre would be run, came very late in the day. The

matter was complicated as the details of the privileges enjoyed by the Valentini

partnership had been lost in the same fire that had destroyed the old theatre. Notably, it

was Fontanelli who then had to press the issue by rigorously petitioning the duke from 7

February to 25 August 1685 (less than three months before the theatre opened) for the

right to be accorded the same privileges as his predecessors. 126 The fact that Fontanelli

had to fight for these concessions serves in itself to emphasise their absolute importance

to him and, presumably, the future profitability of the theatre.

Of the twenty-five extant documents relating specifically to the administration of

the theatre, eight relate to drafts and copies of statements on the question of privileges.

In particular, they reveal that Fontanelli produced three affidavits, dated 7, 8 and 9

February 1685, from the previous Valentini-Toschi partnership: Camillo Valentini (the

former owner), Lorenzo Valentini (Camillo's predecessor and father), and Torquato

Toschi (the lessee, whose father, Francesco Toschi, had held the· original lease from

Lorenzo Valentini). The affidavits are pretty much identical in format suggesting, in

tum, that each had been copied out from a template most probably provided by

Fontanelli; however, the detail of their content varies to the extent that there is no one

document that might be seen as providing a definitive breakdown of the privileges

requested. Nonetheless, each statement revolves in its presentation around the same

critical points, which in essence are as follows: 127

1. a secured monopoly prohibiting the building or opening of an alternative

'Teatro da Comedie' in competition to Fontanelli;

126 Ibid. See also Gandini, Cronisloria, I, p. 72. Although Gandini implies a singular affidavit dated 9 February 1685, the archive reveals three affidavits dated 7,8 and 9 of February 1685; Martinelli Braglia, '11 Teatro Fontanelli', p. 142.

127 I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena c nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a.

96


2. the right of all income accruing from the theatre to be exempt from tax

(' gabella di sorte '); 128

3. the right to allow gambling ('giuochi di carte, et altri giuochi') in both

the theatre and its annex (bought as part of the original purchase) in

times of 'carnevale', and the right to sell wine and foodstuffs (note,

however, that the use of the word 'carnevale' is often replaced, as in the

very last document, by the more general 'recite' (i.e., performances), a

less restrictive term suggesting accordingly that restrictions on gambling

were most probably lifted whenever the theatre was open);

4. the right for those in the employ of Fontanelli to bear arms and lanterns

at the end of the performance, presumably (if we recall Sarti's loss of his

benches) as much to protect his wares and maintain order as to securely

police the public safely out of the theatre;

5. the right of Fontanelli to protect his interests through the duke's

obligation to write to whomever it was deemed necessary to secure the

employment of actors, and of Fontanelli to summon the duke's troupe at

his discretion, except at the time of the duke's death (it seems that

concerns for the duke's health were never that far away; there is also a

request to pay the comici an annual retainer, which might well be the

same sum that Fontanelli later withdrew from his players).

It is clear that Fontanelli's dependency on the duke first to concede and then to honour

these privileges would have given Francesco significant control over the impresario and

of the 'public' output of his theatre. For this to happen, there has to have been no

conflict of interest between the two parties, but more likely a perceived level of mutual

128 For a discussion on the nature and function of taxes on Italian theatres, see Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption " pp.293-6.

97


understanding and some degree of interdependence. In slightly different circumstances,

Michael Talbot makes precisely this point in 'A Venetian Operatic Contract of 1714',

where he identifies opera as the 'co-operative genre par excellence [whereby] ... all the

interested parties know that they have to sink or swim together' .129 While in Modena the

balance of power would undoubtedly have been more autocratic, we might nonetheless

suggest that the actual choice and content of the operas now given at the new theatre

would not have been of such paramount importance to Fontanelli as one might argue in

respect of Francesco. Instead, Fontanelli's priorities would seem to have been, first,

survival and, second, one of maximising the potential for profit making. On this basis, it

is not hard to understand why these privileges were so important to Fontanelli. By

achieving these concessions he ensured good business practice by prohibiting

competition, guaranteeing his ability to deliver his product, insuring the security of the

premises, maximising his earning capacity, and, in exempting himself from tax,

protecting himself from the greatest drain of all on profit. His call on the duke to help

hire actors also gave some indemnity to his enterprise. In this way, he simply covered

every angle needed to protect his business and in doing so gave himself the best chance

of making the theatre a profitable venture or, at worst, restricted the risk of incurring

losses.

More becomes apparent about the new strategy, and of the business sense of

Fontanelli, when we view in greater detail the two most important concessions granted

within the privileges. These are the protection of a monopoly and the rights to secure

additional income through gambling and the sale of wine and foodstuffs. What is most

revealing about the monopoly is that the competitive restriction is placed not on other

opera houses, but specifically on theatres giving 'pubbliche commedie'. Even if such a

129 Tilibot, 'A Venetian Operatic Contract of 1714', p. 10.

98


term can be considered as somewhat generic, it is important to remember that opera

only functioned at the Teatro Fontanelli for approximately three weeks out of every year

and that, in general, this amounted to just twelve performances per production, which

presumably left the rest of the year free for commedie. All things considered, and

despite its value to the duke as a propaganda tool, opera was restricted to a very small

proportion of the year. The need for a monopoly was, therefore, not to protect opera, but

instead to safeguard Fontanelli's theatre and his ability therein to remain solvent.

With the monopoly secured, the most critical element of the privileges was the

licence effectively granted to allow the sale of wine and food, and-above all-to

permit gambling. We might also speculate on the reality of more illicit activities such as

prostitution, albeit that there is no direct evidence to this end.130 Nonetheless, in general

terms, we should note that the Teatro Fontanelli, like most Italian theatres, utilised an

adjacent house to service the theatre and generate income from other sources. Clearly,

the practice of selling goods was not new. Bianconi and Walker confirm its precedent in

a revival of Chi soffre speri at Rome (1639), though, unlike at Modena, these sales were

declared within the accounts.131 The point is reinforced by Vitali who notes: 'the deficit

was covered by patrons; the profit, if any, earned by the impresario was derived mainly

from his customary collateral activities: selling refreshments and running a casino' ,132

At the Teatro Fontanelli, all income from these sources was left entirely outside

of those formal documents presented to the duke's treasury, though that is not to say

accounting records were not kept by Fontanelli for his own purposes, With this in mind,

Gandini refers to games of cards and to the 'burattini' (suggesting jesters, puppeteers

130 Not un surprisingly, references to prostitution are hard to confirm. Strohm, Dramma per musica, p. 24, briefly discusses issues of prostitution and references Lindgren, 'Critiques of Opera', pp. 146-7.

131 Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption', pp. 216-21.

132 Vitali, 'Italy-Political, Religious and Musical Contexts', p. 37.

99


and so on) that operated within the theatre to reveal a multi-faceted level of social

interaction at this time.133 His report places the theatre at the centre of the Modenese

social scene and suggests a more fluid agenda for an audience indulging in drinking,

eating and gambling, as well as enjoying other pleasures and entertainments. The added

income from such diversification would have played an essential role in the

profitability, or otherwise, of the theatre, and may have served to absorb the losses that

historically we have presumed to come with theatre management. The difficulty is that

because the income from these sources was kept firmly outside the formally declared

accounting ledgers, there has to date been no in-depth analysis of the subject. Gandini,

referring to the Teatro Valentini, suggests not only that gambling was practised at the

theatre, but that it was seemingly both popular and profitable:

Vi era il giuoco delle carte che nei pochi anni che ebbe effetto dava un con sumo di 500, 0 600 mazzi al mese, dai quali, levate Ie spese, si ricavava un guadagno di soldi 15 per ogni mazzo.134

Gandini's figures would equate to earnings (if we assume, say, 550 packs) of c.412.10

MI 'al mese', which is no small sum, although it is not clear for how many months in

the year this operated.

Clearly, Fontanelli was looking to income streams that extended beyond the

traditional ducal 'regali', box rentals and ticket sales, and evidently he used the Teatro

Valentini as his model. However, while the suggestion is that such revenues may have

made a notable contribution to the impresario's funds (six months, say, of earnings from

the sale of cards alone would have equated to 2,475 Ml-a sum comparable with box

and bench rentals-and this before we allow for the sale of food and wine), what details

of income do survive reveal that Fontanelli remained dependent on the duke's pre-

III Gandini, Cronistoria, I, p. 70.

134 Ibid. 'Mazzi' here are packs of cards.

100


production 'regalo', if only to underwrite opera production. They also suggest that the

switch to 'public' opera offered significant savings to Duke Francesco (see Table 2.5):

Table 2.5: Comparison of revenue streams for Flavio Cuniherto (1688) and L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone (1692)135

Flavio (1688)

Ticket sales at 3 MI each· Box and bench rentals· Ducal regalo (200 dobble at 33 MI)· Total revenue

L'ingresso (1692)

Ticket sales at 3 MI each Box and bench rentals· Ducal regalo (200 dobble at 38 MI) Total revenue

MI 7,791 2,380 6,600

16,771

7,371 2,790 7,600

10,161

• The declared ticket sales in the Flavio accounts is 5,930 MI, but this is after the deduction of nightly production costs (see Table 5.7).7,791 MI is, therefore, the correct turnover figure. • Flavio: box rentals 1,541 MI, bench rentals 839 MI. • The use of the exchange rate of 33 MI (as opposed 36 MI in 1688) is addressed in Chapter 5 • L 'ingresso: box rentals 1,540 MI, bench rentals 1,250 MI.

% share 46.46% 14.19% 39.35%

100%

41.50% 15.71% 42.79%

100%

While previously Francesco (and/or other of the aristocracy) paid more for the 'private'

productions at the old Teatro Ducale, his 'regalo' clearly remained a significant source

of income to Fontanelli, albeit less than the public's combined contribution via ticket

sales and box rentals. In theory, then, the change to 'public' opera offered the duke a

sizeable reduction in terms of his contribution to the income streams that effectively

financed production; but, as we shall explore later, it was this increased reliance on

public income that in turn created a certain degree of dependency on the public

(however we might define them) to actually buy the tickets in the first place. It also

raises the question of what would happen, if, for some reason, the public did not do so.

This, of course, was the risk of what we term the 'Venetian' model, but while it brought

the duke significant savings as a consequence, it exposed opera in Modena to the risks

of the open market long associated with the failures of opera-theatres at this time, and

I3S Sources: Flavio, I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705.' Casso n. 8.a; L 'ingresso, accounts.

101


which have recently been so well documented by Beth and John Glixon.136 What

remains unknown is whether Fontanelli was able to match the profit that Gandini

claimed (on grounds that themselves cannot be documented) for the Teatro Valentini

under Toschi that after expenses 'il guadagno netto annuo del teatro ascendeva a

Modenese L. 4,078,.137 I shall discuss these issues further in Chapter 5. But, for the

moment, one might suggest a hypothesis whereby the ducal 'regalo' (or pre-production

payment) and the public receipts through ticket sales and box rentals effectively served

to cover the costs of production, while the income from privileges served to reward

Fontanelli for his effort. If so, the patronage of opera under Francesco worked perfectly

within a mutually advantageous system which offered huge savings to the duke and a

decent return for his impresario.

This noted, the critical finding for present purposes is that whatever the

projected value of the privileges to Fontanelli, these sums were kept outside of the

formally declared accounting system as summarised in Table 2.5 above. As a

consequence, we are left to conclude that the limited incomplete statements for both

Flavio and L 'ingresso which remain extant in the Modenese archives were prepared not

for the purpose of computing the profitability of the Teatro Fontanelli from the owner's

perspective, but instead served as part of an accounting structure that existed to record

and report to the duke the outcome of his investment into each production; or, to put it

another way, to quantify the cost to the duke of staging opera. As will become clear in

Chapter 5, both statements succeeded in obtaining further funding from Francesco in

addition to his pre-production payment, although the nature of such support varied.

Indeed, it is probably this need to report to the duke with the objective of seeking

136 B. and J. Glixon, Inventing the Business o/Opera, especially pp. 66-105.

137 Gandini, Cronistoria, 1, p. 70.

102

Paul AIkin. Chapler 2

further financial backing that is the reason for their survival in the archives today. This

suggests that the extant accounts are most probably secondary records specifically

prepared from primary book-keeping ledgers and accounts which thus concealed the

real levels of profit, or otherwise, as computed from Fontanelli's perspective. In this

way, the documents that remain are no more than purposely prepared memoranda that

serve a separate function unrelated and detached from any attempt at documenting the

true profit or loss incurred on production. This leads to the conclusion that the accounts

presented to the ducal treasury were to some degree sanitised in terms of their fiscal

data, and as such were limited to what were most probably pre-agreed revenue and

expenditure streams which excluded the sources of income that we might presume were

therefore left as the impresario's reward for his efforts. Consequently, we might

consider that given the function of such memoranda, it would have been more

appropriate for Fontanelli to declare a loss than a comfortable profit which might, in

turn, have called into question the size of the pre-production payment, let alone any

attempt at obtaining subsequent funding.

It would seem, in this context, that, despite Fontanelli's protestations to the

contrary later in life, the privileges granted meant that the losses on opera he was later

to lament were not as bad as he might have wished the duke to assume (see Chapter 5).

Moreover, the profits that I now suggest as being achievable (if not necessarily earned)

would appear to have been supported by the sustained example of the Teatro Valentini,

where the diet of 'commedie pubbliche' seems, with the aid of the privileges it too

enjoyed, to have profited from a long and successful duration. Even under seventeenth

century economics, and allowing for income from ducal patronage, no privately-owned,

commercial theatre could have existed for thirty-eight years as a going concern unless it

was in one form or another self-sustaining.

103


Whatever the reality of its profitability, dramma per musica under Fontanelli

and Francesco seemingly flourished year after year until 1692, when the celebratory

staging of L 'ingresso appeared to signify the culmination of a mutually beneficial

endeavour that now witnessed the simultaneous coming together of conspicuous court

display and public theatre in a state-sanctioned, 'ceremonial' court production before a

paying pUblic. Yet, at its very height, opera production at the Teatro Fontanelli

seemingly imploded. Bianconi and Walker report on the huge loss that was suffered on

the production and Crowther confinns that consequentially the state coffers were so

depleted that the 'musicians in the cappella were unpaid between November 1692 and

February 1694,.138 In the immediate aftennath, opera simply vanished, with no further

works given until 1697, three years after the duke's death. Thereafter, Fontanelli

relinquished control to his son, Giulio, before finally selling the 'Teatro da Opere in

Musica, e Comedie ... con tutte Ie scene, teloni, tele, corde, legnami et orizonti. . .la casa

annessa al teatro ... e la camera finita colle sue suppellettili' to Count Teodoro Rangoni

on 29 July 1705 for the sum of 57,308 Bolognese 'Quattro', 'tenersi notabilmente

sminuito il prezzo ... a causa della constitutione miserabile de' tempi presenti, ne quali

necessariamente bisogna che Ie cetre musicali cedano aIle trombe, e timpani

guerrieri' .139 Gandini converts the sale price first to 'scudi 12,600' and then 'da L.

Modenesi 5.3 l'uno, pari a L. Modenesi 64,890' .140 The transaction thus resulted in a

substantial loss to Fontanelli of 16,251 MI, or 3,155 scudi, probably made worse by the

joint effects of the on-going French-Austrian war over Italian soil and rising inflation. 141

138 Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption', p. 284; Crowther, 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse'; The Oratorio in Modena, pp. 118-19.

139 Martinelli Braglia, 'n Teatro Fontanelli', p. ISO; Gandini, Cronistoria, I, pp. 89-90; I-MOos SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-170S', Casso n. 8.a.

140 Gandini, Cronistoria, I, p. 90. One has to allow for 5.3 Ml (Le., multiply by S.l5) when checking his figures.

141 See Vitali, 'Italy-Political, Religious and Musical Contexts', p. 29, for a brief overview of the causes of war, with the death of Charles 11 of Spain in 1700 finally leading to the long-awaited struggle between Louis XIV and Emperor Leopold I for possession of the Italian territories, and so to the French occupying Modena in 1702, despite Rinaldo seeking to pursue a policy of neutrality.

104


The contract of sale included the passing on of privileges granted to Fontanelli,

thus once again underlining their importance to the profitability of the theatre; in

addition, it provided for the reservation of box no. 21 for Fontanelli 'nell' ordine nobile

in faccia del detto teatro ... omato coi suoi arredi convenienti ed adequati' gratis for the

remainder of his life. 142 In fact, a year earlier in 1704 (twelve years after L'ingresso),

Fontanelli had left Modena and returned to Reggio where in 1707 he died, aged eighty

three. 143 Despite being a private transaction between Fontanelli and Rangoni, the sale

still required the seller to petition Rinaldo for official ducal approval, which was duly

granted on 30 May 1705.144

In any concluding assessment of the potential profitability of the Teatro

Fontanelli, it becomes apparent that the matter is more complex than we might have

thought, and that the theatre depended on at least two genres for its core revenue.

Moreover, despite the illusion of it being an independent commercial theatre, it is clear

that the Teatro Fontanelli remained dependent on Duke Francesco in every aspect of its

existence, be it finance, the hiring of actors, singers and musicians, or the choice and

selection of works to be performed. All these matters depended upon the duke's

direction and approval. Despite this, it would appear that much of the theatre's structure

was based upon the long-running success and endurance of the 'public' Teatro

Valentini, which, in turn, leads to the suggestion that while opera had a higher profile,

the real bread and butter may have lay in commedie, and that consequently it was the

income from this source that the monopoly was primarily designed to protect. If so, then

once we build back into the equation the income secured under the privileges, ducal


143 Tiraboschi, Biblioteca Modenese, 2, p. 339.


lOS


patronage, and the commedie (the quantity and financial value of which remams

unknown), any losses incurred specifically in respect of opera at the Teatro Fontanelli

would seem to have been effectively underwritten by three independent yet

interconnecting revenue streams. F ontanelli' s actions from the very outset seem,

therefore, to have been designed, at the very least, to seek actively to reduce the risks

associated with opera production by diversifying his trading activity at the theatre and

thereby giving him the best possible opportunity of turning the venture into a viable

gomg concern.

But, in the final analysis, we return to the original cause identified at the outset

as the motivation for such enthusiastic patronage: namely, the glorification and

promotion of Duke Francesco, his court, and his dual reign with Cesare Ignazio. While,

we can identify strategies by which. despite the risks, profit could have been generated

from opera, we must also acknowledge that this was probably not always the primary

motive of the business, if indeed opera in Modena at this time can ultimately be

described as such in the first place. 14S As Bianconi and Walker suggest in their analysis

of the Venetian theatre model, although we can perhaps view the Venetians as

purporting to pursue what was ostensibly a structured profit-making/seeking entity, it

would seem that generally no profit (at least in the early years) was declared as being

made, nor was there an expectation of it. The pattern they then proceed to identify is one

of the 'Venetian aristocracy subsidising its own entertainment' .146 It is, then, not

difficult to argue that this early model, although perhaps preceding a later more

financially astute practice, is essentially how we may come to view opera production in

Modena, except that given the duchy's differing political structure the responsibility

145 Carter, 'Mask and Illusion', p. 242.


106


was passed to Duke Francesco and a limited number of his inner circle. 147 This noted, it

might be argued that ultimately there is no real distinction between the models we see in

Venice and in Modena. As Bianconi and Walker again note, 'the proprietor of the

theatre is the ruling class (the Venetian aristocracy and merchantsy.148 Clearly, in

whichever form the ruling class was manifest, opera was under its control. Moreover,

both models share the same scenario in that despite apparent structures and systems

which suggest the opposite, it is the promoter-be it the theatre owners in Venice, or the

duke in Modena-who in the end suffers any loss, and not the impresarios who serve

them. This point will become particularly acute in the final analysis of the L'ingresso

accounts, but for both Venice and Modena, it is the very fact that the promoters were

prepared to suffer such losses that in the end brings us to their shared motive: publicity.

Whether or not impresarios were able to carve out their own profits from within the

system becomes to some extent a side issue, as the promoter (Duke Francesco) clearly

had no intention of seeking to recuperate his outlay. At best, the Teatro Fontanelli

represented a more cost-effective investment than the old end-loss system of funding. It

is, perhaps, an overused term, but the conspicuous consumption of opera for the benefit

of the self-promotion of its financiers thus remains as constant for Modena as it does for

Venice. We might suggest, therefore, that it is the publicity which these productions

enjoyed that made the losses incurred in the pursuit of public display a worthwhile

return on their investment. Thus, regardless of the question of profit or loss, L 'ingresso

served above all else as a gala celebration purposefully designed as propagandist display

to acclaim the Este princes, their rule and their illustrious dynasty. But as we shall see in

Chapter 3, propaganda functions only when there is a message to be communicated, an

argument to be won, or a warning to be made.

147 Carter, 'Mask and Illusion', p. 243.


107


Chapter 3.

A Gala Wedding Celebration

Ecco humilitata a' piedi di Vostra Altezza Serenissima la mia riverente osservanza, che a' Raggi del suo Nome pretende di far apparir ben chiara quella divozione, che abbraccia per Fasto divoto l'apertura di glorificare Ie proprie rimostranze. 1

Politics and music in Modena

If one thing becomes apparent from any analysis of music production under Duke

Francesco II d'Este, it is the sheer warmth and affection with which those involved in

this process held 'their duke'.2 In contrast to the polemics of his political life, and

notwithstanding the fierce criticism of the duke as a statesman, Francesco's popularity

among both musicians and the larger populace was considerable and made all the more

noticeable after the rigid doctrine of Duchess Laura's regency. His reign brought a

marked change of policy from that of his mother and created an environment where

music flourished in the city as it had never done before. It is, therefore, no surprise that

those who stood to gain from the duke's patronage, both in terms of employment and

position, were eager to put their skills at the duke's service. When we consider, then, the

polemical events of the duke's reign-from his succession at the expense of his mother,

the rise and then fall of his sister, Maria Beatrice (Mary of Modena), his conflict with

Louis XIV, and the never-ending issue of his own succession-then it is not hard to see

how in this relatively provincial city a somewhat distinctive environment developed

I L 'ingresso, dedication by Decio Fontanelli; see Appendix E.

2 Jander, 'The Cantala in Accademia', p. S 19.

108


which would come to infiltrate music at all levels. Certainly, from the perspective of

propaganda and publicity, there were plenty of subjects and causes on which to

comment or proclaim, and it is here that the duke's love of music provided him with the

perfect tool by which to do so. Essentially, he did this in three ways: through cantatas in

the Accademia de' Dissonanti, oratorio in the oratory of San Carlo rotondo, and opera at

the Teatro Fontanelli.

With the duke's private secretary, Giovanni Battista Giardini, already identified

as the most prominent poet of the Accademia de' Dissonanti and its pivotal link with

Francesco, it is no surprise that the academy remained at the forefront of music

production in Modena, both in terms of its members serving as librettists for larger-scale

oratorio and opera, and also in the more intimate circles of the cantatas given on private

evenings. Owen Jander has identified seventeen cantatas by unknown poets (although

he nominates Giardini as their author) that remain extant today in the Biblioteca

Estense.3 While all were set to music by members of the duke's cappella (with

Giovanni Battista Vitali as sottomaestro di cappella contributing nine), Giannettini (as

maestro) did not contribute from within the academy but wrote his own cantatas directly

for the benefit of Duke Francesco.4 Even so, it was the text and not the music that

appears to have dominated the academy's cantatas. Jander describes its output as a

'recurring caprice of an intellectual debate presented in the guise of a musical

entertainment' and notes its value 'for what it reveals of the cultural and political scene

in which it was created'.s More importantly, both he and Alessandra Chiarelli agree that

the musical debates given in these private sittings of the Accademia always functioned

3 Ibid., pp. 519-22, provides a full listing of all cantatas cited, all of which are held at I-MOe Mus. F. 1261, F. 1368, E. 245, F. 1536, F.700.

4 Chiarelli, 'Fonti c vita musicale cstense', p. 297.

s Jander, 'The Cantala in Accademia', pp. 519-20.

109


to settle the question at hand in favour of Francesco. It is in this way that the duke

appears to have gone beyond merely being the society's patron and to have become

someone more integral to its consciousness. Jander summarises the duke's role via a

source in the Modenese archives, which he suggests might even be by Giardini:

Oltreche devono i signori Accademici avvertire che questa non e Accademia radunata da loro medesimi come fanno l'altre, e poi supplichano illoro Prencipe della protezione. Ma questa e parto totale del gran genio del Prencipe [Francesco], egli la promosse, egli la raduno, egli la protegge, l'honora, l'accalora, insoma possono dire d'essere parto dello spirito magnanimo di lui.6

Thus we see Duke Francesco as being the focal point and certainly the raison d'etre of

academy's musical output: a point that might explain the notable fall in membership

after his death. Chiarelli further emphasises the direct involvement of Francesco with

his academy 'in cui si eseguono gli oratori voluti dal Duca stesso', before adding that

the practice of music performance was 'completamente ed esclusivamente legata

all'interesse vivissimo di Francesco 11'.7

The academy's own by-laws CLeggi) reveal a still closer link to Francesco when

they record that at least two meetings each year were to be held in the duke's presence,

thus confirming that some cantatas would have been written expressly for performance

before him.8 One such occasion was the coronation of Maria Beatrice as Queen of

England on 23 April 1685, for which a cantata entitled Per /'Accademia della

coronatione della Regina d'Inghilterra was specifically composed by Vitali. 9 Muratori,

too, reflects on the musical activity in reaction to the Queen's coronation: 'portato a

Modena da veloci Corrieri l'avviso dell'esaltazione delle loro Maesta, riempie

d'inesplicabil giubilo questa Corte e Citta, e se ne fecero sontuose feste con rendimento

6 Ibid., p. 528, citing I-MOas A, 'Accademia Scientifica e Letteraria dei Dissonanti, Modena 1682-1791', Casso n. 1.1: fasc. 15.

1 Chiarelli, 'Fonti e vita musicale estense', pp. 292-3.

• Jander, 'The Canlala in Accademia', p. 531.

'Ibid., p. 532 (I-MOe Mus. F. 1261,6, ff. 55-73).

110


di grazie all'Altissimo'.lO Vitali's cantata was probably one of Muratori's 'sontuose

feste', and it is here, in its text, that we first see signs of verse and music combining to

record and document a prestigious achievement for the Este cause:

Maria, Germe Real del tronco Estense, or che cinta e la chioma d'ingemmato diadema, preme d' Augusto soglio, a Ie glorie di Roma alza nel cor di Londra un Campidoglio. 11

On a more sombre note, Laura died on 19 July 1687. Despite his earlier

treatment of her, Duke Francesco was grief-stricken and became ill in the spring of

1688. The Este court went into an elaborate mourning process, which culminated in her

state funeral being held at the church of Sant' Agostino a year later on 3 August 1688.12

Probably for this reason, no opera was given in Modena in 1687. Her death was marked

by a special' Accademia Funebre a 3 voci' with music by Giovanni Marco Martini,

wherein Jander notes the use of a 'six-part ensemble ... with two violins ... treated in an

isolated manner, yielding a divided ensemble closely imitating the Roman concerto-

grosso/concertino contrast' that served to depict the city with which Laura had become

synonymous, living there in exile until her death.13 The familiarity with the Roman style

had come about following the duke's visit to Rome a year earlier, when Francesco had

failed in his bid to make peace with his mother, not knowing of her impending death.

Forever in need of music, Francesco had taken to Rome a 'splendido corteggio di

Cavalieri' and had returned with numerous scores collected during his stay.14

10 Muratori, Delle anlichila eslensi, 2, p. 597.

II lander, 'The Canlata in Accademia', p. 532.


13 lander, 'The Can/ata in Accademia', pp. 534.5, 543 (I-MOe Mus. F. 700).

14 Ibid., p. 541; Muratori, Delle antichita estensi, 2, p. 598.

III


Aside from specific 'state' occasions, the Accademia also included in its

repertory direct and specific references to topics relating to the more general concerns

of the time. Vitali composed two cantatas in direct support of the arts, and no doubt of

ducal patronage. The first, Problema. Se I 'Aquila Estense sia piu gloriosa nel

promuovere I 'armi 0 nel protegger Ie lettere, went straight to the heart of Este politics. 15

In 1683, 1685, 1690, and, above all, in 1691 Francesco had consistently-and with

some success-refused to cede to Austrian and then French demands for contributions

to their respective war efforts, preferring his policy of absolute neutrality and thereby

favouring investment in the artS. 16 The second, Accademia. Qual ferisce piu, la lingua 0

la spada, self-evidently followed similar concerns. 17 It is not difficult to guess which

side the Dissonanti would take in respect of these questions. As Jander goes on to note:

'the poet would seem to be reassuring the duke that his friends in the Accademia de'

Dissonanti, whatever anyone else might think of his reign, were keenly appreciative of

his contributions of a cultural nature' .18

Yet as always, the question of marriage and of the provision of an heir seemed

never to have been too far from the academy's collective mind. While Jander is

reluctant to suggest any specific application for Giannotti's Speranza in Amore, it does

lead him to wonder whether there is not a more specific message hidden in this cantata,

given 'the concerns of the Modenese court and the Modenese people during the 1680s

regarding the marital ambitions of their duke' ,19 Such concerns are well documented by

Muratori, who records the growing frustration at a lack of movement towards a wedding

IS Jander, 'The Cantata in Accademia', pp. 519, 535-6 (I-MOe Mus. F. 1261,2. tT. 13-2Iv).

16 Milano, 'Gli Estensi', pp. 61-4.

17 Jander, 'The Cantata in Accademia', p. 520 (I-MOe Mus. F. 1261,4. tT. 35-50v).

18 Ibid., p. 536.

19 Ibid., p. 537 (I-MOe Mus. F. 1368,2. tT. 1-8).

112


as being 'non senza maraviglia e dispiacere de' suoi Sudditi' .20 It was in the 'gossipy

atmosphere' in the years leading up to the marriage of 1692 that Jander recalls a

performance of Vitali's Se Ie passioni amorose si debbano scoprire all'amico, which he

notes 'concludes with the following advice,:21

Or voi dunque intendete ch' ama il silentio Amore, e s'avien ch'il suo ardore I' alma a voi ne consumi, habbian silentio i labbri, e lingua i lumi.

Jander's reading is that this was 'judicious advice for anyone in the public eye-and

especially valid for a young ruler, unmarried, whose subjects look to him to produce a

legitimate male heir' .22 Whatever questions that might raise, not least in terms with

Francesco's relationship with Cesare Ignazio, we can be sure that the cantata served to

detail all that the duke wanted documenting. In some respects, then, we might view the

society's output as something akin to a ducal diary, recording matters of import in

respect both of Francesco himself and of his reign.

But the influence the Dissonanti extended beyond their private meetings of

musical debate. This first becomes apparent when we view their contribution to

oratorio. To date, Victor Crowther's unrivalled work on The Oratorio in Modena has

shed the most light on musical life under Duke Francesco. He confirms Modena in the

1680s as 'undoubtedly one of Italy's most active centres of oratorio composition and

performance' and notes that in the course of that decade 'at least 57 oratorios were

performed in the city ... [though] the popUlarity of the genre declined ... after Francesco

II's death,.23 Overall, from 1665-1702, Crowther is able to paint a remarkable picture of

20 Mumtori, Delle anlichita estensi, 2, p. 600.

21 Jander, 'The Cantata in Accademia', p. S38 (I-MOe Mus. E. 24S, 2. if. 1 S-28v).

22 Ibid., p. S38.


113


oratorio production alone that Impresses not just for its volume, but also for its

diversity:

114 performances were given of 83 individual works ... [of which] 23 originated in Modena, 21 in Rome, 20 in Bologna, 6 in Ferrara, and 6 in Venice. The remainder came from Genoa, Milan, Mantua, Parma, Pi stoia, and Brunswick ... , virtually all were composed after Francesco II came to power in 1674. His taste for oratorio, reflected in the repertory, was thus both cosmopolitan and up-todate .... The sheer diversity of the repertory dispels any notion that there was a Modenese "school" of oratorio composition 24

This identifiable lack of a Modenese school is not surprising given Duke Francesco's

consumption of manuscripts and is merely a reflection of his relatively cosmopolitan

taste as a collector of the most recent music from all over Italy. Nonetheless, we know

of the Roman influence from Jander, and also that Giannettini composed in the Venetian

style, reflecting the city from which he emerged. When we then consider the vast

number of composers brought to Modena at this time, there is much to suggest a rich

and varied character to the Modenese music scene, though no doubt all were unified by

a desire to please their newfound patron, if only for reasons of employment.2s Crowther

also notes:

The duke's close involvement in the affairs of the cappella stimulated his employees to compose a large body of works in his honour: occasional odes, cantatas and oratorios ... Some oratorios produced by poets and musicians of the court were undisguised exercises in flattery.26

While noting that sycophancy was often an integral ingredient in the process of

projecting the desired public image, much as we would expect, there is no question that

Francesco greatly increased his, and Modena's, profile through his investment in music.

Indeed, Crowther holds the view that it was the duke's proactive management of his

cappella which gave oratorio a sense of being an industry:

Z4 Ibid., p. 187.

25 For an extensive list of composers, see Chiarelli, 'Fonti e vita musicale estense', p. 279.

26 Crowther, 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse', p. 215.

114


The business of oratorio production in Modena was a state enterprise. Historically, Francesco II was the first Italian head of state to follow the example of Emperor Leopold I in Vienna, and promote regular seasons of oratorio for his court ... the bulk [of which] were performed in Lent, though the survival of librettos dated November and May shows that the season was not confined to the six weeks before Easter.27

.

It is from within this vast output that Crowther identifies eighteen oratorios that

specifically sought to support the Este court. Notably, thirteen of these were written by

members of the Accademia, and ten of those by Giardini, for various composers

including Antonio Giannettini and Giovanni Battista Vitali.28 Crowther notes how these

oratorios

were transformed by their librettists into vehicles for political arguments, related to affairs of State close to the duke's heart. The five dynastic oratorios, trumpeting paeans of praise to the blood royal are, at best, fervent expressions of loyalty, at worst, flagrant propaganda.29

A brief view of Crowther's listing (see Table 3.1) of these oratorios serves to show the

input of the Accademia into oratorio and the homage paid to the Este. I have highlighted

those authors who were, or who later became, members of the Accademia, and the two

composers who were its biggest contributors:

27 Ibid., The Oratorio in Modena, p. 187.


29 Ibid., The Oratorio in Modena, p. 189. Crowther actually cites seventeen oratorios, but in a later table (see 'A Case·Study in the Power of the Purse', p. 216) lists eighteen oratorios as having served this purpose.

115

Table 3.1: Oratorios supporting the Este cause30

Date Title

(a) Dynastic tributes

1677 1678 1682 1686 1689

San Contardo d'Este II martirio di S. Azzo Estense La gran Mati/de d'Este L 'ambitione debellata Santa Beatrice d'Este [*]

(b) Oratorios offering political advice

1682-91 1682 1684 1686 1685 1687 1688 1691 1691

La vita di Mose (in eight episodes): I II nascimento di Mose II II matrimonio di Mose III /1 Mose legato di Dio IV /1 Mose conduttore V / fatti di Mose nel deserto VI La creatione dei magistrali VII Dio sui Sinai VIII Lo scism a del sacerdozio

(c) Oratorios offering consolation

1689 1689 1689 1689 1689 1689

La Vergine annunciata La verginita trionfante La sete di Cristo II martirio di S. Felicita La conversione della B. Margherita Santa Beatrice d'Este[*]

Author

G. C. Manzini G. B. Giardini A.Colombo G. A. Canal B. Panfilio

G. B. Giardini G. B. Giardini G. B. Giardini G. B. Giardini G. B. Giardini G. B. Giardini G. B. Giardini G. B. Giardini

A. Vecchi G. B. Rosselli anon. F. Sacrati G. B. Giardini B. Panfilio

[* denotes the same oratorio appearing under two categories.]


Composer

A. Ferrari anon. A. M. Pacchioni G. B. Vitali G. L. Lulier

V. de Grandis V. de Grandis G. P. Colonna G. A. Perte t

B. Pasquini A. Giannettini A. Giannettini A. Melani

N. M. Ferri G. M. Martini B. Pasquini D. Gabrielli A. Giannettini G. L. Lulier

If the members of the Accademia were at the forefront of oratorios given to

honour the Este, then even a cursory glance suggests that Giardini was at the epicentre

of this activity, and when it came to offering political advice, his voice was seemingly

heard above all others:

[Giardini] penned many a flattering tribute to the Estensi, including an ode and eight sonnets in praise of the Queen of England in her coronation year (1685), but as an author of oratorios he adopted a subtler strategy. In the eight episodes of his cyclic masterpiece, La vita di Mose, the biblical narratives from Exodus are expanded to incorporate discussions of political and religious questions of particular interest to his employer. Private and public morality, the delegation of

30 Ibid., 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse', p. 216. See also The Oratorio in Modena, pp. 191-200, Appendix I, for a full listing with archival references of all oratorios given in Modena at this time.

31 Ibid, The Ora/aria in Modena. p. 60, confirms that IV was given a year before III.

116


executive power, family loyalty and anti-Semitism are some of the topics discussed in the cycle.32

But it is, perhaps, those oratorios offering consolation to Francesco that shed most light

on the relatively intimate relationship the duke shared with his inner court. Following

the death of Laura, the duke's subsequent illness and Maria Beatrice's flight from

London in December 1688, Crowther reports that the 'response to the duke's misfortune

was to rally to the common cause and produce 13 oratorios in the spring of 1689', of

which three oratorios given in support of Maria Beatrice show how the Virgin Mary was

used to depict 'vivid images of her innocence, faithfulness and courage under stress' so

that 'in his hour of need, Francesco could count on the loyalty and spiritual support of

his subjects' .33

A similar example might be seen in the opera La pieta trion/ante nella nascita

del monarca britanno [sic] (Modena, 1689), seemingly composed by Pellegrino

Paolucci. The title is notably specific in its direct identification of Maria Beatrice, but

despite Tardini providing a listing of its characters, he is unable-quite unusually-to

confirm where the work was given or which singers were called upon to sing in it. The

work appears lost with no trace of it in Sartori or in Chiarelli's exhaustive record of the

Biblioteca Estense's collections. This suggests that it might, therefore, have been one of

those private operas given in the Teatro di Corte.34

Francesco was undoubtedly devoted to his sister, who, in tum, offers a

fascinating cameo in our understanding of the duke's reign.3s As we have seen, her

marriage to the future King James II had been a source of much pride to the Este and to

Modena, and had provided the opportunity for Francesco to grasp power from Laura. In


33 Ibid., p. 217.

:u Tardini,llealri di Modena, p. 1288. I have found no reference to Paolucci or this opera in any other source relevant to Modena.

3S Crowther, 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse', p. 208; Oman, Mary of Modena, pp. 16,25.

117


1686, Francesco celebrated the putting down in England of the attempted coup d'etat

led by Charles II's illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, with what Crowther

describes as 'Vitali's extraordinary oratorio, L 'ambitione debellata [overo La caduta di

Monmuth]' (1686),36 before noting that the description of Maria Beatrice in the libretto

'as the Este Eagle who struck Monmouth with lightning, is to stretch credibility beyond

reasonable limits,.37

The value of L 'ambitione debellata in respect of helping our understanding of

L 'ingresso lies not merely with its propagandistic portrayal of an historic event, but

more with the way in which the libretto, by purposefully identifying the political figures

depicted as specific characters in their own right within the drama, reveals a policy

within oratorio production that was clearly dedicated to presenting this genre as a way

of recording and chronicling historical events from an Este perspective.38 L 'ambitione

debellata in effect provides an example of a dramatic text manipulated with differing

degrees of subtlety to communicate a politically conscious allegorical statement in

support of its patron.

It is, perhaps, this exceptional presentation that has made it one of the very few

works of Francesco's reign to be analysed as a work in its own right. To this end,

Steven Plank identifies the blatant treatment of the characters in Giovanni Andrea

Canal's text, and argues how the printed libretto makes the allegory explicit, identifying

the characters as follows:

L 'Innocenza La Fede La Ragione L 'Ambitione II Tradimento

Sacra MaestA del Re d'Inghilterra [James II] Sacra M. della Regina d'Inghilterra [Mary of Modena] II Testo II Duca di Monmuth II Co. d' Argile39

l6 G. A. Canal (I.), G. B. Vitali (c.): I-MOe Mus. E. 247.

37 Crowther, 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse', p. 215.

38 Plank, 'Monmouth in Italy', pp. 280-84.

39 Ibid., p. 280.

118

Paul AIkin, Chapler 3

The specific and explicit identification of the principal characters within the libretto as

members of the royal family means that their subsequent treatment in both verse and

music is unequivocal in terms of their political expression and interpretation. For the

most part, the libretto remains relatively true to the historical account of Monmouth's

failed rebellion, though it does completely rewrite the known account of the duke's last

words and actions. Plank notes how

Ambition [Monmuth] in defeat is blatantly unrepentant and threatening to the end .. .Innocence [James II] ... distances himself from the matter: 'Heaven knows that it weighs on me, but you wish your death, not I. And I, the new Alcides from the sovereign cloisters, am chosen to defeat the monsters'. In fact, however, following his capture, as may be seen in his letter to King James II, Monmouth was extremely repentant and blamed others for leading him astray. Scarcely did he strike a threatening note. James, on the other hand ... proceeded to require his death, and that without delay.40

While Plank goes on to to elaborate his argument with specific examples of how the

music was deployed to paint portrayals of the images and text given in the libretto, he

serves from our perspective to establish the existence in Modena of a world which

allowed political readings to be projecte4 through publicly given music productions;

and while we should note that the distance between England and Modena, as well as the

positive outcome of the action (Le., the oratorio was written by the victorious court),

allowed Canal's libretto to specifically name the characters by their title, when in

examples such as L'ingresso this would not be possible, it nonetheless establishes a

precedent and a purpose behind the output of public works in clear support of the Este

name.

However, a much more difficult environment provided the setting for Giardini's

opera II prencipe corsaro, given to celebrate Francesco's succession over Laura in

.0 Ibid., pp. 281-2.

119


1674.41 The duchess, naturally enough, had not taken her loss of power well, and had

initially persisted in trying to influence her son's new government. Once again, we see

the duke turning to Giardini for a libretto which, like L 'ingresso, was purposefully

written for the occasion. As such, both productions share two critical similarities: first,

they are both exceptions to the otherwise general practice of importing previously

staged works; second, both are significant in that they were each specifically written to

celebrate a specific change in the political powerbase in Modena. One practical

difference, however, is that in 1674 the effects of Laura's reign were still apparent in

that all singers were imported, whereas by 1692 the cappella had been sufficiently

rebuilt to be able to provide three of the four more senior roles. Curiously, one singer

(Giuseppe Marsigli, from Bologna) traversed this eighteen-year gap to sing in both

operas.

In essence, II prencipe can be argued as being similar to L 'ingresso in terms of

its perceived political function and circumstance, so that the tense environment in which

it was produced required a more discreet presentation of the allegory that, while

remaining clearly intelligible to its intended recipients, was not as blatant as

L 'ambitione debellata. In both n prencipe and L'ingresso the text is presented in such a

way that allows those so inclined to present an argument in support of a sub-plot which

seeks to serve as a firm warning to the sole female of any importance resident in court

to behave herself, to mind her position and to allow Francesco, and-we must suspect-

Cesare Ignazio, to rule unchallenged. Giardini's libretto thus seemingly hides a political

warning in which Laura's attempted denial of Francesco's right to the ducal throne is

recounted before the young duke successfully rises above the challenge to claim his

destiny as the rightful ruler, loved by his populace.

41 Jander, 'The Canlala in Accademia', p. S36; Crowther, The Oralorio in Modena, p. 27. Giovanni Battista Giardini (I.), JI prenclpe corsaro (1674) is not a revival of Giacomo Castoreo (I.), II prencipe corsaro (Venice, 16S8), which is different in terms of its characters and text.

120


Unlike L'ingresso, II prencipe has a prologue (sung by Euterpe), which is itself

preceded by its own eight-bar sinfonia.42 The stage instructions in the libretto, however,

reveal a remarkable event-not recorded again in Modena-which, perhaps, conveys

the significance of this first opera in Modena since II Ciro in Lidia (Teatro di Palazzo,

1665).43 The libretto records:

Euterpe una delle muse vola nel Teatro, e sospeso iI volo canta.

Da que' Celesti Poli, per tributar diletti al Duce ESTENSE, qua trasse Euterpe i voli. Intanto ch' al suo piede discendo io riverente, voi Fantasie vaganti di mia gioconda mente, spiritelli volanti, venite, oh la, venite, e vaghe Scene al GRAN FRANCESCO aprite.

Discende Euterpe, e presenta iI Iibro dell 'Opera a Sua Altezza Serenissima indi ripiglia iI volo al Cielo: mentre nel medesimo tempo escono da sfondati del soffitto di esso teatro due fantasie, 0 spiriti d'Euterpe, che calando a volo su'l proscenio levano la tend a, e la portano via.44

The presentation of what one assumes was either the libretto or score ahead of the opera

to the duke draws Francesco directly into the dedication in a way that seemingly

underlines the pleasure of the musicians at his arrival as patron. A new era had begun

and it appears to have been marked as such. The same can also be said of the treatment

of the manuscript which, like L 'ingresso, was bound in a flame-like cardboard covering,

as was applied to nearly all of the duke's collected works.4s Again, as Chiarelli notes,

Giardini reappears to oversee the practice whereby there developed a

struttura nell"'officina libraria" modenese (coordinata dal suo "Segretario di Lettere" Giovanni Battista Giardini) un vero e proprio servizio di copia e cura

42 The opening sinfonia is credited to Artabano and dated 20 September 1674.

43 See Appendix B, Chronology of Operas Given in Modena (I6S3·170S).

44 Giardini,lI prencipe corsaro, pp. 12-13.

4S Chiarelli, I codici di musica della raccolla ESlense, pasSim, generally identifies the duke's relatively uniform binding in both Latin ('in tegmine chartaceo flammeo') and Italian ('Iegatura in C8rtoncino fiammato'). There are also other variations thereof.

121


delle fonti musicali (facente capo a1 musicista Giuseppe Colombi) con uno staff di copisti di musica a discreto livello (soprattutto Giovanni Braida rna anche Sebastiano Carozzi e Andrea Sarti).46

Giardini's 'Argomento' sets out a storyline in which Prince Oronte (for whom

we might read Laura who-as we shall see in L'ingresso--is depicted in male form)

sees his proposal of marriage to Adamira (the Modenese public) rejected by her father,

Filarco, Re d' Atene. Instead, the king marries his daughter to Leandro, Re di Corinto

(Francesco); Oronte then attacks their home port and takes control of the city. The

opening 'Argomento' is both powerful and explicit: '[Oronte] impadronitosi della Citta

e fatto prigioniero Leandro, usurpandosi il nome, e l'autorita di Re' .47 Thereafter,

Oronte tries to win over the heart of Adamira, but she remains loyal to her king (so, the

Modenese remain true to Francesco). Araspe, Cavaliere principale di Corinto (Cesare

Ignazio) pretends to take the side of Oronte, but remains loyal to Leandro and is

ultimately responsible (at least, with the aid of Filarco, to whom he calls for assistance)

for Leandro's release and his successful retaking of what was always his rightful throne.

The captured Oronte is then identified by Leandro as Filarco's long-lost son, Artabano.

Likewise, Oronte's companion (Rosanne, up to now oft disguised as Floro, a soldier) is

similarly revealed as Araspe's daughter. The opera ends joyously as Leandro, who,

having regained control of his kingdom, shows mercy on the fallen Oronte, to whom

(albeit through Filarco) he offers the opportunity to live in peace under his rule, as well

as the hand of marriage to Rosanne. This accepted, Leandro and Oronte finally come

together in accord to sing and share declarations of love, duty and loyalty with their new

wives, the intent, it would seem, being to reinforce the close family ties of all the

leading protagonists (who are by now all related). The message to Laura must have been

46 Chiarelli, 'Fonti e vila musicale estensc', p. 276 .

• 7 Giardini,lI prencipe corsaro, p. 7.

122


all too apparent: recognise Francesco's right to his throne and, as his mother, your crime

in denying your son will be forgiven and you will be made welcome.

But II prencipe corsaro is not just about sending out a message to Laura; it is

also a rather blatant propagandist statement in support of Cesare Ignazio and of his role

in government with Francesco. It is his character (Araspe), not the duke's (Leandro),

that is the celebrated hero, a fact made abundantly clear in the libretto at its climax

(III.xvii) in which, after an extended statement celebrating his role in securing the

throne for his king, the public are invited to hail the new victors and, after the pain of

the old regime, to set about enjoying the festive games of the new government. The

celebration would be repeated exactly in L'ingresso eighteen years later. The scene

starts by Leandro thanking Filarco for his intervention:

Leandro:

Re Filarco:

Leandro:

Ipparco:

Leandro:

Araspe: Tutti:

q Ibid., pp. 86-7.

Signor, tuo solo e il vanto, se vinci tor per la tua destra io sono, questo e tuo Regno, a te si deve il Trono. Anzi it devi ad Araspe; ei fu che solo mosse I' armi soggette, che invoco Ie straniere in tua difesa, e, se ne resto sorpresa l'Oste dal mio valor, fU suo concerto, e sua Ia lode, e 'I merto. Dunque Araspe e fedel; Re Filarco: Dian queste carte di suo pugno vergate, e a me rimesse de I' amor suo testimonianze espresse. Se la congiura al rio Tiranno ordita sia del zelo d' Araspe unico effetto te n'accerti it viglietto. (ad Araspe.) Deposto ogni sospetto offro Ie braccia, e 'I petto a tanta fede. Indegna de Ie braccia it pie ti chiede. Non piu dolor non piu. Bella gioia innondi it cor; su su, popoli, su su applaudete al Vincitor, e in segno verace di pace it vostro zelo avvivi in dituvio d'ardor giochi festivi!48

123


Thus, as the festivities announce the beginning of the new, and rightfully ordained

government within II prencipe corsaro, there is a direct analogy to Francesco's

usurpation of Laura and of his undeniable entitlement to have claimed what was legally

his right by birth.

A picture thereby emerges of Modena under Duke Francesco, whereby it

becomes clear that despite the apparent formal functions of opera, oratorio and cantata,

the distinctions therein ultimately become blurred, governed as they were by the same

overriding philosophy of making political statements in support of Francesco. As

Chiarelli comments perceptively:

E comunque evidente e significativo il rapporto intrinseco e reciproco con l' Accademia dei Dissonanti: da un lato, in essa non deve mancare una produzione musicale che dimostri al massimo livello Ie possibilita creative ed esecutive dell'attivita locale; dall'altro, essa e 'individuata come 10 strumento piil efficace per la pratica e 10 sviluppo di questa musica, proprio grazie alla sua pretesa di leadership nella realizzazione dei programmi culturali di Francesco II. Ed e altrettanto evidente e significativo che con lui venga a mancare l'elemento coesivo e si spezzi illegame tra corte, vita musicale e Accademia.49

This, then, was the environment within which opera at the Teatro Fontanelli became the

showpiece of Duke Francesco's new strategy. The duke's plans for a revised system of

patronage had introduced 'public' opera to Modena with a seemingly autonomous and

private theatre at its centre, which then served as the perfect vehicle for political

propaganda and display. The formal entrance of Margherita Famese into the court of

Modena created the opportunity for a gala occasion that seemingly brought these efforts

to their natural conclusion and offered Francesco and Cesare Ignazio the perfect

opportunity to impress upon the princess the perceived splendour of their government,

and, moreover, their mutual devotion, which had always remained the driving force

behind their rule.

49 Chiarelli, 'Fonti e vita musicale estense', p. 298.

124

The 1692 wedding celebrations

Tigellino, a parte

Ecco il sol dell'alta Roma, che dall'onde in cielo appar.

Col fulgor dell' aurea chioma oggi vuole l'altro sole seco unito a gareggiar.

Ecco, &c.


Tigellino, aside.

Behold, the sun of highest Rome, that rises from the ocean and in the sky appears.

With the splendour of his golden locks today he invites the other sun with him united to compete.

Behold, etc. L ';ngresso, I.i.I.

Despite all appearances to the contrary, we should be careful not to view L 'ingresso alia

gioventu di Claudio Nerone specifically as a celebratory 'wedding' -opera. Francesco

and Cesare Ignazio had long held out against marriage, and had reluctantly yielded only

as a consequence of the agreement brokered by the Consiglio di Stato in 1690, which

remained fearful of a repeat of the disaster of losing Ferrara in 1598. As will become

clear, the festivities associated with the wedding appear to have been muted and lacked

enthusiasm. Francesco even failed to travel to nearby Parma for the ceremony itself.

Yet, undoubtedly, L'ingresso was a gala celebration. The investment in display

was considerable, as we shall come to consider in Chapter 4, with the huge loss incurred

on production being attributed historically to an assumed overspend on costumes and

scenery. But while it thus perpetuated the fa~ade of a wedding celebration to mark the

formal entrance of the new duchess in Modena, the production was to all intent and

purposes a 'coronation'-opera designed-should there be any doubt-to reaffirm the

united rule of Francesco and Cesare Ignazio, and to make clear to Margherita on her

arrival in court that while she was now the new duchess, there would be no role for her

in government. In short, L'ingresso was about power and politics.

125


From the usurping of Laura on Francesco's fourteenth birthday in 1674 until the

arrival of Princess Margherita Famese in 1692, no woman of rank had entered the

duke's court or government. Now the duke's marriage to Margherita would, in theory,

threaten that balance of power, and it is here that the choice of subject for L 'ingresso

alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone becomes apparent. For while at face value the meaning

of gioventu is more suggestive of youth than adulthood, its title when considered in

context of the occasion and its greater ramifications are probably best translated as 'the

entrance into manhood of Claudius Nero'. In this way, manhood not only serves the

obvious analogy to the consummation of the marriage vows through the duke's formal

coming-of-age on his wedding night (and therein the much hoped for provision of a

male heir), but more purposefully facilitates a critical reading that recounts the story of

Francesco's grasping of power on the day of his formal 'entrance into manhood' and

political coming-of-age (Le., his fourteenth birthday). Like Nero upon reaching

seventeen, the young duke had required the attainment of legal maturity before he was

able to assert his claim to govern in his own right. The significance for both Francesco

and Nero is that, regardless of how we might now define gioventu technically, it was

only their elevation into legally recognised manhood which then made their political

ambitions possible. 50

It is within this context that Tigellino's proclamation of the arrival of his

emperor, Claudio Nerone, at the start of the opera ('Ecco il sol dell'alta Roma', I.i.l)

must surely have invited analogy to Cesare Ignazio, as confidant, introducing the new

50 Battaglia (ed.), Grande di=ionario della lingua italiana, I, p. 173; 6, p. 832; Accademia della Crusca, Vocabolario deg/i Accademici della Crusca, 7, p. 263, provide insight into the definition of 'gioventu' and define it as the period between 'adolescenza' (12-14 years up to 20-22 years) and 'virilita' (age not given). While we might assume that technically, 'gioventu' could start at 20-22, no dates are given in these sources for the other age-ranges, plus we should allow for their publication in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the age of 'gioventu' would arguably have come later. More importantly, the reference is to a concept and not a given age, and thus corresponds to the idea of becoming a man at this time. In this way, the most critical understanding of'gioventu' is the political reality of Francesco II assuming the throne on his legal coming-of-age at fourteen: hence the title of this wedding-opera, where there is a clear dual reference to the ascent into manhood, both politically and sexually. In respect of Nero, Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, pp. 211-17, confirms Agrippina's timing of Claudius' murder to suit Nero's coming-of-age at seventeen in order to make her son emperor.

126


reign of Duke Francesco II d'Este on his accession in 1674. As such, it gives an

immediate insight into the role of L 'ingresso as a propagandist tool to laud their dual

government through what amounts to a triumphant and celebratory declaration of intent.

The message to Margherita to respect the dual government of the two princes must

therefore have been apparent from the outset. Building upon the opening two-part

sinfonia (the first movement of which is equally proclamatory, if not coronational in

style), Tigellino's announcement of Claudio as the 'sun of highest Rome', ready to

'compete' against that 'other sun' (Apollo) through a vocally demanding opening aria

that builds on a series of increasingly splendid melismas to touch twice a top b" at the

aria's climax on the modified da capo repeat, serves to display the brilliance of the

castrato, Francesco De Grandis (il Checchino), and, of course, the magnificence of the

occasion. The challenge to the sun to yield to Claudio Nerone no doubt reflected Duke

Francesco's desire to present his court as prestigiously as in one of those festivities in

which the Roman emperor so infamously indulged. It might also have been an attempt

to 'compete' with the celebrated spectacles staged by that 'other sun[-king]', Louis

XIV. Indeed, as the French king had, himself, remarked of the power of opera:

A prince and a king of France may place special value on public entertainment, for they are not as much ours as of our court and of all our people ... As for foreigners, when they see a state flourishing and well governed spending on what may pass as superfluous, it makes a very advantageous impression of magnificence, power, wealth, and grandeur.51

The public falling-out with Louis in 1684, which had resulted in Cesare Ignazio's forced

exile from Modena, had never been forgotten by either party. For his part, Francesco

'was personally detested by Louis for stubbornly refusing to comply with the king's

marriage plans for him'. 52 L'ingresso now presented Francesco with the perfect

51 Grout an~. All,· . 31 . . . ht . t a ISCa, IstOry oj Western MUSIC, pp. 5·16, translated from LOUIS XIV, Memoirs et reflexions, pp. 74-5. For an ~:~~s ~~o the court of Louis XIV, see Baumont, fA '!'usique Ii Versailles, pp. 24-58; for an insight into opera production under

,see Thomas, Aesthetics ojOpera in the AnCIen Regime, 1647-1785, pp. 53-99.

S1 Crowther .,., . • 'lie Oratorio In Modena. p. 12.

127


occasion through which to compete with Louis. If the Sun-King could use music to

demonstrate his absolute power, then so could the Este.

In fact, the influence of Louis XIV had been apparent since the young duke had

assumed power in 1674. To mark the occasion, the duke had commissioned a medal

with his profile on one side and with an image of a radiant sun rising above the ocean on

the other. 53 However, a more immediate model for marking the entrance of Margherita

into Modena through a gala opera may, in fact, have come from similar, though more

extended, festivities held in Parma (May 1690) and given by the bride's father (Duke

Ranuccio II Farnese) for the marriage of his first son, Odoardo Farnese, with Dorothea

Sophie von der Pfalz-Neuburg. While there would be no repeat of these festivities in

1692, we know that in 1690 both Duke Francesco and his uncle, Cardinal Rinaldo, were

invited guests, although there is no mention of Cesare Ignazio attending.54 Lina

Balestrieri gives an insight into the extent of the elaborate celebrations:

Le feste durarono nove giorni: fu fatto da prima il solenne ingresso della duchessa, nella citta tutta addobbata e rivestita a festa, seguirono regali banchetti nel palazzo ducale, corse di "barberi", accademie di lettere ed armi, rappresentazioni nel collegio dei Nobili, lotte corse di gala. Ma pill di tutto importanti furono Ie rappresentazioni musicali, cioe due balletti eseguiti in un nuovo teatrino di corte, a tal uopo costruito dall'architetto Stefano Lolli, un dramma fantastico musicale rappresentato nel Teatro grande, e cosa meravigliosa!, un'azione drammatica fatta sull'acqua di una vasta peschiera, appositamente scavata nel giardino ducale.55

In 1690, even Margherita had participated in the celebrations by dancing on stage before

the invited guests, including her future husband, and was duly accredited in the

'Introduzione al Balletto' .56 Milano's confirmation of the wedding accord for Francesco

and Margherita as having been agreed in March-April 1690 suggests that the festivities

53 Corradini, 'Spes publica', pp. 310.11.

54 Muratori, Annal; d'l/alia, II, pp. 301.304.

55 Balestrieri, Fes/e e spellacoli 0110 corte d; Farnese, p. 44.

56 Ibid .• pp. 45. 117.

128


which followed the Famese wedding may have proffered the perfect opportunity to plan

for the marriage and might even have been the motivation behind Margherita's

performance on stage.

By contrast to 1690, there is very little that remains extant in the Modenese

archives in respect of the duke's marriage with Margherita and the subsequent

festivities. The wedding itself took place in Parma on 14 July 1692, where Prince

Cesare Ignazio acted as proxy for Duke Francesco, who was too ill to travel. 57 One

week later, on 21 July 1692, the duchess (accompanied by her father) was received by

Francesco (apparently sufficiently recovered) and his court (including Rinaldo) at

Rivaltella, before travelling on to the Este summer retreat in Sassuolo; however, by

November, Margherita had returned to Parma from where she wrote at least three letters

to the duke (who by then was in Modena). The letters were dated 6, 7 and 8 November

1692, with the last confirming her apparent eagerness at her first entry into Modena on

the very next day. All three letters are functional, expressing a sense of quiet duty.

Indeed, while she confirms her anticipation of loyal servitude to Francesco, she uses the

first to request, and the third to acknowledge, the arrival of'il sarto' to help adjust her

dresses.58 On 9 November 1692 Margherita made the journey from Parma to be

formally welcomed in Modena via a procession that appears to have been inspired by

the same wedding festivities witnessed in her home town by Duke Francesco two years

earlier. Muratori provides a rare insight into the magnificence of Margherita's entrance:

il suo solenne ingresso in Modena con incontro magnifico, salve d'artiglierie, ed illuminazioni, portando con seco in questa CittA, se non il pregio d'una rara belta, certo l'ornamento piu importante di assaissime Virtu, e di soavi e nobilissimi costumi. 59


58 [.MOas CS, 'Lettere di Margherita Farnese moglie di Francesco II, duchessa di Modena fino al settembre 1694: a1 rnarito Francesco 11,14/07/1692 - 08/11/1692', b. 266.88.

59 Muratori, Delle anlichitQ estensi, 2. p. 601.

129


Later that evening, L'ingresso was staged to celebrate Margherita's arrival. The citation

on the title page is unique amongst all operas given at the Teatro Fontanelli in that it is

the only one not to identify Duke Francesco. Rather, it names his new bride, whom it

openly acknowledges as the new duchess:

L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone. Drama per musica del Dottor Giovanni Battista Neri, da recitarsi nel Teatro Fontanelli di Modona. Consagrato all' Altezza Serenissima di Margherita Farnese d'Este, Duchessa di Modona, Reggio, &c.60

Yet the opera was not the first, nor the only, music event held to mark the couple's

wedding. William Klenz records that Vitali, 'composed Sonate da Camera, op. XIV,

per far concerto a gl' applausi de' Popoli nelle gloriose nozze di V. A. Serenissima

Margherita Farnese d'Este'. Although Klenz dates the sonatas as 1692, and their title

clearly identifies the occasion through the dedication to Margherita, there is no record of

where or when the music was performed. However, from our knowledge of Francesco's

penchant for chamber music at his summer retreat in Sassuolo, we might guess that

Vitali's dance music of 'borea, menuet, and gavotte' was written specifically as

entertainment during the couple's 'honeymoon' immediately following the marriage.61

We know more of two new oratorios that Victor Crowther cites as having been

presented as part of the wedding celebrations: Francesco Pistocchi's II martirio di S.

Adriano and Clemente Monari's Ilfasto depresso nell'umilita esaltata.62 Yet while both

librettos confirm and date the performances as having been given in Modena in 1692,

neither refers to nor acknowledges the wedding in any form, although II Jasto is

dedicated to Francesco. This is in contrast to the extended dedication given by

Fontanelli within the L'ingresso libretto, which, as we shall come to explore, is

60 Although referred to here (and elsewhere) as Giovanni Battista. the more common use (as preferred by NGO) and the one I have used throughout is Giambattista.

61 Klenz, Giovanni Maria Bononcini of Modena, p. 88. Klenz's source is not given, but op. XN is cited by Suess, in NG, 26, p. 798.

62 11 martirio, S. Stampiglia (I.), F. A. Pistocchi (c.): I-MOe LXX.I.27 (lib.), Mus. F. 947 (ms.); Ilfaslo, M. Pallai (I.), C. Monari (c.): I-MOe LXX.I.27 (lib.), Mus. F. 760 (ms.). Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, p. 119, and pp. 156-68 for an analysis of II martirio.

130


specifically addressed to the newly arrived duchess with much superfluous analogy to

her wonder and to the needs of the Modenese court for the provision of an heir. One

concludes, therefore, that neither oratorio was given with much pomp or celebration.

Nonetheless, the librettos do give some limited insight into their purpose, with

each oratorio seemingly representing their respective courts and, possibly, their

perspective on the marriage. The reference on the frontespizio of Ii martirio citing

Pistocchi as the 'musico del Serenissimo di Parma' suggests that the oratorio flies the

colours of the Farnese; moreover, the lack of a dedication suggests that the work

belonged to Parma, as all oratorios presented under Francesco were duly dedicated to

the Este, and virtually always to the duke. Having conducted his own brief analysis of 1/

martirio, Crowther concludes that while the libretto 'contains no details of the

circumstances of the performance in 1692, its subject-matter, matrimonial fidelity, was

a most appropriate topic for gracing a royal wedding' .63 As for Ii Jasto depresso, the

requisite dedication to Francesco suggests that it was the Modenese offering. As with

L ';ngresso, its chosen topic bears no direct reference to the wedding, but instead the

oratorio focuses on the story of a much-maligned stepmother who denies the true king

his right to succeed to his throne when he reaches manhood. The theme is, of course,

reminiscent of Ii prencipe corsaro and of Francesco's own succession in 1674. As we

have already noted, and shall explore below, the recounting of this same story would

become the cornerstone of L 'ingresso.

It was while in Sassuolo (on 29 July 1692) that Duke Francesco seems to have

commissioned L ';ngresso purposefully to mark Margherita's entrance into Modena.64

Given the date of the wedding, two weeks earlier, the opera would appear to have been

something of a late addition to the planned festivities. Indeed, the lack of time to


64 L 'ingresso, accounts: LD, statement by Antonio Cottini.

131


prepare the work is commented upon in the libretto's 'Argomento al Lettore'

('havendola astretta un Comando supremo a verseggiarne in pochi giorni la

Sceneggiatura'). This might even have contributed to the reason why Margherita's entry

was delayed until four months after the wedding, even if the duke's lack of enthusiasm

for the wedding might well have been the overriding factor. Whatever the cause,

Margherita's eventual entrance into Modena required a formal statement. Thus, while

the primary function of L 'ingresso was to provide a gala occasion by which to celebrate

Margherita's formal arrival, it also afforded the perfect opportunity to the Este princes

to make a statement of power and to set out, less there by any doubt, the limitations and

restrictions ofthe bride's position within their government.

Court protocol and issues of casting

Given the duke's control and influence over music in Modena and the profile of

L'ingresso as a vehicle for conspicuous display, the issue of casting provides an

intriguing insight into the degree to which politics seemingly affected all levels of

production. To this end, Table 3.2 reproduces the L'ingresso cast-list as given in the

libretto. The list identifies the names of the singers against each of their respective roles,

but also credits the cities and royal households represented (as was the typical practice

for opera librettos in Modena).65 The cast-list has been laid out as it appears in the

libretto. To the right of the dividing line, I have added the name of the royal court or

city represented, the clef used in the score and the pitch range of each singer therein.66

Under each character, I have noted in square brackets the number of arias sung. The

6S Rosselli, 'From Princely Service to the Open Market', pp. 1-32; Singers of Italian Opera, passim.

66 1 have verified each of the clefs in question and have cross-referenced each singer to other operas given in Modena. In all cases, the clefs cited here are consistent during the period 1685-1697.

132


number does not include duets, but does include late additions to the score not always

noted in the libretto.

Table 3.2: Schedule of 'interlocutori' for L'ingresso67

'Interlocutori.' Ip. 101 'Nomi de Signori Virtuosi, che I City Clef Pitch rappresentano il Drama.' Ip.11) I cited in ms. range

I Claudio Nerone Imperatore. Sig. Domenico Cecchi di Cortona I Mantua CI c'· a" [11 arias] Musico del Serenissimo di Mantova. I

I Curtio Cavalier Romano Amante d'IlIisa. Sig. Gio. Francesco Grossi } I Modena C3 g-c" [7 arias] [Siface] } Musici I

} di S.A.S. I Tigellino Confidente di Claudio. Sig. Francesco de [sic] Grandis} I Modena Cl c'- bIt [10 arias] [II Checchino) I

I Aspasio Senator Stoico rittirato. Signor Antonio Cottini Musico di I Modena F4 E -fiI' [3 arias] Sua Altezza Serenissima. I

I Valleria [sic] sua Figlia.61 Signora Lucretia Pontissi Virtuosa I Mantua C3 b6- e" [8 arias] del Serenissimo di Mantova. I

I IlIisa Figlia d'ElIia Catulla. Signor'Anna Maria Torri Virtuosa I Parma CI d'- b6" [7 arias] del Serenissimo del Parma. I

I Ellia Catulla Matrona Nobile di Roma. Signora Lucia Bonetti Bolognese. I Bologna C4 d-a' [2 arias] I

I Grippo Servo. Sig. Gioseffo Marsigli Bolognese. I Bologna C4 d-a' [2 arias]

If further evidence was required to assure us that this was indeed a gala celebration, then

it comes in reading the names of the male leads in L'ingresso, which reveal for the very

first time in Modena the coming together of three of the most acclaimed castratos in

northern Italy in this period. By the end of the seventeenth century, the rise in the fame

and status of the singer, particularly castratos, had been marked. This was an age of

conspicuous celebrity when singers readily carried their patrons' colours onto the stage,

and in doing so enhanced both their own reputation and, indeed, that of their employers.

To this end, both Giovanni Francesco Grossi (Siface) and Francesco De Grandis (il

Checchino) were in the direct employ of Duke Francesco, while Domenico Cecchi (di

67 L 'jngresso, libretto, pp. 10-11.

68 Here, and occasionally elsewhere, Valeria is spelled with a double '1'. However, the overwhelming use in the libretto supports the use of one 'I' only.

133


Cortona) performed under the banner of the Duke of Mantua.69 But this is not to say that

Cecchi was an infrequent visitor to Modena. He had sung in two of the last three

productions at the Teatro Fontanelli and is recorded by Colin Timms as being at the

summit of his career in the 1690s.7o For all three operas he is listed at the head of the

interlocutori in the lead role, with Siface listed below, playing the second lead. Siface

had sung in four operas at the Teatro Fontanelli before L'ingresso, and where Cecchi

was not in the cast, he had taken the lead role instead (see Appendix D). Siface (by now

thirty-nine) was also at the pinnacle of his profession, though just five years away from

his infamous assassination. Fame had allegedly turned Siface's head so that he had

become arrogant and difficult to handle. In 1687 the duke sent him to sing for Maria

Beatrice in London, but he soon returned complaining that 'the climate affected his

voice' .71 He was without question the duke's favourite castrato and, as such, we will

come to note a practice by which his fee was paid directly out of the ducal coffers, while

the other singers were charged to Fontanelli's account. Together, Cecchi and Grossi had

come to dominate the celebratory lead roles at the Teatro Fontanelli. Despite Libby's

statement to the contrary, De Grandis was making his first appearance on stage, having

served the duke extensively in oratorio. Libby describes him as 'a skilled singer,

commanding a variety of vocal genres (ranges approximately d' to a", but remaining

mostly in the I to I' octave).72 In L'ingresso, however, his range is extended a tone

either way to stretch from c' to btl.

While we shall come to see how the early contracting of all three singers would

determine the placement and selection of the remaining singers for L 'ingresso, none of

69 Checchino was in fact the nickname of De Grandis and should not be confused with Domenico Cecchi ('i1 Cortona'). See Vitali, in Macy (ed.), The Grove Book a/Opera Singers, pp. 113-14; in NGO, I, p. 1101 (both under Francesco De Castris).

70 Timms, in NGO, I, p. 793.

71 Tilmouth, in NGO, 2, p. 552.

72 Libby, in NGO, I, p. 1106. Contrary to Libby, the librettos at I-MOe indicate that De Grandis did not sing opera in Modena in 1685, or at any time prior to 1692. See Appendix D for a full listing.

134


them can be seen as more prolific in Modena than Antonio Cottini. Cottini had in fact

played the lead title role in II Vespesiano when it opened the Teatro Fontanelli in 1685

and was undoubtedly one of the most prominent of all singers under Duke Francesco.

The one remaining male role was that of the lowly servant Grippo, sung by Giuseppe

Marsigli (tenor), who in 1692 was making his third appearance in three years, albeit at

the foot of the cast list and seemingly always as a servant. Later, Besutti records

Marsigli singing in Giannettini's Artaserse (Bologna, 1711), where 'he designated

himself "virtuoso of [sic] Prince Cesare Ignazio d 'Este'" .73 Besutti' s reference

establishes Marsigli as having gained a decent position with the prince, who by then

would have been the governor of Reggio Emilia, but, moreover, it reaffirms the growing

realisation that despite his public persona, Cesare Ignazio was more interested in music

patronage (or at least appreciated its value) than has been acknowledged to date.

But for all the clear value of publicity that the celebratory singers brought to the

cast-list, their selection for L'ingresso was not always a simple matter of choosing the

best voices, or of necessarily selecting those whom we may have expected to sing. As

ever, the matter was more complex than it at first appears and may have been affected

by some degree of political expediency which, in turn, may have been driven by the

plot, or indeed may have been the principal driving force behind it. To address this

issue, we can gain an overview of the experience and popularity of the entire cast in

Modena from Table 3.3 (drawn from Appendix D), which identifies their appearances in

the previous seven operas at the Teatro Fontanelli:

73 Besutti, in NGO, 3, p. 229.

135


Table 3.3: Appearances ofsingers at the Teatro Fontanelli (1685-1691)

Domenico Cecchi 2 II Mauritio (1689), Eteocle (1690).

Giovanni Francesco Grossi 4 I due germani (1686), Flavio (1688), 1/ Mauritio (1689), Eteocle (1690). Francesco De Grandis 0 Antonio Cottini 4 II Vespesiano (1685), Flavio (1688), II Mauritio (1689), Eteocle (1690). Lucretia Pontissi 1 Eteocle (1690). Anna Maria Torri 0 Lucia Bonetti 0 Giuseppe Marsigli'4 2 Eteocle (1690), L 'inganno (1691).

Note also: Francesca M. Sarti Cottini 4 1/ Vespesiano (1685), Flavio (1688), II Mauritio (1689), Eteocle (1690). Francesco A. M. Pistocchi 2 I due germ ani (1686), L'inganno (1691).

In order to reflect more accurately upon the relative popularity of these singers under

Francesco, a number of caveats need noting with regard to the type of production staged

at the theatre. L'ingresso was, to our knowledge, the first and only opera to be

commissioned specifically for the Teatro Fontanelli. Of the seven productions prior to

L'ingresso, while all but one were revivals of sorts, three suggest themselves as

probably having been brought to Modena as whole, self-contained productions,

complete with their own singers. These are II Trespolo, tutore balordo (1686) and

L'inganno scoperto per vendetta (1691), which do not feature any Modena-based

singers, and I due germani rivali (1686). The last is the only predecessor of L 'ingresso

which does not have an identified earlier production. Crowther notes its composer,

Carlo Lonati (who was in the employ of the Duke of Mantua), as visiting Modena

precisely to direct his opera and possibly II Trespolo as wel1.7S

The remaining four operas staged prior to 1692, i.e., II Vespesiano (1685),

Flavio (1688), II Mauritio (1689). Eteocle (1690), are all revivals brought to Modena.

Of these, only two singers feature in every production: Antonio Cottini and his wife

74 L'ingresso, libretto, p. 11, lists Marsigli as 'Gioseffo Marsigli, whereas the L'ingresso, accounts, f. ISr record him as 'Giuseppe Marsilio'. See also Besutti, in NGO, 3, p. 229, for other variations: 'Marsigli [Marsiglio, Marsili], Giuseppe'.


136


Francesca Maria Sarti. 76 While their overall total of four productions prior to L 'ingresso

is equalled by Siface, they remain comfortably ahead of Cecchi and Marsigli, who

appear in two operas each. Such was the prominence of the Cottinis that an examination

of the librettos at the Biblioteca Estense (see Appendix D) suggests that Francesca

occupied the role of prima donna under Duke Francesco and, as such, would have

expected to be the leading lady in L 'ingresso, as indeed she was in her last two Modena

productions. Likewise, for a 'wedding' -opera between Modena and Parma we might

expect to have seen Francesco Antonio Pistocchi ('II Pistocchino') as the Duke of

Parma's favourite also appear on stage. In 1692, Pistocchi was firmly established as

maestro di cappella for the Duke of Parma, leaving no doubt about which court he

represented. Indeed, his fame is such that he is recorded as 'probably the most

interesting child prodigy before Mozart'. 77 Pistocchi had earlier composed the oratorio

II martirio di S. Adriano as part of the more formal wedding celebrations. But these

festivities were in the summer and so would have had no impact on Pistocchi's

availability for this opera in November, when the formal celebrations would long since

have been completed. Pistocchi's absence, given the splendour of the wedding

celebrations of 1690, makes an interesting contrast. Surely, given the gala occasion and

the desire for conspicuous display, one would expect to have seen the Duke of Parma's

favourite on stage with Siface (his Modenese equivalent) performing in L'ingresso.

Indeed, so obvious is the probability, that there has been the mistaken understanding

that he did sing in L'ingresso.78 That he did not might suggest that the emphasis was on

the Este court, and not its Famese counterpart.

76 To avoid confusion with her husband, J shall refer to Francesca Sarti Cottini's surname as Sarti. Sarti is not listed in NOD.

77 Durante, in NOO, 3, p. 1022.

78 Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, p. 156.1 am grateful to Victor Crowther for confirmation that the source that had initially led him to cite Pistocchi's presence on stage with Siface for the production of L 'ingresso was an erroneous one.

137


However, when we view Pistocchi's absence in tandem with that of Sarti, it

might be more accurate to suggest that the problem was more precisely their each being

the wrong sex in the wrong court. The matter becomes somewhat clearer when we

consider the placement of Siface in the romantic lead of Curtio. As we shall come to see

in the synopsis that follows, the librettist (Giambattista Neri) created two romantic leads

for the opera: Illisa and Curtio. The difficulty for Sarti and Pistocchi was that if there

was to be a semiotic recreation of the marriage on stage, then it required its female and

male leads to come from Parma and Modena respectively, and not vice versa. Given his

close identification with Francesco, we may speculate that Siface was marked for the

role of Curtio from the outset. What is interesting is that once Siface has been assigned

the role, then a chain reaction was to set in motion which ultimately prohibited the

choice of both Sarti and Pistocchi merely on the grounds of political protocol and the

desire to represent both courts on stage. Indeed, Antonio Cottini's statement of 31

October 1694 suggests that as part of his commissioning of the opera, Duke Francesco

identified two of the singers he wanted to perform in the opera:

10 sottoscritto facio fede come il di 29 lulio 1692 in Sassuolo la gloriosa memoria del Serenissimo Signor Duca Francesco Secondo mi ordino dire all'Illustrissimo Signor Marchese Decio Fontanelli che li farebbe sborsare ducento doppie effettive a conto dell' opera in musica intitolata L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone che si doveva rapresentare per suo servicio, e che di pili avrebbe lui regalato Siface, Checchino et piu il mastro di cappella.79

While the reference to Siface and il Checchino (De Grandis) should be understood in

light of the fact that Cottini' s statement relates to the payment of singers, both of whom

were eventually paid by Francesco and not Fontanelli (hence the probable reason for

their citation here), the declaration does at least give us some basis from which to

approach the choice of singers for the opera. Certainly, we know it was commonplace

for operas to be composed purposefully for certain singers. The identification, then, of

79L" mgresso, accounts: LD, statement by Antonio Cottini.

138


Siface (Curtio) and De Grandis (Tigellino) in situ from the outset suggests that Neri and

Giannettini would have been able to construct the choice and function of the characters

in the knowledge of who was going to be performing the opera. Moreover, it would also

imply that Giannettini would also have been aware of the intricacies and abilities of

each singer respective to the roles discussed from the beginning. Although the evidence

for this theory is only circumstantial, it is interesting that two of the characters we shall

come to note as most obviously identifiable with Francesco (Curtio) and Cesare Ignazio

(Tigellino) appear to have been selected at the time of the commission.

With Siface representing Modena as the romantic lead, it would appear that this

may have excluded Sarti from the role of Illisa. Instead, Anna Maria Torri (who

appeared as 'Virtuosa del Serenissimo di Parma') was selected to make her first

appearance at the Teatro Fontanelli.8o Thus the singers recreated on stage the very union

of the two royal courts that this opera formally served to celebrate: Curtio/Siface

signifying ModenaIDuke Francesco, and IllisaITorri, ParmalMargherita. Torri (a

soprano) is also often cited as 'Torri Cecchi' (or vice versa) and so appears to have

married a Cecchi, though whether it was Domenico Cecchi is unclear. She first comes to

light in 1684 singing within the duchy at Reggio Emilia before being designated

'virtuosa' of Duke Ferdinando Carlo Gonzaga of Mantua in 1688. If she was chosen for

political expediency, then her timing was excellent, as she entered the service of the

Duke of Parma in May 1691.81 Having been passed over for Illisa, it is unlikely that

Sarti (whose roles tended to be in the Cl clef) would have played the role of Valeria,

given the preference for a contralto on C3 to support and give balance to the bride on

C 1. Of course, we could speculate on any number of practical reasons as to why

110 L 'ingresso, libretto, p. II.

1\ Besutti and Timms, in NOO, 4, p. 764.

139


Francesca may not have been able to sing, but given her frequent appearances on the

Modenese stage-certainly, she remained in favour, singing as 'del Serenissimo di

Modena' in Ottaviano in Sicilia (Reggio Emilia, 1692) six months earlier-it is difficult

to suggest any other viable reason for her omission from L'ingresso other than the stated

political desire to reflect the coming together of the two courts on stage.

Equally, the choice of Siface for Curtio immediately appears to have prohibited

Pistocchi from any role. Having assigned the romantic lead and the emperor's confidant

(Tigellino) from the start, the only character remaining for 'II Pistocchino' would have

been that of the Emperor Claudio Nerone himself. Perhaps, given the infamy of the

character, this was never a possibility. Instead, Cecchi, from the neutral court of

Mantua, was chosen for the leading role, as was in any event the practice in Modena. As

a consequence, Pistocchi, too, was left without a role suitable for his status.

As for the female singers, Lucia Bonetti (Ellia Catulla), like Tom, had never

sung opera in Modena before, while Lucretia Pontissi (Valeria) had appeared only once

previously in 1690;82 indeed, virtually nothing is known of Pontissi, despite her singing

under the banner of the Duke of Mantua.83 Bonetti, too, gives the impression of not

being very experienced. She first comes to light in 1688 and so would have been a

relative newcomer in 1692, even though her last known appearance in 1719 confirms an

eventual career spanning thirty years. The comic role of Ella required a low C4 tenor

clef, which might explain why Bonetti is identified today as simply an 'Italian singer' .84

Without Francesca Sarti, the opera thus lacked a significant female figurehead among

its cast, which whether by coincidence or by intent mirrored the male-dominated

politics of the Este court.

82 Note that Lucretia Pontissi sang with Francesca Sarti in Eleoc/e (Teatro Fontanelli, 1690).

83 Lucretia Pontissi is not listed in NGO.

14 Besutti, in NGO, 1, p. ~37.

140


Indeed, this point is somewhat emphasised through the hierarchical presentation

of the characters in the cast-list, whether in terms of the roles played or the importance

of the singers. Referring back to Table 3.2, we start with the political/morallead of the

Emperor Nerone followed by the romanticlheroic lead of Curtio. Third in the list is

Tigellino, while Aspasio is next. Thus, the principal men are listed before any woman,

even though the roles of Tigellino and Aspasio are technically subordinate to that of

Illisa, and arguably Valeria. Antonio Cottini's influential position in Modena may have

ensured he was the last male listed before the two more prominent female roles,

although he had twice appeared below his wife in earlier productions. Certainly, in

terms of the allocation of arias, Aspasio (with just three) should have been listed below

both Illisa (seven) and Valeria (eight). Indeed, given the occasion and her role as

romantic lead, we might also have expected Illisa to have been listed above Valeria and

even assigned a greater number of arias. Instead, politics appears to be given precedence

over romance, so that the ladies repeat the same structure as the men, with Valeria's role

as female political/moral lead being placed ahead of Illisa as the female romanticlheroic

lead, even though she seemingly represents the bride. This apparent policy is in direct

contrast to the cast-lists in Appendix D, where we note that historically the theatre

pursued a consistent policy of women being listed in terms of the importance of the role

and not on a male-first basis. While the male lead would always come first, the librettos

regularly placed the female lead second. At all times, the list order is defined by the

significance of the character within the drama. On this note, the last female listed for

L'ingresso is Ellia Catulla, implying that she was the least important female role, as

indeed her two arias indicate. Ellia's low voice and lesser-ranked listing in the libretto

are all the more peculiar, given that Neri goes on to make her the dominant character

and the focus of his synopsis in his 'Argomento al Lettore'.

141


As we might expect, the allocation of arias among the characters appears to go

some way to identifying the primacy of the singers and their respective roles. To this

end, Appendix G (which sets out the structure of aria placement within the opera) is

useful in identifying the prevalence of these singers within the dramatic context of the

opera. Ifwe then consider this detail in the light of Table 3.2, while bearing in mind the

need for political etiquette and balance, then it soon becomes apparent how the romantic

leads of Curtio and Illisa-who are each allocated seven arias plus a single duet together

(III.vii.20)-play a secondary role to the political leads of Claudio and Tigellino, who

are given eleven and ten arias respectively plus three duets each; and this despite Siface

being given the role of Curtio. If the three male leads shared almost equal billing, this is

not reflected in their allocation of arias. Indeed, Curtio's role in the drama can be argued

as being further diminished by his somewhat muted in a C3 clef with a top e", while

Claudio and Tigellino both sing in a CI clef and range up to a" and b"respectively. The

distinctions are subtle, of course, but they serve to emphasise the leads in the drama and

the focus of its attention, not least given that the identity of the singers appears to have

been determined from the outset.

While, naturally, we need to be cautious in our interpretation of the meaning and

significance of arias and their allocation at this time, the apparent imbalance within

L'ingresso becomes more acute when we consider the functions of the characters on

stage.85 While Tigellino's role is only that of a political/moral second (or support

character), the ten arias he is given dwarf the allocation of three arias to his political

counterpart, Aspasio, and put him on a par with Claudio and ahead of Curtio, Illisa and

Valeria.

85 I accept that L ·/ngresso comes in a transitional period where the allocation of arias, their meaning and function within opera can be determined by other criteria. Carter, 'Mask and Illusion', addresses the problems of how we approach opera at this time.

142


Therefore, rather than develop positive and negative political pairings of Claudio

and ValeriaJAspasio, and Tigellino and AspasioNaleria, thus providing balance and a

challenge to Nerone's court, the allocation appears to place Tigellino on a near-equal

footing with the emperor himself, so that they appear to share the political lead, and

leave Aspasio and Valeria to counteract each other. As we shall see in the synopsis, this

leads to a structure that keeps both groups within their own courts and true to their

respective beliefs. It also clearly adds weight to the view that L'ingresso was all about

political display, with Claudio as Francesco and Tigellino as Cesare Ignazio.

Naturally, we might counter any argument in support of a political reading by

the fact that Tigellino's allocation was directly because the role was taken by the

esteemed Francesco De Grandis in his first and only Modenese opera, despite his

prominence in the duke's cappella and in oratorio production. While De Grandis seems

over-qualified for the role of what on paper was effectively the third male, we might be

tempted to think that such a gala occasion may have warranted the equal placement of

three celebratory castrati, and that this was the reason for the high aria allocation to the

singer. However, the fact that the same criteria did not apply to the even more revered

Siface tends to eliminate the possibility of equal billing. Indeed, the fact that Siface is

restricted to just seven arias in comparison to Cecchi's eleven and De Grandis's ten

tends to suggest that the motivation for such an obvious disparity might have been

determined by other factors, whether dramatic or political.

Significantly, the gathering-structure of the surviving manuscript of L'ingresso

reveals that four new arias were inserted, with De Grandis's Tigellino and Cecchi's

Claudio being allocated two arias each (although in Cecchi's case one replaced an

existing aria, making the net gain one). From a political perspective, Tigellino's

standing was thus changed during the production itself to become comparable with, if

marginally subordinate to, Claudio. If this suggests a sense of partnership, their increase

143


in arias creates quite a significant rift between the pair and the other characters, who

remain on and around seven and eight arias. While the gap would not normally be

significant, the fact that the third lead is so heavily promoted inevitably leads one to ask

whether there was a political motivation for this change. In turn, it is when we come to

consider the characters allegorically that the allocation of arias tends to work better for

the projected relationship of Francesco and Cesare Ignazio than it does for Claudio

Nerone and Tigellino on stage. In addition, when we come to see the pair both start and

end the opera pronouncing on the glory of Claudio's reign, then the projection of the

Este princes grows stronger and a political value is given to Tigellino's increase in arias,

which therefore becomes worthy of further consideration.

This, in turn, creates something of a dichotomy. Having established a structure at

the expense of Sarti and Pistocchi, whereby representations of the bride and groom were

depicted on stage, the indication in terms of the hierarchical structure of the libretto and

aria allocation appears to suggest that some form of political protocol might have been

at hand which then proceeded to subvert the expected celebration. While anything but

conclusive, the selection of singers supports Tigellino's opening proclamation of

Claudio's arrival on stage (I.i.l) and, as a consequence, raises the question of whether

given their reluctance for the duke to marry-Francesco and Cesare Ignazio may have

used the opera to make a clear political statement to reaffirm their own political union.

If so, then, the marriage is seemingly pushed to the background and the characters of

Claudio and Tigellino are brought to the fore. This raises a fundamental question: if one

accepts an allegorical reading of the opera by matching characters to figures at the Este

court, is Duke Francesco best represented by the romantic lead (Curtio) or by the

emperor? The possible answers to that question open up important issues concerning

how the opera might have been perceived by at least some members of its first audience.

144


L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone

It is in this light that we come to L'ingresso itself. This dramma per musica is in

three acts of fifteen, eighteen and thirteen scenes respectively, covering the celebrations

that marked Nero's coronation as emperor. Act I is divided into four scene-complexes,

Act II into three, and Act III, likewise, into three. A schedule of aria placement

throughout each of the acts is given in Appendix G, which details all musical forms

sung, by whom and when. This identifies at a glance the opera's structure in terms of

the aria allocation and placement of each of the eight characters from the perspective

both of the cast-listing and their order of appearance on stage. In this way, we get an

idea of the opera's dramatic constitution in terms of how the interlocutori are employed,

and also of its form in the sense of the use of arias both within scenes and among the

singers. As such, we witness a framework in Act I which allows the introduction in turn

of each of the eight characters before, in Act II, we are given an overview of how the

thematic structure of the opera develops, first with the primary theme, and then with its

secondary counterpart; finally, in Act III, as the plots come to their resolution, we see

virtually the entire cast brought together at the opera's climax.

As we might expect of such a gala festivity, Giambattista Neri's libretto is

peppered with numerous erudite classical references, as, too, is his 'Argomento al

Lettore' and Fontanelli's dedication. All three texts serve to project the image of a

cultured Duke Francesco and are indicative of a style which is constantly apparent

throughout Neri's libretto. Indeed, this learned style is in stark contrast to how Harris

Saunders summarises Neri's librettos, which he notes as being 'firmly based in seicento

style' and not reflecting 'the tendency towards elevated tone and serious subject matter

145


that characterized Italian libretto writing from the 1690s onwards' .86 L'ingresso,

however, is not mentioned by Saunders, and, in contrast to his experiences elsewhere,

Neri's abundant, if not indulgent, exposition of classical references to the greater glory

of Francesco does present a different characterisation of the writer. Nonetheless, Neri

does draw upon traditional structures in his treatment of Illisa and Curtio, as becomes

apparent from the following synopsis:

L'ingresso Synopsis

Act I

Scene-complex I.a.: Delightful bathroom with a staircase that ascends to a balcony on w/lich Claudio appears in scant dress with servants who hand /,im his clothing.

I.i. Tigellino (Claudio'S confidant) announces his new emperor, Claudio Nerone, and challenges the sun to match the splendour of the new reign. Claudio's first shave is enacted, marking his rise from adolescence into manhood and with it his succession as Emperor of Rome. The cut hair is placed into a gold receptacle, which is to be stored for posterity in the Campidoglio. Claudio is duly crowned and announces his intention to celebrate his coronation and coming-of-age with two festivities: first, a ball of all the ladies of the Tiber (II.xi) and, later, with celebratory games 'giovenili' (iuvenalia, III.x). I.ii. Alone Tigellino recalls the crushing of Tarpeia, who had betrayed her people, and how a new world of love and pleasure has replaced the old doctrines.

Scene-complex I.h.: Roman street with sumptuous buildings and a small house to the side.87

I.iii. A Roman street where much building work is going on. Grippo (Claudio's servant) has been dispatched to deliver invitations for the ball. He comes across Curtio (Roman gentleman and lover of Illisa) who, alone, has been declaring his love for Illisa (Ellia Catulla's daughter). Reluctantly, Grippo agrees to deliver a secret message for Illisa to rendezvous with Curtio at the ball. I.iv. Now alone, Grippo laments the life of a servant, always doing other people's bidding. I.v. As he leaves, Grippo sees Aspasio (a retired stoic senator) exit from the small house with his daughter, Valeria. Stopping to view the magnificent buildings, the pair ridicule the apparent immorality and materialistic excesses of the new regime.

16 Saunders, in NOO, 3, pp. 571-2.

17 Note that although the libretto never refers to these sumptuous buildings by name, the implication through the setting of many scene-complexes, both inside and outside, might be that these buildings form part of Nero's reconstruction of Rome-an in particular his Golden House (Domus aurea}-following the great fire of AD 64; but Nero became emperor in AD 54 and so is aged seventeen in this opera, while the fire was not for another ten years. See Hornblower and Spawforth (cds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, pp. 1037-8.

146


Aspasio is against the vain pagan worshipping of false beauty and things of dust. As they withdraw back into their house, Aspasio wonders how Claudio can enjoy such buildings while his people are so unhappy. Grippo (stunned by Valeria's beauty) then steps forward and despite Aspasio's objections demands that she attend Nero's ball. As Aspasio enters his home, Valeria is again stopped by Grippo who tells her that Claudio's philosophers will open up the mysteries of nature to her in ways her father cannot. I.vi. Valeria alone laments over a twofaced god (Janus) that has allowed youthful corruption to gain precedence over the old and virtuous values; she hopes that she will not fall victim to these new ways. She ponders over her natural beauty: she does not need ornaments and ribbons to become beautiful.

Scene-complex I.c.: Dressing Room in Ellia's house.

I.vii. Inside, Illisa (alone with her maids) indulges in the excessive application of her make-up. Having beautified herself, Illisa hurries the maids away before Ellia Catulla (noble Roman matron, 'la genitrice rigida') returns. Lacking Curtio as an admirer, Illisa vainly delights in her own beauty. I.viii. Ellia arrives and, appalled by Illisa's make-up, forces her daughter to remove it all, while they argue over what tastes are most appropriate, and which of them is the most beautiful. I.ix. Grippo arrives mid-argument and before entering observes Ellia who, while admiring herself in the mirror, instructs Illisa on what she must do if she is to match her mother's beauty and win love. Grippo enters and invites Ellia (and Illisa) to the ball, while simultaneously he surreptitiously instructs Illisa to come disguised as a boy so that she can see Curtio in secret. As Ellia and Grippo flirt ever more provocatively, he attempts to grope her breast, but Ellia resists, warning that the fire within will burn him. Even so, the pair end in unison declaring her 'volto sovrano'. I.x. Illisa, alone, looks to find her disguise, overjoyed at the prospect of seeing Curtio.

Scene-complex I.d.: Salon in Claudio's palace with the apparatus of the grand baiL Various torches on a great chandelier are being loweredfrom ti,e ceiling.

I.xi. The preparation for the ball is almost complete as Aspasio and Valeria arrive modestly dressed. They are amazed by the lavish splendour of the palace and equally horrified by the carnal state of the dancers and musicians who now enter.88 The musicians are described by Aspasio as the 'Orfei del Tebro', and the dancers by Valeria as 'Le Latine Euridici'. Disgusted they turn to leave. I.xii. At this point, Claudio arrives accompanied by Tigellino and the ladies and gentlemen of his court. He invites his guests to dance.89 I.xiii. As the ball gets underway, Ellia Catulla, escorted by Grippo, arrives while Curtio and Illisa (now dressed as a boy) enter from the other side. Ellia is so overly made up and dances so extravagantly that she is ridiculed by all. Valeria comments on the vanity of 'Ie matrone romane'; Illisa secretly returns Curtio's love-letters to him for safe keeping from Ellia, who meanwhile has been dancing non-stop with Grippo. The pair finally rest in front of Claudio and Tigellino. Grippo is eager to

18 The libretto continually provides relatively detailed stage instructions. Here, it clearly notes that: 'Si vedono varii sonatori salir sopra un palco i parte', (L'ingresso, libretto, p. 25). While the L'ingresso accounts list all payments to the musicians of the orchestra, these are not specifically identified in the accounts. This suggests that they either left the orchestra to play this section from the stage or that they may have been the extras listed in the accounts, who were simply miming.

19 The ladies and gentlemen of court were the ballerinl from Bologna; see Chapter 4.

147


be rid of Ellia and offers her in quick succession to Tigellino, Aspasio, and then to the disguised Illisa; refusing all before her, Ellia is love-struck on seeing her daughter, who in turn rejects her mother's advances. At this moment, Claudio is suddenly stricken by Valeria's remarkable beauty, the like of which, Tigellino adds, 'gill mai non vidi in Roma'. Curtio, too, stares at Valeria, so causing an argument with the jealous Illisa before she flees and he pursues. The intense attention unsettles Valeria, who is protected by Aspasio as he covers her with his cloak. As he does, Claudio and Tigellino intervene, forcing Aspasio to defend his idea of virtue against the excesses of the ball. When Tigellino asks Valeria if she understands such 'saggie dottrine', Valeria declares that she knows only that morality languishes at the sound of the lyre and that women who dance like Ellia lack virtue. Music, as throughout the opera, is thus decried as an immoral force. Claudio, now irritated by Aspasio and Valeria's moral doctrine, declares to Tigellino his frustration at those who bring such pomposity to his party. On leaving, Aspasio fears what Claudio has in store for them, while Valeria retorts that she will remain rigid, although the weak cadence at her aria's end undermines her sentiment. I.xiv. Claudio, alone, denounces Aspasio and Valeria as foolishly decrepit and declares that his ingenuity will triumph. Those who do not want to play his games may depart, but for him 'giubbilo, festa, e gioco vengano il dolce foco a fomentar d'amor'. I.xv. Leaving the party, Curtio and Illisa argue: she warns him of his behaviour, while Curtio stoically declares both his love and his fidelity.

A dance of the ladies and gentlemen of court concludes Act I.

Act II

Scene-complex lI.a.: Badly conserved study with statues of philosophers and of ancient poets.

lI.i. Following the ball, Valeria is enchanted by a study she and Grippo have found in the palace grounds. Despite the ambience of knowledge, Grippo ridicules both the philosophers and Valeria's arguments in their defence. lI.ii. Curtio passes by, but is grabbed by Grippo and is soon arguing with Valeria over the longevity of love. To prove that love is not just a modem immorality, he reads aloud the ancient story of Arethusa and Alphaeus. lI.iii. Meanwhile, Illisa arrives unnoticed to hear Curtio innocently read the words 'con un bacio .. .', which she assumes to be Curtio wooing Valeria. A second argument ensues between Illisa and Curtio, and then Illisa and Valeria, in which both are firmly put in their place by Illisa. lI.iv. Curtio is left alone to lament his loss of Illisa. lI.v. As he departs, Valeria returns to encounter Claudio and Tigellino, who proceed to convince her of their philosophy on the pleasure of love. The argument is so adeptly presented that Valeria is won over. lI.vi. Aspasio joins the debate, but is outwitted by Claudio and Tigellino who skilfully paraphrase their line of reasoning, giving him no option but to agree with them. When Valeria freely admits that she finds this new court philosophy agreeable and likeable, Aspasio censures her and sends Valeria away. The departing Valeria sings of how, now that she has heard of love, she would like to experience it. Meanwhile, Claudio appeases Aspasio in order to detain him, while he sends Tigellino after Valeria. As he goes, Tigellino complains of how Aspasio turns

148


bitter all that is sweet. II.vii. Aspasio continues his criticism of the emperor's style of government, lecturing Claudio on how, ifhe continues, the kingdom will end up bankrupt, like a ship crashed upon the rocks. II.viii. Claudio, now alone, is infuriated by this criticism and sings of the traumas of government. While Aspasio would have his people return to suffering, Claudio states his determination to offer pleasure and love to his populace so that they shall live happily.

Scene-complex II.h.: Garden with fountains.

II.ix. Ellia is instructing the flowers on how they might better imitate her beauty when she sees Grippo, immersed in a book. She approaches, but he rebuffs her, rudely commenting that a new sobriety governs court. Ellia blames Valeria's influence, before Grippo grasps her eager attention by reading a recipe to make 'polve di Cipro'. As Ellia is drawn in, Grippo turns it into a joke at the expense of her excessive vanity. Ellia then enquires after the boy (her disguised daughter) with whom she has now fallen in love. Grippo continues to ridicule Ellia by telling her that the boy is now a disciple of Aspasio and that he will arrange a romantic encounter for them. II.x. As they leave, so Tigellino arrives praising the ingenuity of Claudio before noticing Curtio, who remains distraught at having upset Illisa. Curtio asks Tigellino to be vigilant and to inform him of any news of his love. The confidant comments that he himself is free from such sufferings, as Cupid has long since given up on him. II.xi. Illisa arrives but ignores Curtio as he again protests his innocence. Tigellino at first defends Curtio, but when he mentions Valeria's name, Tigellino wrongly assumes that she must be the love about whom Curtio was talking. Knowing Claudio's desires for Valeria, Tigellino instructs Illisa to decorate Valeria so that her beauty will win Claudio's heart. Illisa initially refuses, saying it will only serve to incite Curtio further, but when the latter then suggests that she leaves Valeria 'cosi roza [sic]', Illisa retorts that this would only serve Curtio's cause by ending Claudio's interest. On Curtio's reply that, if so, she should do as first suggested, the obstinate Illisa answers that this would serve only to increase his desire for Valeria. Frustrated by the impossibility of the argument, Curtio damns love and leaves. II.xii. Illisa, now determined that Claudio must fall in love with Valeria, advises Tigellino that she will attend to her only if Valeria is then taken directly to Claudio. II.xiii. As Tigellino departs, Valeria arrives. At first, the women argue, before, having mocked Valeria's appearance, Illisa finally persuades a bynow-willing Valeria to be made over. II.xiv. Meanwhile, Claudio is still detained by Aspasio, who is deeply shocked when he sees his daughter now lavishly adorned. By contrast, Claudio is enraptured and rushes straight to her; but as Aspasio seeks to intervene, he is stopped by Illisa, who tells him that Valeria is Curtio's secret lover. Aspasio wants to act immediately, but Illisa persuades him to wait until he can challenge the pair when they are together. Angry, Aspasio leaves. Claudio is now completely smitten by Valeria's exceptional beauty. Despite the enticement and temptation of the emperor's advances, however, Valeria manages to remain constant and virtuous; nonetheless, Illisa and Claudio share the conviction that sooner or later she will yield. II.xv. Alone, Illisa wills her plan to work, but laments her own situation and how she is tormented by jealousy.

.~ ...

149 . ~ .. ". ~


Scene-complex II.c.: Atrium leading to Claudio's apartment: in the dark of night.

II.xvi. Approaching from opposite directions, Ellia and Aspasio sneak towards their erroneous targets: Ellia, seeking the 'boy' she met at the ball, and Aspasio, Valeria, who he wrongly thinks is with Curtio. As Ellia curses Aspasio, he hears his name mentioned and rushes forward, thinking it is Valeria. The two leap into each other's arms: Ellia with passion and Aspasio hoping to catch his daughter. II.xvii. At this point, Claudio, accompanied by his pages, arrives inopportunely to catch the two embraced. Thinking it a passionate encounter, he is furious and strips Ellia of all her family honours, so reducing her to tears. Now with the moral high ground, Claudio vilifies Aspasio for being a hypocrite. Claudio orders them to leave before his fury responds more appropriately to their errors. II.xviii. Claudio, alone, sings of how even the coldest heart should yield to the inevitability of love.

Pages carrying torches conclude the act with a dance.

Act III

Scene-complex III.a.: Deliziosa.

III.i. Curtio and Grippo are together discussing Illisa, but at the mention of her name, Curtio becomes bitter and shows Grippo the love-letters he had written to her. Distraught, he throws them to the ground before stamping on them. But as Grippo joins in, Curtio vents his fury on Grippo, who in defending himself repeats, line by line, the young lover's previous complaints, only for Curtio to deny them all. The servant picks up the letters to return to Curtio, but leaves one on the ground unseen. Grippo then departs, grumbling about the life of a servant, always subject to other people's frustration. Curtio sings of his love and everlasting devotion for Illisa. III.ii. Meanwhile Claudio and Valeria (now dressed extravagantly) appear, attended by Claudio's courtiers, servants, pages and guards. They are on intimate terms, though Valeria will only allow Claudio to love her with his eyes. Aspasio arrives. Noting Valeria's dress and behaviour, Aspasio loses his temper and goes to strike her, only to be stopped by Claudio who asks how dare he raise his hand in front of his emperor. When Aspasio says that if necessary he would raise his hand even against a god, Claudio curtly reminds him of his actions the night before. III.iii. At this point, Ellia bursts forth and, whispering instructions to Grippo to back her actions, hurls herself at the feet of Claudio. She then begins a deceptive ruse complaining that her character has been assassinated by Aspasio who, through his horrid and strange philosophy, has taken advantage of her in the shadows of the previous night. Aspasio is horrified by the accusations, but when Grippo affirms Ellia's story, Valeria, now convinced, tells her father to return to Ellia. Aspasio again seeks to strike his daughter, but Claudio intervenes 'and has him led away to prison. Grippo and Ellia withdraw leaving Claudio finally alone to court Valeria. III.iv. Valeria, herself now alone, finds the letter dropped earlier by Grippo. Seeing that it is from Curtio, she reads on, only for Tigellino to arrive unseen and overhear every word as if it has been written for Valeria. Snatching the letter from her hand, Tigellino refuses to accept her explanation of having just found it, and in

150


dismissing her arguments as lies, accuses her of being unfaithful to Claudio. III. v. The emperor returns to see Valeria weeping and begging Tigellino to save her. Tigellino refuses, saying she loves another. When Claudio intercedes, Valeria confesses her love, but talks of her father, Aspasio. At this, Claudio tells her that he will be freed, while Tigellino, still disbelieving, decides that it is better if for the moment he keeps his own counsel. Claudio and Valeria exchange consecutive love arias. III.vi. Alone, Tigellino bemoans how Curtio sent him to swear love to Illisa (II.xi) when all the time he loved Valeria. Tigellino's aria (inserted into the score, but not present in the libretto) warns how, like Icarus, Valeria will soon fall from grace. Illisa arrives still holding onto the belief that Curtio is true to her alone until Tigellino shows her his letter, which he asserts was addressed to Valeria. Taking the moral lead, Tigellino sings disapprovingly of the lack of fidelity among the young. III.vii. Now on her own, Illisa realises that this is the same letter that she had already returned to Curtio. She is outraged. Curtio arrives, but she pushes him away, showing him the letter. When challenged, Curtio confinns that it is his, but says that it was written for Illisa only. Unaware that Illisa thinks he gave the same letter to Valeria, Curtio is mystified by her anger. They argue, but in repetitive asides each confesses their love for the other. Illisa then tells of how Tigellino had found Valeria in possession of the letter. Curtio cannot believe that once more he is being accused of infidelity and threatens to draw his sword against Tigellino to prove himself. The relationship appears over and they depart in opposite directions to shed their tears.

Scene-complex III.b.: A steep place with prison caves.

III.viii. Aspasio, chained to a rock, condemns the fact that his pure virtue has led him to such suffering, and laments how one woman, Ellia Catulla, has placed him in such a shameful position. III.ix. Valeria arrives with one of Claudio's pages carrying a cloak decorated with gold. At first, Aspasio criticises her for daring to show her face in front of him, but Valeria will have none of it and tells him that if he were to accept the better philosophy she now understands, then he could be free to enjoy the pleasures of life with her. A seemingly broken man, he consents and she frees him. Aspasio pretends that if his heart cannot accept his freedom then he must be stupid; however, as they leave, Aspasio grabs Valeria forcibly by the ann and lectures her on his greater intellect and her weaker morality. As he regains control in their relationship, he laments how once she was virtuous and chaste. Vice has killed that virtue. At this Valeria breaks down and Aspasio releases hold of her ann. Aspasio changes tack and asks her to raise her head and turn away from this depravity. Valeria sees the apparent error of her ways and vows to be virtuous again, and proceeds to rid herself of her makeup and jewellery. Together they resolve to flee Claudio's court and celebrate how it is never too late to let virtue lead with its shining light.

Scene-complex III.c.: Amphitheatre.

III.x. Claudio's iuvenalia are about to begin. Illisa, alone, mourns her lot. Ellia arrives and too laments how their family honour is now in ruins. At this, Illisa suggests that if Curtio were still to marry her then the family'S glory would be restored. Ellia replies that Illisa must learn to accept what she does not like in life and that through her marriage to Curtio, Ellia will once again earn the

151


respect of the people; in turn, Ellia will have to become virtuous out of necessity. Illisa bewails how infidelity has deceived her and Ellia declares that they will both die unpleasantly, she by lack of honour and her daughter by marriage. III.xi. Claudio and Tigellino arrive and proceed to invite the stars to descend over the Tiber to mark their festivities. Grippo hurries in to say that Valeria has been caught seeking to flee Rome with another man. Immediately, all parties assume that she was with Curtio, whereupon Tigellino wrongly tells of how Curtio and Valeria were lovers and how he had tried to warn Claudio. Illisa bewails that her fears have been true all along, until Grippo steps forward to advise that Valeria has been caught with Aspasio. III.xii. The guards bring both Aspasio and Valeria before Claudio. As Tigellino had previously likened Claudio to the sun (I.i.), so now Claudio makes the same comparison when he asks why the prisoners sought to deny his sun. Aspasio declares how Valeria has come to see virtue again, but Claudio accuses Valeria of lying and asks where she has left Curtio. Confused, Valeria denies any knowledge of him. Meanwhile, Grippo advises Ellia that the boy with whom she fell in love at the ball was in fact her own daughter Illisa in disguise. Embarrassed, Ellia announces her dishonour for having loved her own child too much. At this point, as the athletes arrive at the stadium, Claudio becomes distracted and more interested in the forthcoming games. Both he and Tigellino take up their places in order to watch the games commence. Aspasio remarks to Valeria that for Claudio life is just a game, before they too take their positions as spectators. III.xiii. Curtio arrives and is immediately vilified by Illisa for being a traitor, and by Tigellino for his audacity. Claudio then makes the magnanimous gesture of offering Valeria's hand in marriage to Curtio, given that he has realised her true passion. Both Valeria and Curtio cannot believe their ears, and as Illisa exclaims that she is dying, Curtio again denies any feeling for Valeria and stresses that it is only Illisa he loves. Ellia exclaims that he is faithful after all, and Illisa cries that there is still hope for her heart. Valeria indignantly sings that love of eternal joy and not of mortal pleasure is what lights her heart, at which point Tigellino stubbornly brings up the love-letter again; Valeria restates how she found it on the ground, whereupon Grippo steps forward to confinn that Curtio had thrown down all his letters earlier out of sheer desperation for the love he held for Illisa. Curtio asks Illisa that they allow jealousy to die and their love to live. Claudio then claims credit for the happy outcome until Tigellino points out that Ellia remains in dishonour, so that Illisa and Curtio cannot marry. Claudio is thus left to generously restore her family titles pennitting the couple to wed; however, Claudio, having approved the wedding, is not going to become too sentimental. He laughs at the lovers and somewhat provocatively says that, as for him, he merely wants to embrace a beauty who has less virtue and more passion. Aspasio advises Valeria that they should get away from these vices and she agrees, noting that her only companion henceforth shall be virtue. As they leave, Tigellino notes that only the games maintain their beauty, but that youth is laughed at by time. The opera ends as it began with Tigellino and Claudio celebrating their pagan invitation to the stars to come down to the Tiber and for the sunrise to crown Claudio's succession.

Combat and wrestling mark the commencement of the iuvenalia and the end of the opera.

152


In essence, then, it is against the backdrop of Claudio's coronation and reign that Neri

introduces the subject of wedding nuptials by inventing two new romantic leads, Curtio

and Illisa, who go through the expected trials of trust and fidelity before learning that

true love is their destiny. It is seemingly everything we would expect of a 'wedding'

opera. The allegorical reference to Margherita Famese (Illisa) and Francesco (Curtio) as

bride and groom is absolute.

Except, if we look again, then the glory is not Curtio and Illisa's but Claudio's.

Moreover, if we view the synopsis more closely, then the treatment of Illisa as a bride is

quite shocking: she has to dress as a boy, her beauty is clearly stated to be less than

Valeria's, and in the final scene she is told that she must accept the marriage as her lot

for the sake of the greater good, and that she will die in dishonour as a consequence of

matrimony. Moreover, at almost every point, her character is subverted by Valeria. In

contrast to the presentation of the devout, beautiful and intelligent Valeria, Illisa is

shown constantly to be fickle, vain and open to whims of fashion; she is certainly not a

woman of substance and one able to govern. Moreover, she is depicted as no more than

a wife waiting upon the acceptance of her husband.

Consequently, we are left to conclude that the portrayal of Margherita through

Illisa is not one that befits a generous introduction of the new duchess. Given, then,

Francesco's acknowledged reluctance to marry, and Cesare Ignazio's desire to hold on

to power, there appears ample ground to consider that rather than celebrate the

marriage, the opera served to subvert Margherita's arrival in Modena through a political

sub-plot that not only undermined her marriage through her representation on stage, but

which also sought to make a political declaration of the power ofthe Este princes.

153


A political reading?

i. TEXT AND MUSIC

It is, therefore, when we examine the synopsis as a whole, not least in the

context of Modena's tradition for political statement through music, that we find a

wealth of potential references to Duke Francesco's reign. Once placed in a political

context, Neri's libretto takes on an entirely different level of meaning that appears to

give reason to so many of the decisions made in its composition, which, in turn, are

developed by Giannettini's specific manipulation of the music. This is not to suggest, by

any means, that the following political reading is sustainable at every level, whether

wholly or in part; these are matters for another day. The issue here is whether within the

court a political reading might have been written into the drama and, whether or not that

was the case, to what extent those watching in Margherita's party may have had reason

to draw an analogy from the treatment and portrayal of the characters therein.

When viewed in this light, and given the political make-up of the Este

government, it is the role of Tigellino, as Claudio's political partner in this opera, that

ultimately defines any allegorical reading, in terms both of his relationship with his

emperor in the drama and of Cesare Ignazio's partnership with Duke Francesco in

Modena. It is the presentation of this relationship through L 'ingresso which initiates

questions over whether this 'wedding' -opera is subverted for political reasons. Despite

having created symbolic representations of the bride and groom solely for this nuptial

festivity, Neri chooses instead to both start and end the opera with Claudio and

Tigellino in joyous and united celebration of the emperor's rule. Thereafter, Neri

repeatedly brings them together to celebrate the world of Claudio's court and always

through a united strategy: witness, for example, their joint conversion of Valeria when

154


they break Aspasio's rigid control of his daughter and entice her over to their

philosophies by successive arguments set to the same music in an 'aria it duetto' first for

Claudio (II.v.19) and then Tigellino (II.v.21) as they convince her of the intrinsic worth

of their style of government.

The moment is significant simply because Giannettini's use of an 'aria it duetto'

is precisely the kind of technique we would expect to see used to depict the union of the

young lovers, to be expressed at some climactic point by their coming together and

sharing of the same music (perhaps even in unison). But here, it is not Francesco and

Margherita whose relationship may be deemed as consummated, but that of the duke

and his confidant. Moreover, the point is reinforced at the opera's end. Once again,

whereas we might have expected the two lovers to come together in a glorious climactic

duet, Neri and Giannettini appear to conspire to subvert the marriage through two

predetermined acts. First, Curtio and Illisa are denied their climax musically, for when

they finally overcome their demons to become one, they are restricted to a single-line

duettino on '0 sospirato nodo, 0 dolci amori' (Ex. 3.1):

Ex. 3.1: Curtio I llIisa. '0 sospirato Dodo, 0 dolci amori.' (III.xiii.35. p. 525,90 bars 60-63)

Continuo

[35. Duettino. Curtio I Illisa: 0 sospirato nodo, 0 dolci amori.J 60

o so-spi-m-to no do, 0 dol c!JI mo rio f":'I

Consequently, the much-anticipated romantic finale fails to materialise and we are left

with a single hendecasyllabic verso piano set to four bars of music, suggesting that Neri

90 The page number cited is given in the top outer comer of every side of the score. Folio numbers are also given in the source on the bottom inner comer of every recto, but are not cited here. The layout is reproduced as per the original score.

155


had originally intended it for recitative. In an opera of some fifty arias and ten duets, it

is hard to justify why, when we reach its apparent culmination, the wedding couple are

denied their moment. This is not the type of glorious celebration that one would expect

a 'wedding' -opera to deliver for the bride and groom, and despite Giannettini's efforts

at raising its status to the briefest duettino, there is no attempt to extend or develop the

music further.

With Curtio and Illisa somewhat subverted, the finale is given over instead to

Claudio and Tigellino, to whom the librettist and composer ascribe a closing duet

'Discendete astri dell'etera' (IIl.xiii.39) where both come together in joyous celebration

of their reign and dominance in court:

a 2. Claudio and Tigellino

Discendete astri dell' etera Sovra il Tebro Ii festeggiar.

Venga il sol dall' orizonte [CIa.] mla

La fronte [Tig.] tua

Ii coronar.

Discendete, &c.

Descend, stars of the sovereign heaven over the Tiber to rejoice.

The sun rises from the horizon my

on head your

to place the crown.

L'ingresso,lII.xiii.39.

The duet is worthy of attention at both its start and its end. Giannettini first establishes

an opening four-note motif,f'-e"-f'-c", on 'Di-scen-de-te' (Ex. 3.2):

156


Ex. 3.2: Claudio / Tigellino. 'Discendete astri dell'etera.' (I1I.xiii.39. pp. 530-31, bars 102-112)

Tig.

de

Cont.

~ 110

CIa.

I'e

Tig.

I'e

Cont.

[39. Duetto. Claudio / Tigellino: Diseendete astri dell'etera.] 102

Di - seen - de - te,

Ie_

Ie ra, a stri del I'e

- le-ra, a 8tri del I'e

di - seen -

a - stri del -

- te·ra

Ie ra

The motif is a direct repeat of Claudio's first three words (to a crotchet rhythm) at the

start of his aria 'Da quegli occhi io son ferito' (I.xiii.37), and a variation of Tigellino' s

opening proclamation of Claudio's arrival, 'Ecco il sol dell'alta Roma' (I.i.l, Ex. 3.3).

Ex. 3.3: Tigellino. 'Ecco iI sol dell'alta Roma.' (I.i.l. p. 11, bars 1-4)

Tigellino

[1. Aria. Tigellino: feeo it sol dell'alta Roma] Adagio

1@ftr0:=1f~=--r -.tr-:-t=t=J¥=tr===r:===={~-r--J 1'%%1 Ec cojl 501 ____ _ del • l'a1 - ta

To some extent, then, we might suggest that Giannettini introduces a form of shared

motif for both Claudio and Tigellino, giving it first to the confidant and then to the

emperor before bringing both together to share at the opera's climax. If so, then the

157


political analogy is obvious, not least given that this is precisely the kind of technique

we would have expected Giannettini to have employed for Curtio and Illisa.

Giannettini's falling melismas (Ex. 3.2 above) decorate and expand the motif to create

the effect of the stars descending to earth, not to bless the royal wedding, but to crown

Claudio emperor. The effect is rapturous and glorious.

The technique, of course, might be argued as serving musical needs ahead of

dramatic concerns, but there is little doubt that this is where Giannettini chooses to

concentrate our attention at the opera's end. The closing duet (motif included) goes on

to dominate the final stages and is given twice over the last three scenes. Indeed,

Claudio and Tigellino first present the A section at the start of the eleventh scene

(IIl.xi.29) before adding the B section and the extended Al repeat to give a full

presentation at the closing invitation for the sun to crown Claudio emperor (IIl.xiii.39).

The deployment of this duet is unique within the work and naturally adds to the

magnificence of the opera's climax. But it is the final coda (Ex. 3.4) that is, perhaps,

most explicit:

Ex. 3.4: Claudio I Tigellino. 'Discendete astri dell'etera.' (11I.xiii.39. p. 537, bars 197-9)

197

siar. __ _ II Co - stes· siar. __ _ II Co - steg - giar. __ _

t':'\ Continuo

Fine deU'opera

Here, as the opera ends in a crescendo of melismas before coming to a close on the

twice repeated 'ft festeggiar', we find that the penultimate phrases sung by Cecchi and

De Grandis are exchanged, so that each repeats the other (as they had done at the

beginning of this duet). In this way, both the music and the final words of Claudio and

158


Tigellino are entwined in perfect union. Once again, where we might have expected

such a technique to have served as an expression of love and compatibility, both Curtio

and Illisa are ignored in favour of a representation of Francesco and Cesare Ignazio,

literally in their crowning glory and irrevocably united in government.

The opera's closing cadence is also quite exceptional, ending as it does on a

weak beat at the end of a rising phrase. This unusual setting might suggest that the

music led seamlessly into the 'lotta, con abbattimento giocoso', which followed the

opera's end; however, while the score is explicit in confirming 'fine dell'opera', the

lack of music for the 'lotta' means that this possibility cannot be pursued.

Nonetheless, the emphasis on Claudio and Tigellino ahead of Curtio and Illisa at

the climax of the drama inevitably raises questions over the treatment of Illisa as

Margherita's representative on stage. Indeed, given Anne MacNeil's work in terms of

messages given to the bride at royal weddings, it would appear that having invented a

bride and groom specifically for the occasion, Giannettini and Neri then opt, at what

must be considered the two key strategic moments most open to symbolic interpretation,

to focus our attention away from the marriage and on to what is in effect a blatant

declaration of the success of the current regime.91 If so, the conclusion appears to

suggest that the opera's function is to effectively undermine Margherita.

While the political reading in terms of Francesco and Cesare Ignazio, and also

Francesco and Margherita, is, given the occasion, somewhat blatant, reference back to

the synopsis also offers the opportunity to pursue the role of Aspasio as a patriarchal

critic of Claudio's government. When read in such terms, he might also have been seen

to represent the deposed regent, Laura Martinozzi, as the 'Senator Stoico rittirato', a

title which itself depicts someone who once governed. This would not have been the

91 MacNeil, 'Weeping at the Water's Edge'. pp. 406·18.

159


first time Laura had been depicted in male form. My review of II prencipe corsaro

(above) identified her in the role of Prince Oronte, while Milano's chapter on the regent

is simply entitled: '''La duchessa padrona" ovvero "il miglior duca di Modena'" .92 If

Aspasio was Laura, then Valeria immediately appears to suggest Maria Beatrice, her

daughter and the duke's much-loved sister. This would certainly explain the

declarations of her morality, her steadfastness and beauty. But note the treatment of

Aspasio, who throughout is the only character who never settles within Claudio's court.

The point is perhaps highlighted by the choice of costumes (see Chapter 4), whereby

while Valeria conforms and wears the white toga of court, Aspasio and Ellia (see

below) are the only characters to subvert the archetype with their more lavish and

colourful costumes, and this despite the senator's apparent modesty. The suggestion is

that Valeria belongs while Aspasio and Ellia do not. Yet, at the end, it is Claudio who

puts aside his feelings to invite him to stay in peace under his protection. The scene is

an exact repetition of the closing act of II prencipe corsaro, where Oronte (Laura)

receives an identical invitation. Moreover, Aspasio exerts his control at virtually all

times over Valeria, just as Duke Francesco believed Laura did over his sister. When

Valeria is finally convinced of the better philosophy of Claudio's court, we must

wonder whether Francesco is in effect saying that, had it not been for the influence of

Laura (which Aspasio soon reasserts), then Maria Beatrice would have returned to

Modena after her flight from England in 1688. The fact that Cesare Ignazio had himself

sought to block such a move might have been left to one side in making this point.

Nonetheless, Aspasio's primary role in the opera is as a critic of Claudio's

government. This comes to a head in his aria 'In forma di nave' (II.vii.28) with a verbal

assault that might itself be interpreted as an attack by Laura on Francesco's reign.

Aspasio sings:

92 Milano, 'Oli Estensi', pp. 53-5.

160

In forma di nave son fatti i diademi in fronte di Re.

Gli scettri son remi, ch'al vento soave di garrule lodi, fra scirti di frodi fan correre il pie.

II soglio e 10 scoglio, dov'urta l'ingegno.

Mare e la corte, ed e naufragio il regno.

On the brow of a king, crowns are made in the shape of a ship.

The sceptres are oars, that in the gentle wind of twittering praise make the feet run


amongst the storms of deceptions.

The throne is the rock, against which intelligence crashes.

The court is the sea, and the kingdom a shipwreck.

L'ingresso,lI.vii.28

Giannettini's aria requires a remarkable performance from Cottini and demands of him

his full range of two octaves and a tone (from E to ft'), not least at the aria's end on

'naufragio il regno' where, following extended melismas on 'naufragio', Aspasio is

given a downward leap of an octave and a tritone on the last syllable of 'naufragio' as

the repeated phrase ends on a low E for 'regno' (Ex. 3.5). The aria tells us as much

about the capabilities of Cottini as it does the message given.

Ex. 3.5: Aspasio. 'In forma di nave.' (II.vii.28. p. 249, bars 63-6)

Ritorncllo

re - gno, ed e Dau - fra gio it re gno.

With Aspasio thus seemingly representing Laura in the opera, the fierce criticism of

Claudio's government throughout the drama and in this aria specifically might be read

as recalling Francesco's conflict with his mother, not only in terms of the succession but

more specifically in its aftermath, when she continued to intervene in his government.

The knowledge of her exile as a consequence, despite the duke's offer to stay if she

161


minded her place, must have resounded in Margherita's camp. The message to the

princess not to repeat the same mistake must have been palpable. Consequently, as

Margherita took her seat in the Teatro Fontanelli, she may have glanced at her copy of

the libretto with more than a casual interest, as no doubt she and her advisors looked for

signals from Francesco's court. What she would have found were two statements of

intent, both written directly for her consumption.

ii. THE LIBRETTO: SERENISSIMA ALTEZZA AND THE ARGOMENTO AL LETTORE

If the opera thus contained messages that supported Duke Francesco's reign and

government, the libretto's dedication (,Serenissima Altezza') and its letter to the reader

(,Argomento al Lettore') each served to set out their own direct statements that would

be critical to the success of the newly arrived princess in her tenure as Duchess of

Modena. Each left Margherita in no doubt as to what was required of her: the dedication

reminded the princess of her obligation to provide an heir, while the 'Argomento'

addressed the issue of government.

Fontanelli's dedication is simply an unequivocal declaration of Modena's hope

that a son would be provided at the earliest possible moment. The comparison of

Fontanelli's dedication to those he wrote for all of the previous operas reveals a

significant change in emphasis. Indeed, a review of his seven previous dedications

under the duke's reign reveals that this was the first and only opera where the

impresario felt the need to produce such an expanded and erudite text, also providing

some insight into the condition of the duke's health and into the Modenese concern for

his succession. While Appendix E offers a full transcription and translation of the

impresario's dedication, the crux of his statement is contained within the following

excerpt:

162


In seeking, then, the august shadow of a most respected Patron, I confess that the most glorious Name of His Most Serene Signor Duke Francesco, Husband of Your Highness, came to my mind; but in distinguishing that such a Name is inscribed upon all the Works of rarest Magnificence, as Phidius had in his every work impressed his name, so that through such endorsement the very existence and conservation of those great statues came to depend: 93 so too, in distinguishing that the entire well-being of the [Royal] Subjects, and the stability of the States, depends upon the conservation of the Most Glorious Name of your Most Serene Husband, I went reflecting upon which place more worthy would one be able to display the Name of my Prince, and it did not seem to me that it could be more vividly engraved in a Portrait of the most exquisite refinement, [or] in an Image that is most bejewelled with affection, than in the heart of Your Most Serene Highness. Here, then, is this Drama dedicated to you, in which while representing the FESTIVITIES of the ENTRANCE INTO MANHOOD of a Caesar of Rome, one desires the Youth of Your Husband to be eternal; and from it deduce auspices of the happiest days, in seeing his Wedding signed by the Precious PEARL ofyourNAME.94

We do not need to look far to find messages for the bride with regard her duty to

produce a son for Francesco. Fontanelli's exalted eulogy is addressed directly to

Margherita and delivers all one would expect of this experienced diplomat. While the

required references to the groom's name being inscribed on the heart of the bride are to

be expected, the wish for the duke's youth to be eternal-given our knowledge of his

constant ill-health-suggests a concern over his longevity and the consequent

realisation that the issue at hand was more pressing. Accordingly, the desire for a swift

consummation of the marriage (if that had not already happened in Sassuolo) and the

absolute need for Duke Francesco to secure Modena's future while he remained in good

enough health are self-evident. To this end, the references to 'existence', 'conservation',

'preservation' and the 'well-being of subjects and the stability of the states' are all

transparent. They reveal the fear that by now Duke Francesco was too ill to successfully

procreate (as indeed proved to be the case), and the almost desperate desire that

somehow a natural-born successor would come from this union.

9) Hornblower and Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, p.ll58, note Phidius as an Athenian sculptor (c.465-425 BC).

94 The reference to 'perla del vostro nome' is the beginning of an extended play on Margherita's name.

163


Whether or not the mamage would be successful in that respect, when

Margherita arrived in Modena as the new woman in court the issue inevitably turned to

government: political boundaries needed setting. It is in this respect that the

'Argomento' unashamedly addresses the subject of government.95 Appendix F provides

a full transcription and translation. Although the statement is unsigned, the use of the

first person from an author's perspective implies that it was written by the opera's

librettist, Giambattista Neri; however, given the force of the political reading therein, it

is clear that any such direction given to the author would have come from a higher

source.

The primary function of Neri's 'Argomento' was to set out the synopsis and to

provide an historical context for the opera's setting through which he could draw

attention to matters plausibly viewed as veri similar. In turn, this enabled the librettist to

make his argument and to establish a political perspective. Whereas a prologue was

often sung by way of setting the scene, none was written for L'ingresso, and as a

consequence, we might argue that the 'Argomento' thereby carried an increased weight.

Neri's 'Argomento' is more or less typical of its time and probably meant little to the

vast majority who read the libretto and saw the production, at least on first viewing or in

any specific political sense. This noted, its mode of construction also offered clear

opportunities for political statement. It is in this context that Neri's 'Argomento' can be

seen to address both the requirements of the age as well as deeper issues more open to

interpretation and debate. We might argue that one such formality was his historic

depiction of Nero's 'genio pessimo', in this case, with regard to his specific act 'of

forcing the most solemn senators, and the wisest people to take part in his festivities, in

order to ridicule them, and to place in mockery the decorum of the ranks and the

95 L ';ngresso, argument, pp. 6-8.

164


majesty of the togas' (see Appendix F). While this raises the potential of an awkward

paradox in which the 'Argomento' seeks to avoid any unwanted association between

Francesco II and Nero, while the drama itself (as we have seen) willingly uses Claudio

Nerone's coronation as emperor of Rome in direct analogy to Francesco's own

succession as duke of Modena, the almost obligatory criticism of Nero can equally be

read as no more than a practical formality that required attention before a Catholic

public. In this respect, Neri's arbitrary reference appears as simply a requirement to

satisfy the ecclesiastical authorities and obtain the licence required to print the libretto,

which was duly granted: 'nella Stamparia Vescovale. Con Licenza de' Superiori'. This

is no different from Neri's closing note in which he sought the reader's understanding

that 'where all the words and sentiments that smack of paganism must be held by you as

so many masks that the muses put on, being embarrassed about appearing in such haste

at a public ball'. As such, both statements may be viewed as no more than standard

requirements of the era.

Likewise, Nero's 'evil genius' may also be read as having served practically to

set the scene for the opera and so drive the plot for the attending public. It would also,

somewhat ironically, have been a pre-requisite within court precisely to protect the

pious Duke Francesco from any unwanted analogy to the emperor on a personal level,

regardless of the political statements that the opera sought to address. While this may

appear as a contradiction in terms, Neri's limited presentation of the historical image of

Nero within a narrow context appears a deliberate ploy to channel any correlation of

that 'evil genius' towards the relatively harmless mockery of pompous authority, rather

than a direct attack of the emperor's immorality in general. This issue also serves to

identify the apparent distinction between the function of the 'Argomento' in making

political statements and the role and use of the characters within the drama itself. As we

165


shall now come to note, this was very much the case when the 'Argomento' turned to

deeper political issues in respect of the treatment of Ellia Catulla.

Having thus opened the 'Argomento' with a pleasant play on words, as Neri

prefixed his invitation to a ball celebrating Claudio's coming-of-age with assurances

that the reader would not be asked to dance but to sit back and enjoy the show, the

librettist then takes an unexpected turn by establishing one of the opera's least

significant characters (Ellia Catulla, Matrona Nobile di Roma) as . 'obligato

all'intreccio'. As such, Neri identifies Ellia as the central focus of the 'Argomento' and,

by implication, of the drama: 'dove una delle pili celebri Matrone dell'antica Roma si fa

schemo del Popolo pili rilassato'. Of course, references to Rome and to the glories of

the Roman era were commonplace in Modena and in the Italian states as a whole at this

time, so perhaps-given the opera's subject matter-we should be careful not to read

too much into the use of this Roman matron; but, if we accept the synopsis at face

value, then we are left bemused as to why an 'Argomento' for a royal 'wedding'-opera

based on the notorious Claudio Nerone places at the centre of its introduction a third

rate comic character who has no serious impact on the drama and most definitely no

central role in its outcome. The point is somewhat proven by the fact that Ellia Catulla

is given two arias over the entire opera, in comparison to the eleven given to Claudio

and ten to Tigellino. Why, then, does Neri waste so much of his time on this old

woman, and then deny her the same attention in the drama itself?

The answer lies in the significance of the symbolic identity of a Roman matron

and, for that matter, in our reading of the titles attributed to all the cast. Ifwe refer back

to the cast-list given in Table 3.2, we note that all characters are identified in some way.

Whereas for L 'ambitione debellata (1686) the distance from Modena to England had

enabled the librettist to specifically identify the political figures by name, Neri had no

such luxury here. This opera dealt with Este politics in Modena, and a more considered

166


presentation was required. Read similarly, the cast-list for L ';ngresso offers the

potential to identify Francesco as both duke and groom ('Imperatore' and 'Amante

d'Illisa'), while Cesare Ignazio as 'Confidente di Claudio' is equally clear; likewise, we

have noted Laura, the ex-regent, as the 'Senator Stoico rittirato' and Maria Beatrice,

simply 'sua Figlia'; the one character not readily identified was Illisa, who as

Margherita surely did not need classification. On this basis, six of the eight characters

can be considered as open to political interpretation with relative ease. But so might the

other two. While the 'Servo' Grippo would probably extend the argument too far (there

is no need to establish perfect symmetry) if we read him as Rinaldo, always doing the

regent's bidding, this returns us to the issue of identifying Ellia Catulla, Matrona Nobile

di Roma.

While the term is naturally generic in its usage, the reference in Modena to one

of the most celebrated matrons of Rome could only refer to one person: Laura

Martinozzi.96 Since her self-imposed exile in Rome after the duke's succession in 1674,

Laura had become synonymous with the eternal city; even the Accademia de'

Dissonanti had marked her funeral by music purposefully set in a Roman concerfo

grosso style. The image also continued beyond her life through later historical

references to the regent; for example, Oman records that she 'had been born of the stock

of Roman matrons,.97 Once we begin to consider Laura and not Ellia as Neri's subject,

then an otherwise obscure reference begins to take on direction and purpose, as does her

mocking of 'a more easy-going people', which now acts as a reminder of her view of

Francesco's government and her perception of the influence of Cesare Ignazio. Thus,

whereas Aspasio appears to represent Laura as a political figure and her strict style of

government within the drama, Neri makes Ellia (Laura) the subject of attention in the

96) am grateful to Alessandra Chiarelli and Lowell Lindgren for their comments and guidance in support of this identification.

97 Oman, Mary of Modena, p. ) S.

167


'Argomento' to recount the duke's succession. In establishing Laura as the 'Matrona

Romana', Nero's accession as emperor draws a direct analogy to Francesco's own

seizing of power having reached political maturity. Neri's 'Argomento' puts in writing

what is enacted in the drama with the consequence that Margherita is given an

immediate history lesson in recent Este politics.

Yet the reference to a Roman matron is not the only use of a Latin metaphor to

attack Laura. At the start of the opera, having announced Claudio's succession,

Tigellino quickly recalls the seemingly abstract crushing of 'la latina forte' (I.i.6). The

reference is to Tarpeia, a legendary figure of early Rome, who, when the Capitol was

attacked by the Sabines, betrayed the citadel and, therefore, her people, choosing instead

(as did Laura) to pursue her own fortune rather than the good of the state. On its own,

this is a strange deviation from the festivities just announced, but when read in context

of the 'Argomento' it is yet another example of an otherwise obscure reference, which

only makes some sense in the light of the political reading at hand: Laura is the strong

Latin woman crushed by Francesco and Cesare Ignazio to secure the greater good of all.

There is a sense of an external political awareness at hand.

But there appears the possibility of a yet deeper vein to be mined when we

address the two primary events of Claudio's festivities: the 'ballo' and the 'giovenili'.

Here, the severity of political reading is governed by the extent to which we wish to

read it into the setting of the opera and Neri's 'Argomento'. On the face of it, the text

simply establishes the festivities for the opera:

Volle percio celebrare que I Giorno di sl solenne passaggio alla Gioventu con Publici Giochi chiamati da Lui Giovenili; e con un Ballo di tutte Ie Dame del Tebro, fnl Ie quali Ellia Catulla coprendo con lascivi omamenti la deformita senile, si fe' veder danzar baldanzosa al pari delle piu leggiadre Donzelle.

However, it is when we identify the historical references of Nero's iniquitous

entertainments that the potential for a political reading takes us still further. Our

168


knowledge of Ellia Catulla (in fact, Aelia Catella) is limited, but she along with Nero

and Tigellinus are the only historical figures in the opera. Catella was a wealthy,

octogenarian noblewoman who danced a pantomime at Nero's iuvenalia.98 Neri's

depiction of Ellia at the ball 'covering her deformity of old age with lustful ornaments,

who drew attention to herself as she danced outrageously as one of the more graceful

maidens' is therefore, at the very least, historically accurate. As for the two principal

events, the iuvenalia are noted in Tacitus as having been specifically instituted to

'celebrate the first shaving of his [Nero's] beard,;99 but their use in the opera is marginal

and represents merely a point of reference for the start and the end of the drama. The

ball, however, leads us straight to Ellia Catulla and is the dominant focus of Act I. It is

here that the scene-complexes in the first act might be considered as alluding to Nero's

Golden House, which although not built until ten years after his accession would have

provided the perfect ambience for the drama. The ball also continues into the intermedio

with a dance of the ladies and gentlemen of court, whereby one wonders if Catella's

dance at Nero's ball might have been recreated. We have no way of knowing, but we do

know that six ballerinas were brought in from Bologna specifically to dance (see

Chapter 4).

Suetonius clearly places the ball as an integral part of the coming-of-age

festivities:

He [Nero] gave an immense variety of entertainments--coming-of-age parties, chariot races in the Circus, stage plays, a gladiatorial show-persuading even old men of consular rank, and old ladies, too, to attend the coming-of-age parties. 100 .

98 I am. grateful to Robert Ketterer for his insight on Aelia Catella. He cites his source as Groag and Stein, Prosopographia imperil romam, p. 46, no. 289. 'AELIA CATELLA, genere et divitiis excellens, octogenarian coram Nerone saltavit luvenalibus a. 59'.

99 Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, p. 320.

100 Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, p. 218.

169


Indeed, Suetonius may well have been at least one of the sources for Neri's plot, thus

providing the historical footing that the librettist sought and conceivably the origin of

his near identical statement in the 'Argomento':

Per la tessitura del quale appoggio pur anche gli Epissodii al fondamento Istorico; deducendoli dal genio pessimo, ch'havea l'istesso Claudio Nerone di sforzar Ii Senatori pill gravi, e Persone piil dotte ad intervenire aBe di lui Feste per ridersi di loro, e porre in ludibrio il decoro de Gradi, e la maesta delle Toghe.

It is Neri's recalling of a somewhat uncomfortable reference that leads the mind beyond

a mere ball and into something more depraved. To this end, Tacitus is more specific in

his provision of an historical source for the ball, which-if true-would explain Neri's

careful attention. tOt In Tacitus, it becomes clear that his ball, or banquet, as he calls it, is

not 'for' the benefit of the ladies of the Tiber, but is a sexual feast 'of these women,

hired as prostitutes to entertain Nero. Indeed, Neri's wording concurs with 'un Ballo di

tutte Ie Dame del Tebro'. Tacitus is more graphic than Suetonius and raises the issue,

not only of embarrassing Margherita (not to mention the memory of Laura), but more

directly treating what would then become a fa~ade of a wedding with blatant contempt:

But the most prodigal and notorious banquet was given by Tigellinus ... The entertainment took place on a raft constructed on Marcus Agrippa's lake ... On the quays were brothels stocked with high-ranking ladies. Opposite them could be seen naked prostitutes, indecently posturing and gesturing. At nightfall the woods and houses nearby echoed with singing and blazed with lights. Nero was already corrupted by every lust, natural and unnatural. But he now refuted any surmises that no further degradation was possible for him. For a few days later he went through a formal wedding ceremony with one of the perverted gang called Pythagoras. The emperor, in the presence of witnesses, put on the bridal veil. Dowry, marriage bed, wedding torches, all were there. Indeed, everything was public which even in a natural union is veiled by night. 102

Whether or not this was Neri' s source for his ball, and whether he then changed the

location, the mere association of such an infamous festivity with a sham wedding

ceremony organised by Tigellinus for Nero must surely have made Neri's choice of

101 Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, p. 362.

102 Ibid.

170


festivity a most unlikely topic for a 'wedding'-opera. The repercussions of such a

reading of L 'ingresso are enormous. Yet given the tradition of music debate in Modena,

it is, therefore, hard to accept that Neri would not have been aware of the danger of the

ball's inclusion in the opera, or that he would have acted without authority from Duke

Francesco andlor Cesare Ignazio. If, then, we are to consider the inclusion of such a

blatant re-enactment of Nero's grotesque wedding (and its homosexual overtones) as the

historical setting for this gala celebration, then much of the duke's reign can arguably be

brought into context if we consider the hypothesis that Francesco and Cesare were

sexual partners. Certainly, such a proposition would explain the personal and political

motivation behind the opera and the apparent contempt they shared for the wedding, as

it would their protracted and reluctant acceptance of marriage in the first instance.

Moreover, the suggestion of an intimate homosexual relationship between the duke and

his cousin would further explain their enduring bond, the consequent distaste for

Francesco's reign, and the still greater dislike for Cesare Ignazio's influence upon it, as

documented in Chapter 1. Not least, it would justify Giannettini's passing over ofCurtio

and Illisa in favour of celebrating what we would now read as a celebration of

Francesco and Cesare Ignazio's personal, as well as political, union.

But regardless of the true nature of his relationship with Francesco, Cesare

Ignazio's portrayal in this opera through Tigellino is worthy of further consideration.

With Tigellino the perpetrator of the ball for Nero, much as Cesare Ignazio has been

perceived as the agent provocateur for Duke Francesco, it becomes clear that any insult

to Laura would have been easier for the Modenese to stomach if it originated from

Cesare Ignazio rather than from her son, Francesco. Indeed, one might argue that this

has been the approach of Modenese historians to date, in that Cesare Ignazio (possibly

for the above stated reasons) has served as a more comfortable scapegoat in addressing

the rather uncomfortable subject of why one of the Este would overthrow his own

171


mother. In this way, the opera's structure and use of Tigellino as confidant to the ruler

(be it Nero or Francesco) equally encourages us to identify the role with Cesare Ignazio,

when the evidence of Chapter 1 suggests the pair remained at all times united in their

decision-making. While Tacitus's description of Tigellino is no proof of a political

reading in this opera, it does serve to clarify the historical perception of Cesare Ignazio,

ifnot his motive behind the polemics of the duke's rule:

Tigellinus became more powerful every day. But he felt that his criminal aptitudes-the only qualities he possessed-would influence the emperor more if he could make them partners in crime. 103

Again, a Modenese reading, repeats the exact same sentiments for Cesare Ignazio:

Ormai la situazione era irreversibile: Cesare Ignazio aveva avocato practicamente nelle proprie mani Ie redini dello Stato e, quantunque non fossero avvenuti cambiamenti formali nel govemo, a lui tutto faceva capo, perfino i dispiacci pill rilevanti degli ambasciatori e gli affari di maggiore momento. 104

The case against Cesare Ignazio has long since been settled, fairly or otherwise, but

even if Tigellinus's banquet for Nero was not a source for Neri's ball, its prominence in

history must have meant that the analogy remained, if wanted. Whatever our

conclusions, by standards of court etiquette Neri's statement is unquestionably

problematic. The very idea that L'ingresso would seek, as a so-called 'wedding' -opera,

to use a source so open to such dangerous and harmful analogy suggests either that a

horrendous blunder occurred in its setting, or that it represented a premeditated attempt

to undermine the newly arrived Margherita and to place her value and worth to Duke

Francesco firmly in context. There is a precedent of sorts if we recall how the lowering

of Laura's canopy to below that of her son announced his accession over his mother as

she entered the city's cathedral on her return to Modena.lOs If major changes in

\OJ Ibid., p. 339.

104 Chiappini, Gli ESlensi, p. 487.

\Os Carandini, Memorie pubbliche della cilia di Modena, p. 20, cited in Milano, 'Gii Estensi', p. 56.

172


government were announced by such simple methods, it would seem reasonable that

Neri's glaring references to Laura and to the duke's accession were more than mere

chance. Indeed, the intensity of the political environment at this time, and the attention

to every detail within court, must surely have made such statement virtually impossible

without formal sanction and approval from the duke.

Naturally, such a reading might well be a step too far, but it does raise the issue

of choosing a 'Nerone'-opera in the first instance, not least given the occasion. Nero's

historical representation suggests that he may not have been the first leader to whom the

deeply devout Duke Francesco might have sought comparison; but the duke's court was

not governed in a conservative manner, and it has long been accepted that the priority

was often recreation rather than government. Aside from the possible issue of

homosexuality, Francesco and Cesare Ignazio found a most apt analogy for their rule in

the guise of Nero and Tigellinus. Nero, like Duke Francesco with Modena, was the

emperor who set out to rebuild Rome in the image of divine art over the power of war.

The ideal must have been attractive to the duke, and certainly, we have seen how the

Accademia de' Dissonanti often addressed this very subject. Like Cesare Ignazio,

Tigellinus had been confidant to his king and the iron fist behind the throne. As Nero

and Tigellinus would go down in history in terms of their government of Rome, so in

Modena we can read the same of Duke Francesco and Prince Cesare Ignazio.

Might it then be that if we re-read the libretto as a political document with Ellia

and Aspasio as pseudonyms for Laura, and Claudio Nerone and Tigellino celebrating

the rise of the young princes, then the 'Argomento' becomes a political statement by

Francesco which sought to counter the constant criticism of his government? If so, then

L'ingresso serves essentially as a rewriting of Modenese history as Duke Francesco

might have wished it to be understood. Such a view actually has some mileage if we

continue to return one last time to the 'attack' on Laura through Ellia Catulla. The value

173


of such an attack was presumably to warn Margherita of what happened to the last

dominant female in court when she refused to yield quietly and continued to seek a role

in government. Having established the idea of Ellia as the mother of the duke, we come

to a somewhat malicious, if not juvenile, complaint about her character and her efforts

to rule after her son's succession. Immediately, after the reference to dancing, Neri

continues:

Crede questa d'esser una di quelle Sibille, che davano gli Oracoli saltando: e da dovero Ii diede, rna furono solo intesi da Posteri della sua Stirpe privi per cosi indegna vanita de gli honori del Consolato.

The text has two points of interest. First, the phrasing of the text suggests a degree of

frustration on the author's part: 'and she really did give them, but these were only

understood by the descendants of her stock who were deprived of the honours of the

consulate because of such shameful vanity'. There is a sense of a desperate need to get

this point across, as if to finally put the record straight: almost as if saying that life had

been intolerable under her command, and that the duke had no alternative but to exert

his right. The point is identified by Iotti in terms of Duke Francesco's treatment by his

mother:

Al figlio Francesco II, minorenne rna ancora per poco e con troppa voglia agli occhi della madre di non esserlo finalmente pill, ella tolse invece ogni liberta, col garbo tuttavia di dispiacersene e di lasciargliela almeno in apparenza 106

In this way, Neri emphasises how Duke Francesco alone had understood Laura's real

intention to hold on to power. Second, if so, then the duke is acknowledged to have

been 'deprived' of his right to rule because of her' shameful vanity' in seeking to hold

on to power. But there is a twist in the opera itself. In its finale, it is Francesco through

Claudio that returns to Ellia (Laura) the family honours that her 'shameful vanity' had

lost. Claudio's public forgiving of Ellia at the opera's end thus appears not only as a

106 lotti, 'La politica dell' amore, 2', p. 148.

174


symbolic act of redemption for the emperor, but serves as a final vindication of Duke

Francesco's success, for it is only the victors who are able to pardon the defeated: 'Un si

festante giorno de Posteri, e degli Avi i primi honori' (III.xiii.34).

The introduction of Ellia, the accession to the throne, and the overcoming of

someone who had willfully withheld the 'honours of the consulate' are thus established

in quick succession by Neri within his 'Argomento'; and yet the choice of Ellia remains

full of contradictions. The matter is effectively addressed in the third paragraph of the

'Argomento', when the librettist seeks to explain his intentions in respect of Ellia:

Tal dunque tela 10 vedere, qual mi suppongo che fosse: e con tal motivo vengo A levar il Personaggio della Vecchia dall 'uso commune di esser sempre 0 Serva, 0 Nudrice, e Parte non necessaria al viluppo, rendendola Sogetto Nobile, & obligato all'intreccio.

But there is an anomaly here. The histories all record Ellia as a woman of noble descent,

so Neri had absolutely no need to present her to us as either a servant or a nanny

irrelevant to the plot, whom he had rescued and elevated to the status of a Roman

matriarch. That he did so is to some extent indicative of a sense of fear of Laura even

after all those years, for while his desire to establish a Roman matron in the

'Argomento' to represent Laura is apparent, there clearly remained a need to undermine

her status: hence her comic portrayal in the drama thereafter.

As such, despite her elevation, Ellia's role throughout the opera is difficult to

explain, for all that it is clearly comic: the accounts and the other documents refer to her

role as the 'Buffone' and as the 'parte dA Vecchia'. Both terms are clear comic

references and neither supports Neri's presentation of a 'Noble Matron of Rome'.

Likewise, the depth of Bonetti's range in her performance of Ellia, from d rising to a', is

comedic and mirrors exactly the range of Marsigli as Grippo (the servant). For almost

the duration of the drama, the pair are effectively tied together, with both being

restricted to a nominal two arias each. But even here, it is Ellia who comes off worse:

175


note, for example, her comic duet with the servant Grippo (l.ix.27), where he gropes her

breast. Why make her of noble blood to then have her cavort with a servant, who for the

remainder of the opera remains her greatest ally? This is hardly apt treatment for a

matron of Rome whom the author has rendered 'as a noble character, and essential to

the plot'. Yet if we note Neri's reference to a 'Nudrice', once again we are provided

with another clue to her identity. In Duke Francesco's court, Duchess Laura was never

the rightful monarch, merely the regent-a nanny who should have served her duty and

nourished Francesco to government-and therefore, as Neri so curtly notes, she should

never really have had a role in this story.

In this sense, Neri's undermining of Laura is seeking to dispel her quasi

mythical status as proclaimed by later historians such as Muratori ('grande era il senno,

maggiore la Piero. Maraviglioso poi fu il govemo di questa Principessa, e lungamente

ne duro una dolce memoria'),107 by showing her to us in the way Francesco's court

would argue she really was (,Tal dunque tela fo vedere'). In many respects, it is an act

of petulance by a man who was barely fourteen when he claimed the throne for himself.

It is in this context that Margherita's arrival appears to have touched a nerve and

raised fears in terms of her future role and influence within government. This seems to

have been the motive for the statements within L'ingresso, and if we were not already

convinced, then the point is clear from the drab treatment of Illisa towards the opera's

finale, shortly before she is reunited with Curtio and all ends well. Margherita Famese is

once again left embarrassed when Ellia (III.x.28) announces that they will both die

'ambe dunque ugualmente, morirem di prurite, io d'un poco d'honor, tu di marito'.

Whether or not Ellia's comic portrayal may have reduced the impact of these words, we

nonetheless come to the conclusion that if Ellia is Laura, and Illisa, Margherita, then

107 Muratori, Annali d'i/alia, II, pp. 287-8.

176


even the Modenese historians could not have written their epitaphs more succinctly.

Such sentiments are surely not of a joyous wedding celebration, but of asserting

political power from the outset.

It is under these somewhat extreme conditions that the environment and

circumstances of production can now be argued to have transcended and affected the

entire dramatic strategy of this dramma per musica to the extent that they governed and

controlled issues of plot, artistic content, structure, choice of characters and the

selection of singers in a way that created a multi-directional interdependency and

sculpted the composition, staging and performance of this opera. The intensity of the

political environment provides a context for the opera's conspicuous consumption

through its massive investment in display, its role as a gala celebration, and above all by

its being the first and only opera specifically commissioned by the duke to be written in

house for the Teatro Fontanelli. We can, therefore, begin to appreciate the extraordinary

circumstances which dominated this production to the extent that, given the precedent

for using music as a political tool in the duchy, it simply becomes implausible for the

most significant opera of Duke Francesco's reign not to have served to convey the

duke's will, or at least an interpretation of that will, by those employed to do his

bidding. Whether or not these readings are sustainable in part or as a whole under

analysis requires a far greater study of the music and text than this survey can offer. The

aim here has been merely to open a window into Modenese opera that will aid and

facilitate precisely this type of analysis.

Regardless of the true motivation behind the subject matter of L 'ingresso, we

lack the benefit of a postscript by which to monitor its effect on Margherita. Quietly,

she appears to have minded her place, which might have been made somewhat easier

with the almost immediate and extended illness of Duke Francesco, who died within

two years of the opera on 6 September 1694. Whether or not the siring of an heir was

177


ever a possibility remains doubtful. Certainly, Lazarelli felt it unlikely when he noted

'se aHora fosse seguito il maritaggio, com'era di buona robustezza, [Duke Francesco]

havrebbe probabilmente ottenuta queHa successione, che poscia non hebbe, maritandosi

quando era pili infermo, che sano' ,108

Throughout the duke's reign, Francesco had repeatedly called upon his court

musicians to embark on debates in music through the Accademia de' Dissonanti and to

make public declarations of propaganda and political statement through oratorio and

opera. L'ingresso undoubtedly continued this policy through an unadulterated example

of a propagandist display of ducal power and magnificence designed purely as a lavish

political tool to intimidate and impress the newly arrived duchess. And yet, somehow,

despite such effort (or perhaps because of it), opera in Modena came to a crashing and

sudden end. Whether its demise was directly affected by the failure in the duke's health

or by the huge deficit on production is unclear. Yet notwithstanding the circumstance

and consequence of the loss incurred on L 'ingresso, and the fact that a fully detailed

accounts ledger has remained in the archives of the Biblioteca Estense, there has, until

now, been no attempt at an in-depth audit of these records with a view to identifying

both the extent of the overspend of this gala occasion and the reality of how the losses

were incurred in the context of the theatre's potential to remain solvent, if not profitable.

Chapter 4 will, therefore, explore and analyse the reported extravagances in the staging

of L 'ingresso, while Chapter 5 will examine how the loss was computed and who was

ultimately held accountable for the liabilities arising as a consequence. While publicly

the loss was the responsibility of the theatre's owner, Decio Fontanelli, the complex

machinations that were employed in the opera's aftermath show that the matter was a

good deal more complicated than appears at face value.

108 Lazarelli,lnjormazione del/'Archivio del Monistero di San Pietro di Modena, p. 545.

178


Chapter 4.

Ducal Display and Conspicuous Consumption

Con danze, e feste, e gioco vuo di questi momenti illustrar Ie memorie. L'ingresso, 1.i.4.

Whatever the political motivation within its subject, L ';ngresso was about ducal display

and conspicuous consumption. 1 Duke Francesco and Prince Cesare Ignazio wanted to

make their mark, and this they did. Whether or not the opera served to send a warning to

Margherita, or was set as a retort to Louis XIV, or simply functioned as a general

missive to all the royal courts of Europe, or, indeed, all or none of these, the public

Teatro Fontanelli now served as a venue for court ceremony delivered within a lavish

and conspicuous gala production before invited honoured guests and an 'upper' -class

ticket-buying public.

The plans for a propagandist display were in direct contrast to the years before

the wedding where the financial crisis of 1689 had forced the duke to reduce

significantly the size of his cappella.2 Indeed, the two princes' desire to invest so much

political prestige in this wedding seems to have served only to undo all of the prudent

management that had gone into restructuring the cappella, with the result that the

expense of the marriage celebrations and of the opera is noted by Crowther as having

'depleted the state coffers to such an extent that musicians in the cappella were unpaid

between November 1692 [the date of L 'ingresso] and February 1694'.3

I For an insight into the origins of the term 'conspicuos consumption' and its meaning, see Veblen, The Theory of/he Leisure Class, and especially, pp. 68-101.

Z Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, pp. 12-13.

3 Ibid., p. 119; for a full account of the duke's management of the cappella see Crowther, 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse', pp.207-19.

179


With no further productions being given unti11697 (three years after the duke's

death), the extravagance of the production itself has long been seen as a major factor in

the cessation of opera in Modena at its very climax. However, this would seem to be an

oversimplification of what we shall see to be a very complex financial system. It is our

good fortune that the accounts for L'ingresso remain open to analysis. The quantity and

the quality of the information contained within the 'Conto della spesa, e cavato fatto per

i1 Dramma intitolato L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone' allow us the rare

opportunity to go beyond the issue of profitability and also to assess the endeavour that

went into a seventeenth-century dramma per musica. The value of the 'conto' is further

enhanced by the existence of an additional, albeit incomplete, set of accounts from the

production of Flavio Cuniberto (Teatro Fontanelli, 1688) kept together under the title

'1688: Affar Economico della musica che nell' Autunno del soprascritto anno fece fare il

Marchese Decio Fontanelli,.4 These accounts, while no more than a collection of loose

sheets, serve as an invaluable comparative tool by which we can quantify the levels of

income and expenditure for L'ingresso and in so doing identify any excesses or

exceptions against a template of what we might term a standard revival. In this way, we

are able to establish a control mechanism by which we can effectively measure and

evaluate L'ingresso. Likewise, the final summary detailing the loss made good by the

duke's successor (Rinaldo I) on II figlio delle selve (1700) also provides a useful insight

into opera patronage after Francesco's death, which as noted in Chapter 2 can be seen to

have returned to the more traditional mode of financing a production. S

The L'ingresso accounts are contained within a well-structured ledger and

appear to have been prepared as a final presentation volume, copied in a very neat and

uniform hand, which the cover-heading confirms as being completed in 'il present' Anno


5 Ibid.

180


1692'. Although the occasion may well have merited such detail in its own right, we

will see in Chapter 5 how Fontanelli's own testimony (c.1694), which relates to the

reconciliation of the original loan granted in 1685, suggests that the more likely reason

was the duke's promise to protect the impresario from any loss incurred. Indeed, while

the purpose of F ontanelli' s testimony in 1694 was to extricate himself from the

outstanding loan, the impresario nonetheless claims to have already retired prior to

L'ingresso ('dopo varie opere da me fatte con notabile perdita, cosl lasciai l'impresa')

and that it was precisely because of 'Ie gravi perdite sofferte per 10 passato' that the

duke (via Giardini) had instructed him to keep a detailed account 'del cavato e della

spesa poiche Sua Altezza non s'intendeva ne voleva havessi aicun danno', which is

indeed what ultimately happened.6 The concern to protect Fontanelli from losses would,

therefore, seem to underline concerns for the profitability of the production, which in

tum increased the need for a more detailed and comprehensive record. Moreover,

Fontanelli's desire to recover his costs relatively quickly might, then, have been the

reason for the ledger having been prepared so rapidly, though a note in the Flavio

accounts, which apologises for items omitted due to the haste in which the record had

been prepared, suggests that Fontanelli was never one to delay his claim for

recompense. It is also clear that, on its own, the system of pre-production payments was

never enough to cover the basic cost of staging opera. To this end, the presentation of

the Flavio accounts and the subsequent loss on L'ingresso will show that Fontanelli's

motive was not merely one of reporting back to the duke on the profitability (or

otherwise) of the production, but that on each occasion he succeeded in obtaining more

funds from Francesco. As such, despite a formal structure of pre-production payments,

6 L'ingresso, accounts: LD. The loose: documents are: held at the: back of the accounts and refer solely to the settlement of Fontanelli's loan over a period from 1694-98.

181


the old format of making good losses (when required) remained an essential and integral

part to the process of reconciling the costs of opera in Modena.

The accounts open with an inner index, which lists, first, the respective expense

headings and, then, the income groups, each referenced to their relevant folio number.

Appendix H provides a full transcription and translation of the accounts together with

their facsimile. The ledger then proceeds (in the order listed) to detail under each

respective heading all relevant items of expense and income plus an end total for each

given category, before it arrives at a final summary (Profit and Loss Account), which

brings forward these respective totals to identify the final expenditure and income on

the production and consequentially to reveal the original end loss. As we might expect,

the ledger is prepared throughout from the perspective of the theatre's coffers with the

aim of computing the total loss on production (5,959.18.2 Ml); however, once we arrive

at the end loss, the effective ownership of the ledger passes to the duke's treasury as the

loss is then perceived as a debt to be repaid to Fontanelli. As such, the loss is adjusted

by a new hand that records a payment to the orchestra by the duke's cashier Roncaglia

of 1,220 Ml, which serves along with the adjustment of two arithmetical errors to

compute a revised loss of 4,755.18.2 Ml. Despite the amendments to the arithmetical

adjustments, a number of minor errors are ignored within the accounts, most probably

following the accounting convention of their being immaterial to the overall position,

and therefore unworthy of adjustment - as, for example, in the discarding or discounting

of the odd balance of soldi from a number of multiple purchases. The new hand and its

amendments, therefore, appear to belong to an audit of the original figures, probably

undertaken as part of the reconciliation of the loan following the duke's death on 6

September 1694. This theory is supported by Fontanelli's statement held among the

loose papers tucked in behind the accounts that collectively relate to the loan

reconciliation and which, while cross-referencing back to the accounts, serve primarily

182


in the resolution of the loss incurred on production and the settlement of Fontanelli's

outstanding loan of 1685. Consequently, the cost of production and loss incurred are

totalled on two occasions; however, for the purposes of this chapter my analysis is

based on the figures identified in 1692 and not those computed as the result of later

manipulation. The adjustment of the loss and reconciliation of the loan are addressed in

Chapter 5.

Aside from the post-production amendment, we should remember that the

accounts ledger and the Profit and Loss Account have been computed (as is their

function) on the basis of recording costs incurred and income due as opposed to

payments made and income received, as one might expect of a traditional Cash Book.

With this in mind, it is worth noting the separate functions of each part of the L'ingresso

accounts. By definition, final accounts serve to produce a definitive end-summary of a

given period of trading and are, as such, unequivocally secondary records in terms of

the data they source, the primary records being the book-keeping ledgers that serve to

record the daily transactions and provide the basis from which this data is then drawn.

In this sense, the L'ingresso accounts can be seen as something of a hybrid,

incorporating both a refined and a filtered summary version of the original book

keeping ledger and the final period-end accounts. But the ledger is without question a

secondary document. This is supported not only by the neatly compact layout,

impossible in a rolling ledger, but also by the structure applied to entries given under the

headings of costumes, scenery and lighting, whereby summary totals of expenditure

cross-reference back to lists held within numbered files (jilze), which one would assume

to have been either the original source documents collected together under their relative

cost-headings, or the original book-keeping records similarly defined.

It would seem that each jilza related to a specific type of expenditure and

contained some kind of summary account, so that a single figure could be brought

183


forward into the final ledger now under review. Sadly, these 'primary' sources are no

longer extant, though a brief reconciliation of their citation within the ledger reveals a

relatively structured and complex process in the administration of the opera. In total,

there appear to have been thirty-three separate fUze running numerically from 1 to 34,

with only fl/za no. 30 omitted, or possibly carrying through to fl/za no. 31 for a final end

total. There are four separate references to fl/za no. 1 (which records both costume and

stage materials bought in Venice), but thereafter each file receives just a single mention

at its appropriate entry point in the ledger. It is in this respect that the data in the ledger

often leaves the real nitty-gritty book-keeping hidden and lost in time.

However, before I come to examine the specific expenditure types employed

within this process, we should first establish an overview of the cost of the opera itself

with the aim of ascertaining the extent to which L'ingresso can, after all, be classified as

an excessively indulgent production. To date, other than minor summaries by Ferrari

Moreni, Gandini (effectively, a review of Ferrari Moreni), Luin, Martinelli Braglia, and

Bianconi and Walker, there has been no in-depth analysis of the costs incurred in

respect of the detailed data at our disposal or in relation to other opera productions in

Modena.7 In short, all of the aforementioned analyses have, in effect, mentioned

L'ingresso only in passing. But the archives in Modena allow us to compare three

separate operas within a twelve-year period, the third of which was under the reign of

Duke Rinaldo. Table 4.1 thus provides a comparison of the total declared expenses for

each of Flavio Cuniberto (1688), L'ingresso (1692) and II figlio delle se/ve (1700):

7 Ferrari Moreni, 'Un dramrna in musica rappresentato in Modena neU'anno 1692', pp. 561-3; Gandini, Cron;slor;a, I, pp. 78-9; Luin, 'Antonio Giannettini e la musica I Modena', pp. 182-5. Despite Luin's referencing (at n. 2) an intention to explore L ';ngresso funher, no publication was fonhcoming; Maninelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', pp. 147-8; Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption', pp. 284-5.

184


Table 4.1: Comparison of costs on Flavio, L'ingresso and Iljiglio8

Flavio L'lngresso lifiglio (1688) (1692) (1700)

11 nights 12 nights 21 nights

Ml Ml Ml

Costumes 4,410.14 664.00 Scenery 3,953.06 1,500.13 Doormen/Guards 198.00 192.00 Lighting 979.00 1,114.06 1,194.03 Music copying 302.16 529.10 Travel 312.16 413.00 Subsistence 1,200.00 1,545.00 1,540.00 Scenery operators 374.00 360.00 317.00 Extras 252.00 222.00 575.00 Orchestra 1,265.00 1,314.00 2,226.00 Additional musicians 612.00 836.00 ComposerlDirector: Domenico Gabrielli 1,296.00 Singers· 8,460.00 8,740.00 7,953.00 Dancers 798.00 Tuning of 'cembali' (fee charged to orchestra) 44.00 86.00 Miscellaneous costs 100.00

Total declared expenses 14,680.00 24,186.18 17,012.06

• Siface's fee was 1800 MI in 1688 and 1900 MI in 1692, and is not included above

What soon becomes apparent is the extent to which the expenditure on costumes and

scenery (totalling 8,363 MI) distinguishes L'ingresso from its counterparts.9 Clearly,

then, past analyses were correct to identify the high costs in these areas and their

apparent effect on profit. It is no wonder, therefore, that the loss was attributed to the

lavish extravagance of the production. The proportionately huge outlay on these two

items alone totalled more than a third of the cost of L 'ingresso and was around half that

spent in total on each of the other two productions.1o This high 'capital' expenditure on

costumes and scenery is noted by Bianconi and Walker in comparison with II figlio and

against the normal policy for the 're-use' of such items, as we can now see also with

• Sources: Flavio and lIfiglio,l-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705.' Casso n. 8.a; L'ingresso, accounts.


10 Costumes at 4,410 MI and scenery at 3,953 MI totals 8,363 MI equals 34.58% of the total declared cost on L'ingresso of 24,286 MI, while 8,363 MI would have represented 56.97% of the total cost of Flavio and 49.16% of IIfiglio.

185


Flavio. 11 While we might acknowledge that singers would also provide their own

costumes on occasion, Flavio was the fourth production at the Teatro Fontanelli and, as

such, its failure to record any costs in respect of costumes and scenery seemingly

supports Bianconi and Walker's suggestion of a policy of recycling such capital items.

By comparison, L'ingresso was the eighth consecutive production at the theatre, and so

the decision to splash out on new costumes and scenery would indicate not so much a

capital investment, but more an indulgence in two of the more obvious items that would

have made the largest visual impact on the production. Note, however, that although the

costumes and scenery are broadly 'capital' in nature (Le., we can accept that their usage

would often last more than one production), their treatment in the accounts is as

'revenue' items, the costs of which are written off fully in the year incurred. I shall

return to this point in Chapter 5.

Beyond these specific costs, the three accounts support Bianconi and Walker's

note of the 'remarkably similar' costs on production for L'ingresso and II figlio. For

example, the orchestra (when one includes the additional musicians hired for Flavio and

L'ingresso, but not specified in II figlio) is comparable over all three productions

(bearing in mind that Ilfiglio played for longer). In fact, if we allow the dancers brought

in especially from Bologna in 1692, then the costs of all three productions appear more

or less to reconcile. The investment in opera therefore appears consistent and does not

seem to diminish under Rinaldo. However, we need to treat these figures with some

care, not least when they are computed after the application of exchange rates. While

the majority of the accounts are recorded in Modenese lire, the singers and the visiting

musicians and dancers were generally paid in dobble (often expressed as doppie). For

Flavio in 1688, the exchange rate was 1 dobble to 36 Ml. By 1692 the rate had

II Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption', p. 285; I-MOos SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel dueato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705',Cass. n. 8.a.

186


increased marginally to 38 Ml. Thus, where, for example, the accounts (Table 4.1)

suggest a slight increase in the singers' fees over production, the total amount paid

when read in dabble actually fell from 235 dabble in 1688 to 230 dabble in 1692, even

though the number of singers rose from seven to eight and they performed on one night

more. Proportionately, then, per night, per person, the singers of Flavio fared better than

their later counterparts, even though the L 'ingress a accounts show a higher charge in

Modenese lire. By contrast, if we note Siface's fee, the accounts detail 1,800 MI in

1688, with an increase to 1,900 MI in 1692; however, once we apply the respective

exchange rates, then his regalo equates to 50 dabble in both years, despite his singing

an additional night in effect free of charge. This noted, it would be equally misleading

to view the singers, musicians or dancers on a strict per-night rate, as the accounts show

clearly that they were hired on a per-production basis. Apportioning their fees over the

number of performances only serves as an aid when we view comparative costs to the

patron on a per-night basis. This is addressed below at Table 4.2; however, given the

complex nature of the issue of the singers' fees, I shall return to this subject more fully

further below.

But there is one notable exception when comparing the costs of production:

namely the payment under Flavia of 1,296 MI to Domenico Gabrielli, who had entered

the duke's employ in March 1688 and overseen the revival of Matteo Noris's original

drama (Teatro Grimani, Venice, 1682). The surviving libretto confirms Gabrielli as

composing the music, while the manuscript at the Biblioteca Estense is similarly

attributed. This suggests that Gabrielli must have partially or completely replaced

Giovanni Domenico Partenio's original Venetian score with his own. However, we do

not know if the payment was for his efforts as a composer, or as a musician performing

187


and directing the opera. 12 The following year, Gabrielli also revived his own II Mauritio

(Teatro Fontanelli, 1689). In contrast to Gabrielli, there is no payment recorded in the

L'ingresso accounts to either Antonio Giannettini or Giambattista Neri for their

respective creations of music and text, and while we will note how Giannettini was paid

for by a mix of a separate ducal 'regalo' and his salaried position as maestro di cappella

in Modena, it is clear that in the case of Flavio the cost of Gabrielli is charged to

Fontanelli and not Francesco. Neri, for his part, appears never to have held any formal

post within Modena, though he did write the librettos for at least two oratorios given in

the city: Gioseffo che interpreta i sogni (1692), and Gefte (1693), the latter of which

was again set to music by Giannettini and performed in costume at the Teatro di Corte. lJ

Neri, it seems, spent most of his working life in Bologna, where his fortunes seemed to

have fluctuated. He is described by Crowther as 'Bologna's finest librettist', yet

apparently he died in poverty. 14 Nonetheless, there is no other record or reference to him

within the L'ingresso accounts or the extant supporting file documents.

If we delve deeper into the accounts, then despite the fundamentally similar end

production costs, a difference in spending can be revealed, which depending upon one's

perspective shows Rinaldo to have achieved greater value for money, or Francesco to

have been more indulgent and certainly less cost-efficient. To see this, we first need to

view the costs on a per-night basis as opposed total expenditure. If we, then, extract

both capital and what might be termed 'one-off' expenses, we can build in an

adjustment to allow for the fact that the costs on II jiglio were accrued over almost twice

as many performances (twenty-one) as L'ingresso (twelve) and Flavio (eleven). Once

12 See Appendix D. 'Operas Given at the Teatro Fontanelli (1685-1692)'; Gandini. Cronistoria. I. p. 75 n. 1. See also Dubowy. '"Un riso bizzaro dell'estro poetico .. •• pp. 401-22. for an account of Noris's Venetian libretto. Note also Dubowy's dating of 1681 contradicts the Iibretto's own dating of 1682.

Il Crowther. The Oratorio in Modena. p. 198. For II Gioseffo. G. B. Neri (I.), B. Vinaccesi (c.), and for Gefte, G. B. Neri (I.), A. Giannettini (c.): note I-MOe has no rns. extant. but both librettos are held.

14 Ibid .• The Ora/orio in Bologna. p. 119; Saunders. in NGO, 3, pp. 571-2.

188


such allowances are made, we are able to compute an average cost per production based

on what might be termed the 'direct running costs' incurred on a nightly basis. The

result (Table 4.2) reveals a more intense level of spending on Flavio and L'ingresso

(and, therefore, on opera in general under Francesco) than later on n figlio under

Rinaldo.

Table 4.2: Comparison of declared 'direct running costs' per night of Flavio, L'ingresso and II jiglio l5

Flavio L'Jngresso (1688) (1692)

per night per night

Ml Ml

Doormen/Guards 18 16 Lighting 89 93 Subsistence· 109 129 Scenery operators 34 30 Extras 23 18 Orchestra 115 109 Additional musicians 56 70 Singers· 769 728 Dancers 67 Tuning of 'cembali' (fee charged to orchestra) 4 7 Miscellaneous costs

Total declared expenses per night 1,217 1,267

Less singers' fees 769 728

Revised declared expenses per night 448 539

• Subsistence included, although cost extends to pre-production rehearsals. • Costs of costumes, scenery, music copying and travel not included. • Siface's fee was 153.13 MI per night in 1688 and 158.07 MI per night in 1692 and is not included above. • Gabrielli's fee in 1688 has not been included to enable bener comparison to L'ingresso where Giannenini's

fee was assumed by Francesco II.

Jlflglio (1700)

per night

Ml

57 73 15 27

106

379

658

379

279

While the global expenditure remains relatively comparable, the investment per night by

Francesco is double that of Rinaldo, with the effect that both Flavio and L 'ingresso can

be argued to have been significantly more extravagant. In particular, the total overall

costs for the singers are clearly higher under Francesco, whereas costs such as the

1$ Sources: Flavio and llfiglio,l-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena. 1685-1705: Casso n. 8.a; L'ingresso, accounts.

189


visiting musicians and dancers have been completely cut by 1700. As noted above, the

issue of payment 'per production' needs to be considered. In this respect, the additional

musicians, the singers and the dancers are all allocated single 'per-production' fees in

dabble within the L'ingressa accounts (ff. 14r-16r), which are then finally recorded in

Modenese lire. In contrast, the main orchestra is paid in Modenese lire on a stipulated

per-night basis. But whereas in Table 4.2 (above) we then have reason to remove the

varying nightly costs of the singers, on the basis that an agreed fee per production for all

operas may appear disproportionate when computed over the fewer nights of Flavia and

L 'ingressa, I have not deducted the costs of the additional musicians and dancers. While

their rates were similarly per production, their hiring was clearly an indulgence which

Rinaldo did not continue. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to proportion their fees over

a per-night basis as a way of realising additional costs incurred by Francesco. Having

therefore computed the total nightly costs, Table 4.2 then deducts the costs of the

singers so as to reflect the apparent differences in contract. The adjustment serves to

give a greater balance to the increase in nightly costs under Francesco, so that even after

the application of such a control mechanism, the same disparity between the reigns of

Francesco and Rinaldo remains evident. Indeed, it is marginally increased when viewed

on this basis.

As such, the productions of Flavia and L'ingressa can now be seen to have been

staged under an almost identical management structure with a clear relationship

between the costs incurred in 1688 and 1692. For example, the cost of operating the

theatre in terms of doormen, lighting and movement of scenery differs by just 2 Ml per

night over the two productions.16 From the perspective of performance, the cost of the

orchestra makes for especially interesting reading. Over the two productions

16 FIQlIio 141 MI; L'ingresso 139 MI.

190


(remembering that there was one fewer performance of Flavio), the cost of the main

orchestra is almost identical at Flavio 1,265 MI and L 'ingresso 1,314 MI, though it

modifies slightly when computed on a nightly basis at Flavio 115 MI and L 'ingresso

109 MI; however, when we then add on the 'Additional Musicians' (Flavio 612 MI or

17 dobble and L'ingresso 836 MI or 22 dobble), L'ingresso becomes the more

expensive and suggests a greater investment in the production with the total costs of the

orchestra rising to Flavio 1,877 MI and L'ingresso 2,236 MI (or nightly at Flavio 171

MI and L'ingresso 179 MI). There are, however, two points to note in this respect. First,

the L 'ingresso figures are based on the accounts produced to 1692 and so do not include

the additional payments to the musicians of 1,220 MI made by the duke's cashier

Roncaglia (note also that the singer Francesco De Grandis was eventually paid by the

duke). Second, the honoraria of both the main orchestra and the additional musicians are

somewhat more complex than would first appear. As such, I shall return to this point in

more detail below when I will come to address the policy for payments to the musicians.

In essence, just as each cost centre compares well with the other, there is no

great leap in the payments made to the performers in recognition of the greater

significance of L'ingresso, despite the presence of Siface, De Grandis and Cecchi;

instead, the nominal difference between the two productions is ultimately due to the

imported dancers, brought in from Bologna at 67 Ml. Here, their function to provide

intermedi between the acts can be seen as a direct add-on to normal costs and an

additional celebratory event designed to elaborate the spectacle.

With the running costs of both Flavio and L'ingresso being confirmed as

comparable, we return to Bianconi and Walker's identification of the capital costs of

costumes and scenery as constituting the real and only overspend on L 'ingresso (of

course, assuming that there was a budget to exceed, and that someone considered it

exceeded). Whether or not the seven previous productions at the Teatro Fontanelli had

191


left the costumes and scenery too drab and worn for such a gala occasion is unknown;

whatever the case, the mere fact that a sum of more than half of the normal running cost

of Flavio was invested in these items reveals a desire for conspicuous consumption on

the part of Duke Francesco. In contrast to the stable payments made to the musicians

and singers, the scale of this investment now bears witness to the intent to create an

overwhelming impression greater than that established by the standard revivals enjoyed

as a rule in Modena. While one can acknowledge that capital expenses might be viewed

as more reasonable than annual ones and, therefore, more manageable through long

term accounting strategies, the undertaking of these costs nonetheless suggests the

political will to create a bella figura whether for political reasons or simply as a

reflection of the type of overspending that has been forever associated with wedding

celebrations.

The staging o/L'ingresso alia gioventiI di Claudio Nerone

As I now come on to the detail of the accounts, I have approached the topic from

the perspective of six primary issues pertinent to our understanding of the production of

L 'ingresso, which are by no means rigidly applied: the staging of the opera (lighting and

stage hands); the investment in scenery; the cast and their costumes; the singers; the

dancers; and the orchestra. Within the accounts, note that the Modenese lira is the

primary currency and that this is depicted with a '£' in the ledger (but with the suffix

'MI' within the text). There were 20 sold; (s.) to every lira, and 12 denar; (d.) to every

soldo.

192


i. LIGHTING AND STAGE HANDS

Lighting was naturally an issue that affected both on and off stage. For

L 'ingresso, the accounts reveal that ten torches and sixty tapers were used on stage as

part of the production. The torches appear at the end of Act II following on from

Claudio's aria 'Si vanti il cor gelato' (II.xviii.60), where the libretto notes 'I paggi con

Ie torcie fanno il ballo', presumably as an intermedio between the second and third

acts.17 The dance is not without symbolism and is introduced by the text of both the

preceding recitative and aria, which in referencing the torches that follow mocks the

frigid morals of the old senator, Aspasio, in contrast to Nerone's own burning passion:

Claudio

Hor chi ne cori adulti Now, who of a mature heart non vorra, che d'amore arda la face, would not want the torch oflove to burn se nella fredda etade e ancor vorace. if in his colder years he remains voracious.

Si vanti un cor gelato di non sentir ardor: a poco a poco s' accendera.

Quel cieco nume alato ha posto troppo foco in fronte alIa belta.

A frozen heart boasts of not feeling passion: [but] little by little it will catch fire.

That blind winged god has placed too much fire upon beauty's brow.

L'ingresso, ll.xviii.60

The accounts suggest by reference to a further ten torches that replacements may have

been needed at some time during the production. While those replacements were bought

in Modena, it seems that the originals were purchased directly from Venice, perhaps

allowing us to speculate that they may have been of a type used on the Venetian stage.

That aside, of the 1,114 MI spent on illumination, while 218 MI can be attributed to on

stage activity, the majority (898 MI) seems to have been used to light the theatre itself,

17 L 'ingresso, libretto, p. 52.

193


through a considerable quantity of olive oil (600 lbs.) and tallow candles, which at 100

units of 40 suggests 4,000 candles burned over the twelve nights, or c.333 per night.

The use of support staff to run the theatre behind the scenes during production

was separated into two clear groups: these were the scenery operators back-stage, and

the 'portinari', or doormen, who served as front-of-house staff. Folio 7r of the accounts

refers to three 'portinari'. First, Giulio Boselli was paid 60 MI (or 5 MI per night) for

assisting at the door in costume with a mask ('in maschera'); next Pietro Mondi

received 12 MI for collecting the tickets at the door at 1 MI per night, and finally

Antonio Capponi was remunerated 120 MI for the selling of the said tickets at 10 MI per

night. This suggests the existence of a formal structure both for making sales at the door

and for documenting a record of the fact, as indeed we will see later.

By contrast, the scenery operators were dealt with as a group under the

supervision of Carlo Cavani (their Head Master; see Ex. 4.1):

Ex. 4.1: Scenery operators during performances (f. 12r)

Every evening where there was a performance, 23 men were needed to change the scenery, whose payment was given as agreed every evening to Carlo Cavani, Head Master £30; and the aforesaid was obliged to pay the aforementioned men, and to make ready the lighting and also to make ready the scenery for the evenings of performances, so that there were 12 days, including all costs. £ 360.00.0

The work-force of twenty-three men gives some idea of the undertaking at hand and

provides an insight into how very labour-intensive the movement of scenery and the

application of special effects were then, as indeed they remain today. Moreover, these

same men were responsible for lighting (and putting out) the theatre's candles each

evening. With the aid of some brief comparisons, one can see instantly how poorly they

were paid in respect, first, of the singers and musicians, and, second, of the cost of a

194


single ticket to see the production they worked on. At 30 MI per night spread among

twenty-three men two options spring to mind, neither of which is unreasonable: first, we

might assume that Cavani would have been paid 8 MI per night and each of the others

just a single lira, or, second, it is equally possible that every man got 1.5 MI while their

'capo' might have received double that sum. Whatever the breakdown, it soon becomes

clear that the sum paid was a relative pittance. By contrast to the cast, the poorest paid

singer, Giuseppe Marsigli (Grippo), received 53.17 MI per night (646 MI), while the

three leads (Giovanni Francesco Grossi 'Siface " Domenico Cecchi, and Francesco De

Grandis) each received the equivalent of 158.07 MI per night (1,900 MI). By contrast,

the salaries of the scenery operators-who most probably returned to their primary jobs

during the day (some may even have worked as joiners building the set)--clearly

belonged to another social strata. With tickets at 3 MI each (and arguably even 5 or 6

MI), their cost to the scenery operators would have represented a minimum three

evenings work, if not twice that. Bianconi and Walker come to a similar conclusion in

their review of the accounts ledger for the production of n talamo preservato daUa

fedelta di Eudossa (Reggio Emilia, 1683), also given under Francesco. IS

ii. THE SCENERY

Nonetheless, while the twenty-three scenery operators give some indication as to

the labour-intensive demands of changing sets, we can get some idea of what they were

required to move around from folios 5r and 5v of the accounts, which detail a total of

3,953.15.8 MI spent on scenery of which half (1,900 MI) was paid directly to Giovanni

Leonardo Clerici for the design and painting of three long (full) and two short (half)

stage-sets. The total cost of the scenery (erroneously given in the final summary as


195


3,953.05.8 Ml) was later to be included in the final reconciliation of Fontanelli's affairs

and loss incurred on L 'ingresso, as we shall see in Chapter 5. This aside, the payment to

Clerici also credits him with 'aver rappezzato Ie altre', thus confirming that other sets

presumably used on previous productions at the theatre were adapted for L'ingresso.

Given that the L'ingresso libretto identifies ten separate 'variationi di scene', it would

seem reasonable to assume that Clerici thus prepared five new and five reconditioned

sets for this production.19

The libretto (p. 9) gives the sets as follows:

La. Bagno delizioso con Scala, che ascende ad un Poggio a parte [!.i-ii]. Lb. Strada di Roma con Fabriche sontuose, ed una piccola Casa [Liii-vi]. Lc. Gabbinetto nella Casa d'Ellia Catulla [I.vii-x]. Ld. Salone maestoso nel Palazzo di Claudio con Apparato di Festa da Ballo

[Lxi-xv].

II.a. Studio mal conservato, con Statue di Filosofi, e Poeti antichi [II.i-viii]. II.b. Giardino con Fontane [1I.ix-xv]. II.c. Atrio, che introduce ne gli Appartamenti di Claudio [II.xvi-xviii].

IIl.a. Deliziosa [III.i-vii]. III.b Sito dirupato con Antri di Prigioni [III.viii-ix]. IIl.c. Anfiteatro di Spettacoli [IILx-xiii].

The format depicted allows for the alternation of apparently 'short' and 'long' scene-

complexes, allowing the latter to be changed as action was taking place on the former.

As such, this helps us to picture the layout and structure of each set, which, in turn,

gives rise to a wonderful array of possibilities in respect of how one might envisage

which sets were new and which had been recycled. Sadly, there is no extant evidence to

help us resolve this puzzle. Yet, while I have not set out to make a rigorous comparison

of the sets used at the Teatro Fontanelli (if this were indeed possible), we can get some

indication of the potential for the impresario to have employed a policy of recycling oft-

repeated sets when we make a brief comparison of those used in L 'ingresso which also

19 L 'ingresso, libretto, p. 9.

196


share similar descriptions in the librettos of the previous seven operas given at the

Teatro Fontanelli. Here, repeated themes for the long sets such 'deliziosa', 'giardino'

and 'strada' clearly would have benefited from their adaptability to varying scenarios.

The following is, then, an attempt to compare scene-sets that occur in L 'ingresso but

which have the potential to have occurred in other productions. It does not include other

scenery that might have been shared between earlier productions but which were not

required in 1692, nor does it allow for sets that may have been completely repainted to

depict an entirely different set.

La. No previous sets with any of stairway, bridge and/or bath. Lb. II Vespesiano [sic] I, I due germani III, Flavio I, II Mauritio II, Eteocle I,

L 'inganno II and III. I.c. II Mauritio II, L 'inganno III. I.d. II Vespesiano I and III, I due germani II, II Mauritio III, L 'inganno III.

II.a. L 'inganno 1. II.b. II Vespesiano II, Flavio I and II, II Mauritio II, Eteocle II. lI.c. Flavio II and III, Eteocle III (twice).

liLa. II Vespesiano II, Flavio I, II Mauritio I, Eteocle II, L 'inganno II. III.b. II Vespesiano II, II Mauritio III. III.c. n Mauritio 111.20

Thus the potential for Clerici to have reused five scene-sets from previous operas at the

Teatro Fontanelli is seemingly sustainable. However, the lack of a previous version of

the opening set 'Bagno delizioso con Scala, che ascende ad un Poggio a parte' suggests

that a decision was made to commission Clerici to build a new, purposefully designed,

set with which to open the opera. We also know that new scenes were designed on

occasions other than in 1692. This can be seen in 1689, when Domenico Gabrielli's II

Mauritio was revived at the Teatro Fontanelli with scenery designed by the Venetian

Tommaso Bezzi who, with his brother Paolo (Gandini refers to them as the 'Stocchini

Veneti'), is also credited with the scenery for Flavio Cuniberto (Teatro Fontanelli,

20 See Appendix D for some limited discussion of the individual scene-complexes. While I have sought to identifY possible sets, which could have been developed for L 'ingresso, some examples are naturally more plausible than others. The above is, therefore, in no way a definitive analysis.

197


1688) in which Martinelli Braglia cites the 'grave spesa delle scene e degli habiti' ,21

Curiously, despite Martinelli Braglia's citation, there is no costing against scenery or

costumes in respect of Flavio Cuniberto (see Table 4.1, above). The answer to this

apparent anomaly might be that both Bezzi and Gabrielli are recorded by the libretto of

II Mauritio (1689) as 'ambi servitori di Sua Altezza Serenissima,li quali ottennero altre

volte sopra Ie scene gli applausi maggiori' and by Martinelli Braglia as 'giA noti e

apprezzati nello entourage cortigiano'. 22 This might allow for the cost of Bezzi to have

been borne directly by the duke's court, while we have already noted Gabrielli was paid

directly by Fontanelli. As ever, the accounts, if taken at face value, fail to reflect the

reality of Francesco controlling and underwriting opera, if not entirely behind the

scenes, then perhaps a step back from public attention. Moreover, it is Bezzi rather than

any of the singers who seems to have grabbed the headlines. Bezzi is recalled by

Gandini as the 'ingegnere teatrale al servizio del Duca di Modena' who by his account

was an 'eccellente macchinista e pittore' .23 Certainly, the 'apparenze di scena' caught

the attention for the production of II Mauritio: 'tanto a magnificenza quanto a

stupefacente varieta, alternandosi interni di reggia con vedute marine, giardini imperiali

a estemi notturni, paesaggi rovinistici a serragli di fiere' ,24 In particular, the technical

brilliance of the Venetian Bezzi was further acclaimed in the second act:

s'apre il prospetto, dove si vede scena di vaghezza con monte altissimo, sopra di cui salgono i Tifei al Cielo, [e ancora] Giove fulmina il monte, Quale s'apre nel mezzo, e precipitano i giganti, restando la scena luminosa, con Apollo che spunta dalla medesima.25

21 Martinelli Braglia, 'n Teatro Fontanelli', p. 146. Despite Martinelli Braglia's reference to the grave costs incurred on these items, her listing of all expenditure on production matches Table 4.1 (above) and suggests, therefore, that there was no charge in the Flavio accounts for costs for sceneI)' and costumes.

22/1 Mauritio libretto. p. S; Martinelli Braglia, 'n Teatro Fontanelli', p. 146.

23 Gandini, Cronisloria, I, p. 76.


25 Ibid.

198


In 1692, perhaps it was the need for political balance which meant that Clerici

from Parma was hired for the task. The accounts reveal that rather than being paid a

single all-inclusive fee for the supply of the completed contract, Clerici was paid a

separate amount for his talents, while his materials were charged directly to the theatre.

As with all examples, each entry is cross-referenced to a jilza that would presumably

have carried the detail of the transaction(s) involved. The paints and ironmongery were

bought in Venice, though the timber and fabrics used to construct the scene-sets were

sourced locally. The largest single payment to a Modenese supplier was to Andrea

Montanari for 1,073 yards of various fabrics at a total cost of 746.4.8 MI; next to this

came timber totalling 265.10 MI and a broad summary of costs referenced 'et il

rimanente delle liste' at 274.9 Ml. The second most expensive charge was the payment

made to the joiners, who received 276 MI for 39Yz days pay at 7 MI per day. Sadly, the

number of the joiners is not detailed, but it is noted that they worked under the direction

of the aforementioned Head Master of the scenery operators, Carlo Cavani.

Consequently, one wonders whether those who built the scenery later became part of the

troupe that operated it during the production. Certainly, that appears to have been the

case in respect of Cavani.

In fact, Carlo Cavani and the previously identified Antonio Capponi (the

'portinaro' who sold tickets for L'ingresso on the door each night) are two good

examples of how the narrative style of accounts reveals that the payments made for

materials were not always to unconnected suppliers, but often to those involved more

closely with the production, as indeed one might expect. As such, there is a sentiment of

a community coming together with a common purpose, as opposed merely to a single

organisation operating in a detached or isolated world. In this way, although the

suppliers are clearly trading professionally, we can build up some pen-pictures both of

how the theatre engaged with the Modenese community and of the lives of those

199


involved in the production. To this end, the accounts also detail timber bought from

Cavani. His expertise as 'capo maestro' of two troupes manipulating and crafting wood,

together with his supply of the same product, suggests that he may well have been the

chief purchaser of timber and other such items for court construction and that

conceivably he might even have ran his own timber business. Whatever the reality, it

would seem likely that the supply and manufacture of timber would have been his

primary source of income.

Similarly, we can come to the same conclusion in respect of Antonio Capponi

and paper. Here, within the costs of scenery, he is recorded as supplying heavy-duty

card and paper. The entry credits him as 'libraio', suggesting that he may have had a

business selling books and paper, though his involvement goes beyond that of a

supplier. The accounts excerpt below (Ex. 4.2) also shows Capponi as financing and not

just printing the librettos and the tickets he would later sell on the door. His name even

appears on the libretto frontispiece, which records at its foot 'Nella Stamparia

Vescovale. Con Licenza de' Superiori. Ad'instanza de' Cozzi, e Capponi'. In other

words, Capponi (and Cozzi) was the 'publisher' of the libretto, commissioning and

paying for its printing by the 'Stamparia Vescovale'. For this, he also paid Fontanelli a

fee of 450 MI and provided the impresario with 100 copies, but was allowed to keep any

additional profit from sales of the printed librettos.

200

Ex. 4.2: For the printing of the libretto (f.20r)

Sig. Antonio Capponi was obliged to print the work at his own expense and to give the Lord Marquis 450 Ml in coin to have the tickets for the door printed at his expense, to give 100 bound books of the work, and also to bind the copies for the Most Serene Patrons, there remaining for his profit the income from all the librettos of the work

Invitation cards

Woodblock of the title-page of the librettos of the work cut in Bologna

£

£

£

450.00.0

16.00.0

38.00.0

£ 504.00.0


With some 2,457 people buying tickets to see L'ingresso, the return for Capponi must

have been sufficiently good to encourage his participation in the printing of the librettos.

But there is also an anomaly here. In addition to Capponi's payment to Fontanelli, costs

are also detailed for the invitation cards presumably for the royal guests (16 Ml) and for

having the libretto woodcut made in Bologna (38 MI); yet these two items are not only

added to the 450 MI income from Capponi, to give a total of 504 MI, but are then

ignored when the credit of 450 MI is brought forward to the final summary. This would

suggest that these costs were covered directly by Capponi, so that the 504 MI listed

marked his contribution to the agreement. For this reason, while the 450 MI received

needed to be recorded by F ontanelli, the payments made by a third party for the

invitations and woodcut did not, and so were ultimately excluded from the accounts.

iii. THE CAST AND THEIR COSTUMES

As I have noted above, the expense incurred on costumes was exorbitant by

Modenese standards; while it bears comparison with that of the longer seasons in

201


Venice,26 the expenditure in 1692 far exceeded comparative costs we have seen

declared for II figlio (1700). Such was the outlay on the wardrobe that these costs are

spread over eight sides of the accounts (ff. lr-4v). The detail is, in itself, indicative of an

awareness of cost and the need to record every element of this expenditure in full, and

as such, it reveals a large part of the process of fitting out a production wardrobe: the

purchase of the raw materials from Venice, Modena, Sassuolo and Bologna followed by

the employment of the costumiers in Fiorano to produce the final garments. Within this

data, no one person is credited with having shouldered the sole responsibility for having

overseen the programme as a whole, or having directed specific areas such as

purchasing, design or production.

The total cost of the operation came to 4,410.14.6 MI, of which 1,710.03.0 MI

(Le., 38.77% of the total cost) was spent on the purchasing of materials from Venice.

All of these items were purchased in Venetian lire at a total of 1,268.17 VI, before being

adjusted in the ledger at an exchange rate of 1 VI to 1.35 Ml. The cost included customs

duty (37.13 VI) applied 'come ancora il bollo di San Marco' and costs of transit (47.00

VI) paid to the 'corrieri di Venetia'. Within the order, the largest single purchase was

for 371 bracci (totalling 556.10 VI) of fine silk cloths in green, gold, deep-blue, flesh

pink, and white. The remaining costs were for spun false silver and gold, high-fringes,

sequins, marguerites, other false gems and pearls.

Moreover, the shipment from Venice also included a huge number of stones:

made up of both larger quantities of 600 large white stones (36 VI) and 150 large green

ones (9 VI), and also smaller amounts of more expensive stones of which the accounts

detail fourteen false gold-leafed stones (37.16 VI) and ten silver-leafed stones (27 VI),

both of which compute at 54 sold; per stone. While the stones were most probably sewn

26 B. and J. Glixon,lnventing the Business a/Opera, p. 283.

202


onto the silks bought, it is also possible that they might have served a different purpose

within the scenery to reflect the overwhelming decoration of Nero's palace as

condemned by Aspasio (Lv .15).

The consignment from Venice was not merely made up of fabrics, false gems

and stones. Additionally, some 200 feathers at 50 soldi each were also purchased

specifically for the extras, though it is unclear how these would have been used, save for

a reference to plumes of poor condition in red and white that were listed in 1698 as

being part of the costumes listing later passed to Margherita (Ex. 4.5 further below).

This would suggest that these feathers might have been used to make the headwear of

the extras, perhaps in their role as Roman soldiers throughout the opera. Though

requiring no chorus, L'ingresso employed twenty-one young men, six young women

and four children in the production, as is revealed by folio 13r of the accounts (Ex. 4.3):

Ex. 4.3: Extras (f. 13r)

21 young men served as extras, to each of whom was paid every evening s.l 0, so that for 12 evenings it comes to

6 young women served as damsels, to each of whom £1 was paid every evening for 12 evenings

4 children served as pages at s.1 0 for each [and] every evening

[Transferred to final summary as £210]

[Adjusted in 1694]

[Revised total in 1694]

• [should read £126; adjusted by the/aUare in 1694]

£ '120.00.0

£ 72.00.0

£ 24.00.0

£ 216.00.0

£ 6.00.0

£ 222.00.0

As can be seen above, the pages were played by children who nonetheless received the

same daily rate of 10 soldi as their male peers, while the six women received twice that

rate at 1 MI per night.

203


If Venice supplied the primary raw materials, Modena seems to have provided

more of the supporting items such as sewing needles (3.16 MI), waxing candles,

threads, trimmings and glue. The extent of the detail is highlighted by a single charge

for 'Fumo di rasa' at just 0.13 MI (f. Iv). The fact that the accounts went to the trouble

of detailing such minor items as the lampblack, rather than simply providing a summary

end figure, suggests, again, an awareness of budget not previously apparent in the loose

records held for Flavio Cuniberto, and thus indicates that, in the case of L'ingresso,

Fontanelli was eager to protect his position to the maximum.

Modena also seems to have provided the smaller accessories to the principal

robes. This included an unspecified quantity of gloves 'tanto per Ii personaggi, quanto

per Ie comparse, e damigelle, e paggi', eighteen pairs of men's stockings and six pairs

of ladies stockings (which were 15 soldi per stocking less than the men's), as well as

having lined 'la veste di eottino' with fur to fatten the character of Aspasio. Later,

within the charge of the costumiers, a further five pairs of stockings of various colours

were purchased and an unspecified number of gloves were made in house at Fiorano.

The masks worn on stage were also made and purchased in Modena from the gilder,

Andrea Melotti. Within his bill of 40 MI, Melotti was also paid for the gold colouring of

the halberds worn by the extras (jilza no. 5).

The supply of shoes also originated in Modena (though from an unnamed

source) and amounted to six pairs for the damsels at 4 MI per pair and a further six pairs

for the ballerinas at 3 MI per pair. This correlates with the number of young women

paid at folio 13r (see above) and for the six ballerinas (plus their maestro Giovanni

Battista Rossino, who did not dance), as identified at folio 16r (addressed below). By

contrast, the order for thirteen pairs of shoes solely for the extras-as detailed over file

nos. 10 and 11, albeit at a much reduced cost of 37 soldi {1.17 MI}-is at odds with the

previous confirmation of twenty-one extras, suggesting that some must have taken to

204


stage barefoot, or that stock held from earlier productions may have been utilised. A

similar discrepancy occurs with the order of seven pairs of shoes for the principal cast

of eight, of which four were pairs of buskins. In contrast to the expenditure for the

extras, these total 53 MI, at just under 8 MI per pair, though presumably there would

have been some differential between the costs of shoes and buskins. The eighth, 'shoe

less', character is unidentified, but would seem most obviously to have been the servant,

Grippo. This would have left three pairs of shoes for the women and four buskins for

the men.

The remaining costs from Modena include a variety of minor purchases of

cloths, be it silk, satin or otherwise, which seem to have fluctuated considerably in their

price, though no doubt with good reason to someone with a qualified knowledge of the

market. Of the many trimmings or final touches seemingly supplied, none identify their

suppliers' names save for the last entry where, somewhat curtly, the fine threaded silk

cloth of various colours are identified as having been bought from 'Vittello Sanguinetti,

ebreo' (f. 3r). The same term is repeated for the supply of spun silver thread when the

supplier Simone Levi (f. 3v) is similarly referenced as a Jew. When Laura had been

regent, the Jewish population in Modena had been brutally persecuted both

professionally and in their private lives, and had been required to wear a yellow ribbon

in their hats so that they could be recognised at a distance. Moreover, their trade had

been restricted, with shops being forced to close by Laura.27 While this was not unusual

for the time, a change in their treatment does seem to have been encouraged by the new

government. Under Francesco, while the need to identify them seemingly remained

inherent, the restraint on their trade had apparently lightened. Simone Levi for one

seems to have got considerably more of the business than other suppliers listed.

Notably, the silver threads bought from him (as with similar gold threads bought


205


elsewhere) are listed here as part of the finishing process and not within the main listing

of raw materials bought elsewhere in Modena. It was presumably part of the same

process that led to the additional purchase of white, gold- and silver-leaf silks, which

represent the sole items supplied from Bologna (f. 4r).

The total spend in Modena was ultimately nearly that of Venice and amounted to

1,620.11 MI (Le., 36.74 % of the total cost) showing, at least, that opera was good for

local commerce. If we allow for the cost of 82.12 MI in Sassuolo (where, in contrast to

the detail of Modena, there is simply a single entry for 'varie robbe comprate a

Sassuolo', as injilza no. 9), then of the total cost of costumes of 4,410.14.6 MI, the

spend on materials comes to 3,415.07 MI (Le., 77.43% of the total cost).

Likewise, the labour cost in the making of the clothes in 1692 is also easily

identifiable. Again, the detail can be quite specific, as can be seen by the payment to the

dyer (unnamed) of 2 MI for having dyed the yarn yellow, although the cost in this

example includes a charge for the dye itself. Such detail helps build up an image of the

extended reality of costume-making from purchase through preparation to production.

Similarly, Antonio Barbanti (gilder) was paid a much higher fee of 20 MI for 'varie

fatture fatte' as per his list, jilza no. 12. Within the listed payments to the respective

artisans, there seems also to have been some additional purchase of materials,

presumably incurred at a later stage. One such example is the single payment of 166.10

MI to an unnamed source for braided cords of various sorts ('cordelle') that are noted as

serving for the finishing touches on the clothing 'de' signori musici' (f. 3v). While there

are no other references to the making of clothing for the musicians, the payment raises

two possibilities, neither of which is mutually exclusive. First, the decoration could

have served for those musicians noted in Chapter 3 who appeared on-stage to perform at

Claudio's ball (I.xi). Second, it allows for the possibility that the musicians were

identified visually as a formal group in some structured fashion, and were probably in

206

Paul Aikin, Chapler 4

sight of the audience. Either way, the cost of such decoration can be put into context by

noting that ten of the musicians received fees below this sum. Such adornment at such

cost again suggests the rather conspicuous sense of this being a gala occasion requiring

display wherever possible.

The actual making of the garments was carried out in nearby Fiorano, some

25km south-west of Modena at what Ferrari Moreni describes as 'una sartoria

teatrale' .28 The reason for the use of Fiorano is unclear when everything else was based

in Modena, including the singers' lodgings and rehearsals. From the accounts, a practice

can be identified by which the listed costumiers (probably with one exception) were

paid to go to Fiorano in order to work on the clothes. A brief glance at the accounts (Ex.

4.4) soon reveals a hierarchy to the wage structure, which was presumably reflective of

the experience, standing and ability of the different dressmakers. For example, the

following excerpts from the accounts show Domenico Cervatti being sent twice to

Fiorano to work on the men's clothes at a cost of 11.10 MI each time. Similarly,

Steffano Monti was sent just once to work on the women's clothes at a lesser fee of 10

Ml. While both these payments might have included their cost of travel, these two must

have been the senior dressmakers, for if we compare their fees to the other costumiers

(Camilla Schedoni, Domenico and Margherita), we see that rates per day vary

considerably, with them receiving 15 soldi, 20 soldi and 3.12 MI (including assistants)

respectively. Schedoni, for example, earned fifteen times less than Cervatti's rate of

pay.

21 Ferrari Moreni, 'Un dramma in musica rappresenlalo in Modena nell'anno 1692', p. 561.

207

Ex. 4.4: Cost of costumes (ff. 3v-4r)

To Domenico Cervatti, dressmaker, for having been two times to Fiorano for cutting and putting in order the men's clothes

To Steffano Monti, women's dresssmaker, for having been once to Fiorano to work on and cut clothes

To Margherita, dressmaker, and to her assistant for having been to Fiorano to work for 5 days

To Camilla Schedoni, dressmaker, for having worked 45 days in Fiorano at s.15 per day

To Domenico, dressmaker, from Sassuolo for 34 days at s.20 per day

£

£

£

£

£


[f. 3v]

23.00.0

10.00.0

[f.4r]

IS.00.0

33.15.0

34.00.0

We might presume from the above extracts that the making of the costumes had been

split into a three- or. even. four-tiered hierarchy that seems to have initiated with

Cervatti and Monti designing and cutting the garments of the men and women

respectively (at their considerably enhanced rate). before Margherita, Schedoni and

Domenico carried out their instructions to bring the costumes to completion. While

there is nothing to suggest that Camilla Schedoni or Domenico 'sarto di Sassuolo' (who

at 5 soldi per day more was presumably her senior colleague) organised their work in

terms of the male or female costumes. the sheer volume of days (forty-five and thirty-

four days respectively) and pay-rates suggest that Schedoni might have been at the

bottom of the hierarchy and worked under Domenico. Either way, they seem to have

been responsible for the bulk of the work, and given that they were paid per day, they

may have been based on site in Fiorano. At some point. Margherita also went to Fiorano

with her assistant for five days at a cost of 18 MI (3.12 MI per day). though it is not

clear at which stage (or stages) of the process or whether her role was that of an

overseer or finisher of the costumes.

20S


The record of the number of days worked serves to provide a time span of one

and a half months for the making of the garments, assuming that Schedoni (forty-five

days) and Domenico (thirty-four days) worked side by side. If we then allow for the

design of the costumes, and the purchase and transportation of the raw materials, it

seems that within a span of three months and twelve days from the opera's

commissioning (29 July 1692) to its premiere (9 November 1692) there would most

probably have been quite a rush in the 'wardrobe' department to deliver on time the

costumes for the eight principals, plus those needed for the twenty-one extras, four

pages, six damsels and six ballerinas. Some forty-six costumes would have been made

(or adjusted from earlier productions) at a rate of almost exactly one per day over one

and half months and at a cost in labour terms alone of just 118.15 MI, plus the

additional payments to the gilder and dyer. Perhaps an indication of the extent to which

candles were literally burnt at both ends to complete the costumes on time is revealed

by the penultimate entry in this section of twenty-four tallow candles at 10 soldi each

'che hanno servito per lavorare'.

The final segment of this part of the accounts addresses the finishing touches to

the costumes, first with the purchase of some braided cord for the dressing up of the

'Vecchia' (Ellia Catulla), and second with a payment made directly 'aIle due cantatrice

[Anna Maria Torri as Valeria and Lucretia Pontissi as Illisa] , due doppie per

ciascheduna per li finimenti dell'abiti'. The sum paid was equal to 152 MI and was on

its own easily in excess of the total cost of the labour. The payment is not only

indicative of the value of both the singers and the occasion, but also reveals some

degree of their relative importance in that they were allowed to add their own finishing

touches and so have some, or the final, say over their appearance. It might also suggest

that the payments served as a form of incentive. At this time, such inducements were

not uncommon, although records from Venice show that the more common policy was

209


to allow the singers to keep their costumes as part of their fee. 29 As we shall see, this

would not be the case on this occasion, and the sums paid become, in my view, too

insignificant in comparison to their fees (Anna Maria Torri 1,364 MI and Lucretia

Pontissi 1,216 MI) to give any real justification to such an idea as any form of financial

compensation.3o

This last payment to the singers in the context of their costumes leads us to

consider, first, how this investment in the wardrobe might have manifested itself on

stage, and, then, to consider the fees of the singers and extras. As Beth and Jonathan

Glixon have identified in their recent monograph on opera production in seventeenth-

century Venice, other than some limited examples contained within engravings

primarily designed to record stage-sets 'no detailed illustrations of specific Venetian

operatic costumes from this period are extant' .31 Therefore, the fact that at the end of the

main accounts ledger there is a statement (Ex. 4.5) listing the costumes worn on stage

and attributed directly to each performer offers a somewhat unique insight into the

pseudo-Roman design that would have been required by operas such as L'ingresso.

Even here, the detail remains somewhat vague, no doubt due to the fact that the reason

for the document's existence was not as a record of the costumes worn, but more as a

registry of which costumes had been valued at 4,410.14.6 MI as part of the official

settlement of the loss incurred. Nevertheless, it paints a revealing picture of the

costumes worn on stage by the seven principal protagonists, with only the servant

Grippo (sung by Giuseppe Marsigli) not included:

29 Mostly in respect of contemporary designs. For a note on this point specifically and in general on the design. manufacture, purchase and value of costumes at this time in Venice, sec B. and J. Glixon, Inventing the Business of Opera, pp. 277-92.

10 Anna Maria Tom was actually paid 1,368 MI. although the accounts in 1692 record 1,364 MI.

31 B. and J. Glixon. Inventing the Business of Opera. p. 277. while pp. 233-7 detail engravings by Giacomo Torelli of sets also reproduced in Worsthome. Venetian Opera In the Seventeenth Century. plates 9-23. There are also a number of similar engravings held at I-MOe 70.1.18.

210


Ex. 4.5: List of costumes consigned to Princess Margherita, 1694 (LD)

Sotto Ii 13 Agosto 169432

As of the 13th August 1694

Fu consegnato nella Ducale Guardaroba di Sua Altezza Ii Signora Margherita Ii sotto habiti fatti all'eroicha per comedie in musica. Thefollowing garments, made in the heroic style for comedies in music, were consignedfrom the aforementioned ducal wardrobe of his Most Serene Highness to the Most Serene Margherita.

• Un Manto, e sottanino detto della Beccarina, cioe it sottanino di raso bianco, e Manto di raso cremisino con guazeroni ricamati, e pietre false contomiato di pizzi d'argento falso fodrato di tocca bianca. A cloak and petticoaf3 as noted [above] of La Beccarina [Anna Maria Torri, 'The Little Woodpecker'; lllisa]; that is, a white satin petticoat, and a crimson satin cloak embroidered with ornaments, and bejewelled with false gems surrounded by lace of spun false silver, lined with afine white silk cloth.

• Vesta, e girello della Trombettina, cioe Vesta di tocca bianca ricamata di tocca rossa fodrato di tocca simile, girello di tocca turchina profilato di rosso. Dress and ring of La Trombettina [Lucretia Pontissi, 'The Little Trumpeter'; Valeria]; that is, dress of fine white silk cloth embroidered with fine red silk, lined with the same fine [red] silk; ring offine deep blue silk bordered in red

• Letto, e manto per Cortona, cioe letto con fondo bianco ricamato d'oro, perle, gioie, e passamano falso con guazeroni fodrato di cendale rigato rosso, manto di raso turchino fodrato di tocca bianca ricamato d'oro, e fogliami di tela d'argento con pizzi. Robe and cloakfor [Domenico Cecchi di] Cortona, [Claudio Nerone]; that is a robe with a white base embroidered with gold, pearls, jewels and a false braid with ornaments, lined with a red-striped sendal;34 deep blue satin cloak, lined with fine white silk, embroidered with gold, andfoliage of silver fabric with lace.

• Letto, e manto e girello per Sifaccio [sic] di tocca bianca ricamato con profilli neri con gioie e pizzo d'oro, et argento, e fodrato di tocca rossa rigata e di girello di tocca simile con pizzi compagni. Robe and cloak and ring for Siface [Giovanni Francesco Grossi; Curtio] affine white silk embroidered with black edgings with jewels and gold and silver lace, and lined with a stripe of afine red silk with a ring of similar fine silk with lace of the same.

• Letto, manto, e girello per Checchino, cioe letto di tocca bianca con gioie e ricamo nero pizzi d'argento it manto di tocca turchina con ricami sopra, e pizzo medesimo e girello compagno al manto. Robe, cloak, and ring for Checchino [Francesco De Grandis; Tigellino]; that is a robe of fine white silk with jewels and black embroidery and silver lace,' fine deep blue silk cloak with embroidery as above and lace of the same,' and a ring of the same to the cloak.

• Una zimara, et una veste per Cutino [sic], cioe zimara di tocca d'oro, e verde con passamano d'argento intomo, la veste di tocca gialla fodrata di tocca verde. A long coat, and a habit for Collini [Antonio Cottini; Aspasio]; that is a cassock of fine gold and green silk, edged with silver braid, the habit of fine yellow silk, lined with fine green silk.

• Vestito della Bonetti cioe Buffone di tocca gialla ricamata di fogliami rossi contomiato di cordone d'argento, Veste, Busto, Grembialina di tocca turchina con passamano d'argento, altri ricami, e colaro per la delta. Garment of Bonelli [Lucia Bonetti; Ellia Catulla], that is the Fool, of fine yellow silk embroidered with red foliage surrounded by silver cord; habit, bodice, pinafore of fine deep blue silk with silver braid, other embroideries, and collar for the aforementioned.

32 The scribe's hand is not always clear or well-written, leading on occasion to a certain amount of unwanted input on my part in attempting to produce a coherent end transcription. Moreover, some of the words describing the garments worn are relatively nonspecific in terms of identifYing precisely the type of article detailed. This noted, while the fine detail might, therefore, need revising at a future date, I remain content that the intended meaning has been sufficiently conveyed to provide a reasonable idea of the costumes worn by the singers on stage.

)J The term 'sottanino' translates directly as 'petticoat', but would have referred to a gown worn under the cloak as opposed to an under-garment in the modem sense.

)4 Cendale .. zendale .. sendal = a thin light silk used since the middle ages.

211


• Due zimare una di tocca turchina, et l'altra rossa con passamano d'argento. Un Girello di tocca turchina con frangie d'argento. Due maniche di cendal all'eroicha con pizzino, et argento. Tre beretoni con gioie false, e penacchiere mal conditionate rosse, e bianche. Two long coats, one offine deep blue silk, and the other red with silver braid. A ring offine deep blue silk with a silver fringe. Two sleeves of sendal in the heroic style with lace and silver. Three berets with false jewels, and plumes of poor condition in red and white.

Essendosi smarrita al Signor Marchese Decio la ricevuta fatta da me in occasione di tal consegna, ne ho rifatta la presente questo di 15 7bre 1698.

Horatio VeratteS

Since Signor Marquis Decio [Fontanelli] 's receipt, made by me on occasion of that consignment, has been mislaid, I have redone the present one, this day J 5 September J 698.

Horatio Veratti

The singers are often identified by the use of epithets, which cross-reference with folios

15r and 15v of the accounts, where the same singers are identified by fuller versions of

their names. This is especially valuable in identifying Anna Maria Torri (Cecchi) as 'la

Beccarina' (the Little Woodpecker), who played the romantic female lead of Illisa, and

Lucretia Pontissi as 'La Trombettina' (the Little Trumpeter), who played the moral

female lead of Valeria. Lucia Bonetti's role ofEllia Catulla is described in the costumes

listing as that of the 'buffone', but as the 'parte da vecchia' in the accounts. As

discussed in Chapter 3, this was somewhat in contrast to her declared status as the

'Matrona Nobile di Roma' in the libretto's list of interlocutori. Francesco De Grandis

(as Tigellino) is simply identified as 'Checchino'. This enables us to cross-reference the

singer to a payment referenced by Cottini in his letter of support for Fontanelli within

the process of the loan reconciliation, which will become significant in Chapter 5.

Similarly, 'Sifaccio' is Siface (the romantic lead Curtio), 'it Cortona' Domenico Cecchi

di Cortona (Claudio Nerone), and 'Cutino' is Antonio Cottini (the senator Aspasio). In

total, nine costumes are listed with seven directly attributable to a principal singer and

two robes unidentified.

The listing offers a glimpse into the opera's wardrobe, so that we can hazard a

guess as to how those identified might have appeared on stage, if only by visualising the

resultant end product of the materials purchased. Once again, there is a feeling of

35 This final text is in a different hand to the above list. I have not noted Veratti's name elsewhere.

212


extravagance that emanates from the description of the costumes, with oft-repeated

references to fine silks and satin, embroidery of gold, pearls and jewels, and the multi

layered nature of the costumes, itself indicative of a more lavish production. Essentially,

the 'traditional' dress of a white roman toga with decorative trimmings, if not

embellished somewhat, was retained for Curtio and Nerone, and also for Tigellino.

Here, there is seemingly little to distinguish between the three costumes which each

support a base of fine white silk with lavish trimmings. The costumes are essentially the

same save for some added black embroidery for Curtio and Tigellino, who are identified

only by a red cloak for the former against a blue one for the latter. Nerone's toga is

lined with red-striped sendal, plus the gold, pearls, jewels and decorative braid that we

would expect to have served to distinguish an emperor.

Like their male counterparts, both female leads of Illisa and Valeria wear a base

garment (in this case a dress) of fine white silk, although their cloaks seem to have been

of crimson and red respectively. Valeria, significantly, appears in a more modest

version, as befits her rejection in the opera of the lavish jewels and decorations worn by

Illisa. In contrast to the established white archetype of the four leads, the elderly

outsider Aspasio is quite startlingly set apart by his long coat of fine gold and green silk

with a yellow habit. Similarly, Ellia Catulla wears a garment of fine yellow silk,

embroidered with red foliage and an under-dress of deep blue. This conflict of the

colourful costumes worn by both Aspasio and Ellia against the established white of

Nerone's court appears to suggest that the garments worn by the personaggi served to

reinforce their depiction on stage in ways more complex than mere character

identification. In the case of Aspasio and Ellia, their sartorial isolation seems to

reinforce the way in which they become lampooned within the opera and are both

ultimately rejected by the court. Valeria, despite remaining Aspasio's loyal and dutiful

daughter, retains the white toga of court and is, therefore, seen as part of it, unlike her

213

Paul Atk in, Chapter 4

father. The list ends with only a brief insight into the headwear, with reference to three

'berrettoni' with added false jewels, and plumes in red and white. Regrettably, one is

left to speculate on just how these plumes might have looked, though the traditional red

and white plumage is indicative of our historical perception of a Roman helmet.

iv. PAYMENTS TO THE SINGERS

The listing of the singers' honoraria in the accounts (Ex. 4.6) reveals a hierarchy

in fee structure that reflects the status of the three principal castratos: Grossi (Siface),

De Grandis and Cecchi. By what had in effect become established policy, Siface was

paid directly from the ducal coffers, even if it seems that his payment was delayed until

1694.36 All the other singers have their payment listed and, therefore, for the purposes

of costs computed in 1692, are charged against Fontanelli's Profit and Loss Account for

L'ingresso.

36 Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, p. 119. See also below where payments to musicians by the duke's 'Cassa Segreta' are confirmed within the L 'ingresso accounts as being in March 1694.

214

Ex. 4.6: Singers (ff. 15r-15v)

Sig. Gio. Francesco Grossi, known as Siface, musician of His Most Serene Highness, gifted by His Highness

Sig. Domenico Cecchi from Cortona, musician of His Most Serene [Highness] of Mantua, his reward is 50 Italian doppie, being in Modena

Sig. Francesco De Grandis, musician of His Most Serene Highness, his reward is 50 doppie, being

Sig. Antonio Cottini, musician of His Most Serene Highness, his reward is 25 doppie, being

Sig.a Lucretia Pontissi, Venetian, known as 'The Little Trumpeter', singer of His Most Serene of Mantua, her reward, and travelling [costs] 32 doppie, being in Modena

Sig.a Anna Maria Torri, known as 'The Little Woodcock', singer of His Most Serene of Parma 30 doppie of pay, and 6 doppie as a gift, as agreed, being

[£]

£

£

£

£

£

£

• [should read £1,368; adjusted by thejallore in 1694, see f. IS,,]

Sig.a Lucia Bonetti, Bolognese, for the role of the old woman, her reward inclusive of food 20 doppie, being £

Total BIF £

Sig. Giuseppe Marsigli, Bolognese, for the role of the fool 17 doppie, being £

[Total in 1692] £

[Adjusted in 1694] £

[Revised total in 1694] £


[f. 15r]

[0.00.0]

1,900.00.0

1,900.00.0

950.00.0

1,216.00.0

·1,364.00.0

7,330.00.0

[f. 15v]

760.00.0

7,330.00.0

646.00.0

8,736.00.0

4.00.0

8,740.00.0

This treatment of Siface is significant in that it confirms that the accounts have

unequivocally been compiled from the perspective of Fontanelli's theatre and not of the

215


ducal coffers, and with the aim of computing the profit or loss that resulted from the

production. As such the costs that we are now reviewing are verified as belonging to the

theatre, or at least as somehow chargeable by the theatre to the duke, with the end loss

being confirmed as that computed by Fontanelli as incurred in 1692; and while any

subsequent amendments to that loss may be attributable to the payments made by

Francesco's exchequer in March 1694, we are able to determine that in 1692, at least,

the core accounts were computed within a concept that saw the Teatro Fontanelli as, to a

very large degree (if not wholly), an autonomous venture. Yet, the reality of such

distinctions remained blurred. By way of an example, a memorandum note given on

folio 14v (Ex. 4.7) reveals just how closely the accounts of the Teatro Fontanelli and

those of the ducal coffers were indeed tied:

Ex. 4.7: Payment to Francesco De Grandis, 1694 (f. 14v)

On 11 March 1694

An order has been given to Francesco De Grandis for 50 dobble at a rate of £3 8 in the manner adopted with Siface that are, precisely, the £1,900 notated in Fontanelli's book and account.

The charge for De Grandis was originally declared as a cost incurred by Fontanelli in

1692 (see Ex. 4.6), but is then shown by the later citation (Ex. 4.7) as ultimately being

settled by Francesco in March 1694. The consequences of this treatment with regard to

how we ultimately view the L 'ingresso accounts form a significant part of the

discussion in Chapter 5. Nonetheless, the payment of a singer by Francesco, but charged

to Fontanelli, does serve to beautifully encapsulate the intimate relationship between the

court and the Teatro Fontanelli in a single memorandum. It also reminds us of the

criti~al fact that a Profit and Loss Account of the type we see here for L 'ingresso

remains at all times a record of costs incurred and is not necessarily a Cash book

recording payments in and out.

216


Yet if Siface, Cecchi and De Grandis were brought in to add glamour to the

occasion, a comparison of the payments of the singers for L 'ingresso to those of Flavio

(Table 4.3) reveals that this was engineered within a management structure that ensured

the total overall cost remained constant between the two productions. While Siface was

paid directly from the duke's purse on both occasions, the final end-production totals,

when adjusted for the disparity in the number of singers and of performances, give the

impression of both seemingly having to adhere to similar total budgetary requirements,

even if the payments to some individual singers increased.

Table 4.3: Comparison of singers' 'regali' in Flavio and L'ingresso37

Flavio Total Per night L'ingresso Total Per night MI MI MI MI

Francesco Grossi (Siface)* Francesco Grossi (Siface)* Giuseppe Canavese 1,080 98 Domenico Cecchi 1,900 158 Clarice Beni Venturini 1,080 98 Francesco De Grandis 1,900 158 Antonio Cottini 1,080 98 Antonio Cottini 950 79 Francesca Sarti Cottini 1,080 98 Lucretia Pontissi 1,216 101 Ottavia Monteneri 1,080 98 Anna Maria Torri 1,368 114 Giacinto Vasti 900 82 Lucia Bonetti 760 63 Marco Antonio Origoni 1,080 98 Giuseppe Marsigli 646 54 Pietro Paolo Benigni 1,080 98

Total over 11 nights 8,460 **769 Total over 12 nights 8,740 **727

• Siface paid directly by Francesco n in both years: Flavio 1,800 MI, L'ingresso 1,900 MI. Note that all singers were paid in dobble Idoppie , exchanged at 36 MI in 1688 and 38 MI in 1692 . •• End 'per night' figure is out by I MI on both totals due to rounding up and down ofindividual payments.

Thus the total costs at the time of production are extremely similar, even resulting in a

marginally lower cost per night on L'ingresso. It is only when we compare the

individual fees of the singers that it becomes quite apparent how Siface, Cecchi and De

Grandis have been incorporated at the expense of the others. As such, there is a marked

difference in the pay structure of the second- and third-tier singers, who in 1688

received virtually a uniform 1,080 Ml but in 1692 can each be seen to have been judged

37 Sources: Flavio,I-MOos SP, 'Teatri in Modena c nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705.' Casso n. 8.a; L'ingresso, accounts.

217


on their own merits or according to some other unknown criteria. The fees in 1692 make

it clear that Siface, Cecchi and De Grandis all carried top billing, while in 1688 that

distinction went to Siface alone. The possible motive for this three-way lead might well

have been determined by political necessity, if not expediency, as discussed in Chapter

3. Similarly, perhaps the same can be said for the fee of Anna Maria Torri, who

(possibly because she represented Parma and, therefore, Margherita Famese) was paid

at a higher rate than Lucretia Pontissi (Valeria) of Mantua. Thereafter, the wage plan

drops to Cottini (Aspasio) and then Bonetti (Ellia Catulla). The overall picture is

strongly suggestive of a hierarchical wage structure that is seemingly dictated by ability,

political gravitas and the demands of the occasion. Indeed, the differential between the

two female leads suggests that some adjustment was made during the production to

ensure Torri received a higher salary. Here, her initial salary of 30 doppie per evening

was originally two less than Pontissi's 'regalo' but was later increased by an additional

six, which thus restored the differential presumably expected for the sole representative

of Margherita's home court of Parma.

The total declared cost of the singers within the L 'ingresso accounts came to

8,736 MI, which equated to 36.14% of the total expenditure incurred on this production;

however, had Siface been included, then this figure would have risen to 44.00%, not far

short of half the total cost incurred. The value to Fontanelli of the duke's regalo is thus

self-apparent. By comparison, if we recall the lower costs of production for Flavio of

14,680 MI (Table 4.1), then the costs of the singers in 1688 equated to 57.63% of the

production cost (69.89% including Siface). For all our concerns about the expenditure

on costumes and scenery, opera was (and is) patently an extremely labour intensive

industry, where the singers remain the most critical cost factor.

An example of the detail to which these accounts are prepared comes in the

recording of travel costs in support of the production (f. lOr). These fall into two

218


categories: couriers and transportation. In the first part, charges are made against the

account for the sending out by express delivery of what one assumes must have been the

newly written manuscripts to Domenico Cecchi in Mantua on three occasions (cost

27.15 MI), to Lucia Bonetti once in Bologna (4.15 Ml) and to Sig. Antonio Predieri (or

Prediera) once in Parma (10 MI). Predieri's entry is curious because he never sang in

L'ingresso, though he had performed in three earlier operas given at the Teatro

Fontanelli, I due germani rivali (1686), II Trespolo, rurore balordo (1686) and

L'inganno scoperro per vendetta (1691). As we have seen, this would have made him

one of the more frequently used singers at the theatre. In the first two of these

productions, Predieri appeared under the colours of the duke of Mantua, but by 1691 he

was listed as 'Musico del Serenissima di Parma' .38 Famed for his low and often comic

roles, he would clearly have been suited to the role of Grippo. Perhaps, then, given the

occasion of a gala celebration of the union between Modena and Parma, it might just

have been considered undiplomatic for a singer of the duke of Parma's court to perform

the role of a servant. Whatever the reason for Predieri's absence, his possible

replacement by Marsigli may have required some haste when one notes the additional

charge incurred for bringing the bass from Bologna 'per cambia/ura'.

While folio 9r of the accounts ('Coppia [sic] della musica dell' opera et altre

cose') does not list any specific charge to music copying of the singer's parts (unless

this was covered within Giannini's overall copying fee for 408 folios), it does record the

payment to Giacomo Correggio as 'Secretary of the Post' for 'havere mandato in varie

citta Ie parti alIi recitanti'. The couriering of the manuscripts reveals much about opera

production at this time, suggesting on the one hand that Cecchi might have been

restricted in the number of visits he could make to Modena before the production

(though I shall come to the cost of his visits to Modena) and, on the other, that he seems

)I Schnoebelen, in NGO, 3, pp. 1088-9.

219


to have learnt his part by himself in Mantua; we might also speculate that given his long

role, he may have received his music hot off the copyist's desk as each act was

completed. Still, and as was common practice, nothing was left to chance, as folio 9r of

the accounts also reveals the payment of 20 soldi (l MI) per evening to a prompter just

in case lines were forgotten on stage.

There is also a charge for hiring four 'cavalli dA sedie' to enable the singers and

musicians to travel to and from Modena (f. lOr). Here the accounts also reveal the not

insignificant payment of 160 MI to Cecchi for 'Ii suoi viaggi', thus suggesting that he

made more than one visit to Modena. Whether this was before or during production, or

had any relation to why he was also sent three mailings, is unclear; however, the size of

the sum (being more than half the total cost under this heading) suggests that some of

that payment may also have covered lodgings.

v. THE DANCERS

Folio 16r of the accounts reveals that six 'ballerini' and their master (Giovanni

Battista Rossino) were brought in directly from Bologna and were paid a total fee of

798 MI (21 dobble) plus travel and subsistence to provide three routines listed in the

accounts and detailed within the libretto as balli di dame e cavalieri in maschera, balli

di mori con torcie accese, and lotta con abbattimento giocoso, which followed each act

respectively.39 They also danced on stage as 'Le Latine Euridici' at Claudio's ball (I.xi).

There is absolutely no record to provide an insight into their routines or what was

required of them, but effectively their role was to embellish the opera with intermedi,

which thus changed the spectacle into an extended evening's display of a dramma per

musica in three acts, alternating with two ballets and at its end an 'abbattimento giocoso

39 L ';ngresso, libretto, p. 9.

220


a conclusione'. From the librettos of those operas given previously at the Teatro

Fontanelli, there is no evidence to suggest any precedent prior to L'ingresso for dance

being incorporated into the operatic spectacle.

The payments of subsistence to the 'ballerini' reveal that they stayed in Modena

for a total of thirty-two days. This gave them eleven days to rehearse their routines,

though it is noted in the accounts that Rossino (who did not dance with his troupe) only

stayed for a total of eighteen days. The 'ballerini' and their master stayed together at the

house of Carlo Cavani, the aforementioned Head Master of the scenery operators and

joiners. Both the dance-troupe and their leader were housed at the same rate of 50 soldi

(2.10 MI) per person, per day, totalling 480 MI for the 'ballerini' and 45 MI for Rossino.

Cavani's involvement here, as with the use of other lodgings within the community for

the musicians and cast, shows the extent to which opera was dependent upon such

support structures at a very practical level in order to facilitate its functioning.

Regardless of issues of patronage, there was still a reliance upon ordinary people (even

if they might be involved in the production in some way or other) to provide lodging

and food for the performers in order that they could stay long enough to rehearse and

then offer a sequence of performances.

vi. THE ORCHESTRA

The accounts also reveal further payments in respect of the transportation to

Modena of two musicians-violoncellist Angelo Maria Fiore and theorbist Giovanni

Battista Bonini-who are identified in the accounts as being directly in the service of

the Duke of Parma (f. lOr). The first entry records the refreshment of these 'musici di

Parma' on their arrival in Modena and for their return to Parma (39 MI)" while the last

identifies a payment of 16.16 MI to the mule drivers of Parma for transporting the

221


belongings they brought with them. The item accredits the expense as being borne by

the Duke of Parma, but the charge remains listed in Fontanelli's ledger ..

Nonetheless, having got to Modena, the musicians needed feeding; here, the

accounts reveal costs declared for the provision of 'Cibaria' (f. llr). It seems that the

'musici' were billeted in Modena at houses of duke's servants and 'altre persone' over a

period of forty days at a total cost per day of 25.10 MI, totalling 1,020 Ml. Given that

we know the opera ran from 9 November to 29 November (i.e., over twenty-one days),

this would suggest that the 'musici' must have come to Modena some nineteen days

before the premiere in order to rehearse the production.

The fees paid for the orchestra are detailed on folio 14r of the accounts (Ex. 4.8).

The listing identifies most musicians by name, and all but one by instrument. As such, it

proffers the opportunity to examine the make-up of the ensemble employed for

L'ingresso.

222

Ex. 4.8: Orchestra (f. 14r)

Sig. Domenico Bratti, organist of his Most Serene Highness, £15 per evening for 12 evenings

Sig. Antonio Allemani, and Sig. Tomaso Vitali, both for having played fIrst violin, at £14 each per evening

Sig. Ignatio Frangiolli, and Monseigneur Amberville, both for having played the second violins at £8 each per evening

To the four players of the violas at £16 per evening for all four of them.

Sig. Paolo Pincelli player of the contrabass, £12 per evening

Sig. Simone Ascani, theorbist at £6 per evening

Sig. Antonio, violoncello for 12 evenings

To Sig. Domenico, trumpet for 12 evenings

To these [costs] one adds further

Sig. Angelo Maria Fiore, player of the violoncello of His Most Serene of Parma, 12 doppie that are in the coin of Modena

Sig. Giovanni Battista Bonini, theorbist of the aforementioned Highness 10 doppie that are

Sig. Sebastiano Ossa for tuning the 'cembali'


£ 180.00.0

£ 336.00.0

£ 192.00.0

£ 192.00.0

£ 144.00.0

£ 72.00.0

£ 50.00.0

£ 148.00.0

£ 1,314.00.0

£ 456.00.0

£ 380.00.0

£ 86.00.0

£ 2,236.00.0

The orchestra comprised fifteen musicians (all men, of course), made up of one trumpet,

two first violins, two second violins, four 'suonatori da viole', two violoncellos, one

contrabass, two theorbos, and one 'organista'. The 'organista' was Domenico Bratti of

the duke's cappel/a, who was duly recorded as such in the court registers;40 but I

suspect that the instrument played was more likely the harpsichord that he is known to

have played in the theatres of Modena and Reggio.41

40 Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, pp. 16-17, sourced from /-MOas R. 179; 181-3; 186. For the sake of clarity, neither the accounts nor Crowther'S reproduction of court musicians registered to the ducal cappella lists a single woman.

41 Ibid. p. S.

223


The number of fifteen musicians listed above is also verified by folio 9r of the

accounts, where under the heading of 'Coppia della musica dell'opera et altre cose' a

charge of 20 MI is recorded for the 'legatura di 14 libri per l'orchestra'. This plus the

extant score used by the 'organista' equals fifteen parts. The accounts detail a payment

to the copyist, Domenico Giannini, for 408 folios of music copy at a cost of 10 soldi per

folio sheet (204 MI in total). The fact that Giannini is paid per folio sheet is probably the

reason why all da capo repeats were written out in full. The extant score (written

primarily in two parts: voice and continuo, but with four- and five-part ritornelli)

extends to 537 sides of music (including later inserted arias noted in Chapter 3). If we

allow for the fourteen parts bound for the musicians and (noting the aforementioned

express deliveries to Cecchi and Bonetti) also include the eight singers (while allowing

also for the full production score), then it would seem likely that the 408 folio sheets

were sufficient to cover the entire process.42 The binding of the fourteen parts

specifically 'per l'Orchestra' would also suggest that there was no sharing of the music

between musicians and that Bratti would have presumably played directly from the

partitura that remains extant today.

On this last point, Ferrari Moreni identifies the manuscript held at the Biblioteca

Estense as '10 spartito originale', and Luin seems to have drawn on his assertion by

herself confirming that it is 'irrefutably' written 'nella mano del Giannettini come

sospetto Ferrari Moreni' .43 However, despite the lack of a specific charge for the

copying of Giannettini's autograph within the accounts, it remains my view that the

surviving score is in fact a neat copy with amendments added during production that

doubles as both a production score and then a presentation one. This is supported by its

42 408 folios at eight sides each'" 3,264 sides. Less the score at S37 sides, leaves 2,727 sides, which divided among fourteen musicians and eight singers '" an average of 124 sides per part.

43 Ferrari Moreni, 'Un dramma in musica rappresentato in Modena nell'anno 1692', p. S63; Luin, 'Antonio Gianneltini e la musica a Modena', p. 184. Luin viewed the L 'ingresso at I-MOe for three days in 1956.

224


binding in Francesco's preferred flame-like covering, which he set aside for all

additions to his library.44 It might also explain why there was no specific charge for the

binding of the score itself. Certainly, as we have noted above, the volume of folios

copied by Giannini allows such a reading, And contrary to Luin, Alessandra Chiarelli

has identified the scribe of the manuscript as most probably Giovanni Braida, a court

copyist working under Giovanni Battista Giardini at this time as part of a team of five

copyists which included the aforementioned Domenico Giannini.45 As Braida's name

does not appear in the ledger, we might presume that payment was directed (or

referenced) to Giannini as the senior copyist. Alessandra Chiarelli has also identified the

score for n Mauritio (1689) as being in the same hand as L'ingresso, and she has cross-

referenced these two operas to other works known to have been copied by Braida,46

To return to the orchestra, it would seem that on the basis of Bratti at the

harpsichord leading an orchestra of fourteen other musicians, each of whom had their

own respective part, there is the question of whether Giannettini, as the composer and

maestro di cappella, joined the orchestra to perform his creation. Certainly, Giannettini

is not listed within the orchestra, nor is his time charged to Fontanelli for any of his

services. In fact, Giannettini's only listing within the accounts comes in the

aforementioned 'Coppia della musica dell'opera', where an entry for seventeen

quinternions of ruled manuscript paper is charged out as having been taken by the

composer at 50 soldi (2,10 MI) per quintemion for a total of 42.1 0 MI, plus some further

writing paper and implements at a cost of 2,06 Ml. On the assumption of each

quinternion containing five folio sheets (as the name implies), with each folio sheet

oW Luin, 'Antonio Giannettini e la musica a Modena', p. 184, cites Ferrari Moreni, 'Un dramma in musica rappresentato in Modena nell'anno 1692', p. 563. Chiarelli, I Codici di musicQ della racco/ta Estense, p. 172 (ref. 751) confirms the binding style used on the L 'ingresso score.


46 Chiarelli,lCodici di musica della racco/ta Estense, pp. 23-5,161, gives full details on Braida. See therein work nos. 99, 700, 716, 791,792, which 1 understand have been copied by Braida.

225


producing eight sides of manuscript paper, then the seventeen quintemions would have

given the composer 680 sides of music,47 which allowing for wastage is comparable to

the 537 sides of the finalised production score.

The issue of Giannettini's fee is addressed by Cottini's aforementioned affidavit

in support of Fontanelli in 1694, where he clearly identifies that the composer was to be

paid directly by Francesco. Regrettably, Cottini does not confirm for which services

Giannettini is to be recompensed and we are, therefore, unable to identify the precise

nature of his employment, or whether the payment (which would have been in addition

to his salary as maestro di cappel/a) was specifically for performing and directing the

opera, or for its composition. This noted, we must also remind ourselves that the

accounts served only to record the costs incurred by Fontanelli. As such, given that

Giannettini's fee was paid by Francesco, there is absolutely no reason why any payment

for him to play in the orchestra should have been recorded in the accounts. With this in

mind, there is a charge to the orchestra, which might add weight to the argument that

Giannettini did in fact play in the production. Here, Sebastian Ossa is paid a total of 86

MI for the tuning of the 'cembali'. As with Bratti, the precise instruments are not

detailed, but the reference to 'li cembali' is clearly in plural, thus suggesting there was

more than one harpsichord or other keyboard instrument. While it is possible for 'Ii

cembali' to refer to a single harpsichord, the probability is that the reference on this

occasion was to at least two. This would suggest that, if only for the opening gala

premiere, Bratti and Giannettini may both have played together, with the composer most

likely being seen to direct the opera seated at his keyboard; however, for this to have

happened, Giannettini would then have required recourse to his original autograph,

.., Five folio sheets at eight sides per folio equals fony sides per quintemion, which at seventeen quintemions would equate to 680 sides in total.

226


while Bratti would have played from the production copy (at that point, probably

unbound and collated into three separate acts). 48

Of the remaining fourteen musicians, twelve seem to have come, as usual, from

the duke's cappella while, as we have noted, two (Angelo Maria Fiore and Giovanni

Battista Bonini) were specially invited guest performers from the bride's court in

Parma. Of the twelve 'Modenese' musicians, four are unnamed, two are named only by

their Christian names, and one (Monsignor Amberville) is not readily identifiable; the

remaining five are listed by their full name and, like Bratti, can be verified as members

of the cappella.49 Apart from being relatively small, the make up of the orchestra is

balanced predominantly in favour of strings, though with an added solo trumpet which

serves to create a regal and ceremonial effect, as witnessed by its lead in the rather

coronation-like opening sinfonia to L'ingresso. The absence of wind instruments is

somewhat supported by Crowther's list of cappella musicians from 1674-81, which

names just a single 'cometto' player out of a list of seventeen instrumentalists.5o

The list of orchestral players divides those musicians in the employ of the ducal

cappella from Bonini and Fiore, who are paid at significantly higher rates. The motive

for this apparent discrepancy can be addressed by reference to Victor Crowther, who

also helps shed further light on the case of Giannettini. Crowther records that:

Once musicians were admitted to the cappella, their activities were carefully regulated. In return for board, lodging and ducal protection they were expected to provide music for all court functions ... church music in the chapel of San Vincenzo and chamber music in the royal palace at the duke's pleasure. Seasonal activities included performances of operas in the Fontanelli Theatre.51

.. Compare Luin, • Antonio Giannettini e la musica a Modena', p. 182.

49 Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, pp. 16-17, sourced from I-MOos R, 179; 181-3; 186.

so Ibid.

SI Ibid., • A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse', p. 211.

227


The cappella musicians' fees for L'ingresso served to supplement a basic salary

structure to which the musicians from Parma were not party. Reference back to the

accounts for Flavio and Ilfiglio shows that in respect of the duke's musicians this seems

to have been a consistent policy applied across all three productions. Effectively, then,

their cost was shared by Fontanelli and Francesco. Again, Crowther sheds some light on

the practices at hand when he reveals how salaries in the cappella were negotiated on an

individual basis with no standard rates for anyone post:

It appears that, in fixing the regular salaries, the court took into account a musician's other sources of income. Domenico Bratti, the court organist, was paid a modest salary of 32 lire but also held the organist's post at the cathedral and supplemented his earnings still further by playing the harpsichord in the theatres of Modena and Reggio.52

Indeed, as the 'organista' for L'ingresso, Bratti was the highest paid member of the

Modenese musicians. By contrast, Giannettini, as maestro di cappella, was

understandably paid a higher retention of 12 dobble per month (396 MI in 1687, but 456

MI in 1692),53 which, in turn, perhaps explains why in conjunction with his payment by

Francesco he received no payment in the accounts either for his composition or for his

possible performance at the harpsichord.

Accordingly, we see how in real terms Francesco supported Fontanelli's theatre

through two indirect, and most certainly hidden, subsidies of the theatre. First,

Fontanelli does not have to suffer the cost of purchasing his own opera (likewise, the

librettist Giambattista Neri is not declared within the accounts). Second, the reduced

charges Fontanelli now had to pay his musicians effectively meant that here again Duke

Francesco was in reality subsidising the theatre through his patronage of the ducal

cappella. This becomes apparent when we break down and compare the respective fees

of the Modenese musicians adjusted into in a descending order that also reinforces the

$llbid.

53 Ibid.

228


social stature of the instruments within the orchestra. To this end, with some limited

revision, we can determine the following structure per instrument, per night:

Keyboard First Violin Trumpet Contrabass Second Violin Theorbo Violoncello Violas

15 MI 14 MI 12.07 MI 12 MI 8MI 6MI 4.03 MI 4MI

By contrast, Fiore and Bonini-who like all foreign or distinguished performers were

paid in dobble or doppie-received the equivalent of 38 MI and 31.13 MI respectively

per night. If we compare Fiore's and Bonini's fees to their Modenese counterparts of

Sig. Antonio on violoncello (4.03 MI) and Simone Ascani on theorbo (6 MI), then

effectively the differential between cappella and non-cappella musicians is 59 MI per

night, or 708 MI over the entire production. Of course, such an adjustment does not

allow for any differential in the quality of musician that such variances might also

identify. But the practice of using additional musicians beyond the duke's cappella can

be noted as having been established prior to L'ingresso, if we refer back to the Flavio

accounts (Table 4.1 above), though note that the cost of 836 MI for L'ingresso was 224

MI higher than the 612 MI charged to Flavio.54 Put another way, 224 MI might appear

now to equate to the cost of the demands of political protocol, which may have dictated

that musicians from Parma were represented in the production. Thus when we compare

the global costs of the orchestra, including the additional musicians for Flavio (1688) at

1,921 MI compared to 2,236 MI for L'ingresso, we see that the difference of315 MI is

in the most part attributable to the additional musicians brought in from Parma.

54 The charge in the accounts includes 86 MI for tuning the 'cembali', thus giving a total additional cost of 922 MI.

229


While on its own the differential between the two productions was not critical,

the total additional cost of Fiore and Bonini was 836 Ml and equated to 37.39% of the

total charge against the orchestra and as such greatly augmented the production costs for

L'ingresso. However, the cost of the orchestra was also seemingly increased post

production after the drawing up of the original loss figure. In March 1694, Cashier

Roncaglia made further payments totalling 1,220 Ml to 'diversi sonatori' in addition to

those listed within the accounts. The sum itself is more than half the original cost of the

orchestra and is supported, in part, by a memorandum held at the rear of the accounts.

Yet the matter is more complicated than at first appears, not least because the function

of the payments belongs more to the reconciliation of the loss post-production than to

computing the true cost of L ';ngresso. It is also possible that the sum included the

reimbursement of Fontanelli for a 'cash' payment made to Domenico Cecchi at the time

of the opera's commissioning. As such, the entire matter is addressed in more detail in

Chapter 5. For this reason, however, we should be careful not to assume the addition of

this sum to the cost of the orchestra in full. Moreover, the fact that Roncaglia's payment

has the effect of reducing the loss declared reveals that by the time of the entry a

fundamental change had occurred in respect of the ownership of the loss, so that it is

now viewed from the perspective of the duke's treasury and not of the Teatro

Fontanelli. This distinction will become key to our understanding of the reconciliation

process.

Up to this point, the accounts have served to identify and verify the huge investment

undertaken in staging L ';ngresso, and indeed the nature of that expenditure. Not least,

the high costs of costumes and scenery have long since been held as the primary cause

of the loss incurred on production. But the accounts also address the issue of revenue

through a listing of nightly ticket sales, box rentals and ducal rega/o, as well as

230


providing an end Profit and Loss Account, which identifies how the loss was computed,

and how it was subsequently managed. Chapter 5 will provide a closer inspection of this

income from the perspective of actual revenue generated against what we might now

identify as projected targets, in order to address under what criteria and whose authority

such expenditure was considered sustainable. Having quantified the resultant loss, I will

then seek to establish an audit trail by which we can identify precisely how the ducal

accounts were subsequently manipulated in a way that simultaneously protected the

impresario from both the deficit incurred and his original loan granted to establish

public opera in Modena. To this end, the duke's death in 1694 appears to have triggered

the need to bring the theatre's affairs to order. It is precisely the procedure by which this

objective was achieved which now offers a rare insight not only into the administration

of opera under the patronage of Duke Francesco, but also into the wider machinations of

how opera functioned in the provincial centres of Northern Italy at the end of the

seventeenth century.

231

Paul Atkin, Chapter S

Chapter 5.

"Profit" and "Loss"

Mare e la corte, ed e naufragio il regno.

L'ingresso,lI.vii.28.

Aspasio's caustic criticism of the decadent reign of Claudio Nerone at the end of Act II

of L'ingresso might now be seen as somewhat ironic given the loss suffered and the

subsequent disbursements made by Duke Francesco post-production. In addition to the

declared loss as per the accounts in 1692 of 5,959 Ml, the duke's cashier, Roncaglia,

also paid out a further 1,220 MI in 1694 to the orchestra, and of course, there remained

the original agreement to pay both Siface (1,900 Ml) and Giannettini (amount not

known) directly. At the very least, then, the loss amounted to 9,079 MI in real tenns

with the total end cost suffered by Francesco rising to 16,679 Ml when we add back his

original pre-production 'regalo' of 200 dobble (7,600 Ml).1 By comparison to the

declared Net Profit on Flavio Cuniberto (1688) of 451 MI (for which Francesco's

liability had been limited to a similar pre-production payment totalling 200 dobble) and

Rinaldo's end-of-production 'regalo' on n jiglio delle selve (1700) of 4,274 Ml (which

simply made good the loss incurred on production), the cost of L 'ingresso to the ducal

coffers was staggering. Of course, we need to bear in mind the exceptional nature of

wedding festivities in any final analysis, and probably, in comparison to the greater state

budget, the sum was not as overwhelming as it at first appears, but in the absence of any

obvious cost comparisons for the upkeep of the ducal cappella, the loss comfortably

exceeded the original loan of 13,200 MI granted Fontanelli in 1685 and represented a

I Note that the dukc's latcr assumption ofthe fee of 1,900 Ml for De Grandis is already included in thc loss figure declared in 1692.

232

Paul Atkin. Chapter S

fifth of the purchase price of 81,141 MI when Fontanelli had bought the theatre in

1683.2

The historical perspective has been that losses at this rate were unsustainable and

that as a consequence opera under Francesco came to a sharp and bitter end. The next

productions in Modena would be the simultaneous double staging ('a vicenda') of II

Giustino and Non dafreno all'amor disuguaglianza (Teatro Fontanelli, 1697) under the

reign of Rinaldo, when Cottini would sign both dedications. Of course, the matter was

more complicated than that. Both Francesco and Fontanelli's wife fell ill in the period

after L'ingresso, both dying in 1694. In different ways, their respective illnesses and

deaths could on their own have brought opera to an end, as we shall come to consider.

Fontanelli never signed a dedication again. But it is the loss that remains most easily

identifiable and quantifiable. Accordingly, it tends to dominate any review of the opera.

Previously, the production costs of the revivals at the Teatro Fontanelli (if we can gauge

anything from Flavio) appear to have broken even, more or less, thus allowing for a

burgeoning growth in opera. By contrast, the loss on L'ingresso--coming, as it did, so

soon after the financial crisis of 1689-has generally been accepted as the breaking

point, not only for music patronage in Modena but also for the duke's finances, and it

seems, by consequence, to have stretched the duke's treasury to its near limit. Crowther

notes:

Ill-health and anxiety about the affairs of the state clouded the last years of Francesco's reign. The marriage, which should have rekindled hope, proved childless. The expense of it depleted the state coffers to such an extent that musicians in the cappella were unpaid between November 1692 and February 1694. In organizing seasons of oratorio, Giannettini was obliged, for the first time, to trim expenditure by recycling works from previous seasons.3

1 The remit of Crowther. The Oratorio in Modena. was not to provide I financial review of its accounts.

J Ibid .• p. 119.

233


But regardless of the causes of the cessation of opera under Francesco, the duke's death

on 6 September 1694 necessitated that both the theatre and the court records had to be

closed off and reconciled. This would have required the duke's administration to

address F ontanelli' s outstanding loan as part of a deal that would also credit and thereby

release the impresario from the loss incurred in 1692; and while work on resolving the

deficit can be dated back to February and March 1694, the entire process would take

until 31 October 1698 before it reached its conclusion.

We need first to address how and on what basis the original loss of 1692 was

sustained. While the size of deficit was indeed huge by comparison to that of a revival,

it was not necessarily so for a 'wedding' opera. For this reason, L'ingresso makes a

difficult tool by which to examine the viability of opera under Francesco. Nonetheless,

the need for display must surely have led to a realisation that exceptional costs would

have been incurred on production. That such costs were therefore sanctioned can lead us

to arrive at three rather obvious scenarios, all of which are possible both in part or in

whole: first, the budget (if one existed) was inadequate and underestimated the costs

incurred; second, the loss was considered a price worth paying, given the benefit for

state propaganda; third, there was an anticipation that revenue on production would

increase sufficiently to support the additional costs.

The first half of this chapter addresses two separate but critical issues in defining

our understanding of whether or not such a loss might have been anticipated. I will

consider the extent to which the causes of the loss were more complex than we may

have thought, and the extent to which any resultant failure to achieve the expected ticket

sales may have become more significant than simply an overspend on costumes and

scenery. I will then seek to quantify the extent to which Fontanelli may have based his

increased investment in L'ingresso on budgetary projections which would have

encouraged, if not justified, an expectation for a better return than was ultimately

234


realised. This can be attempted through a comparative study of the receipts for

L'ingresso against the original income forecast for the theatre, as identified (but not

explored) in Chapter 2 when the then Teatro Valentini sought to prepare itself for opera.

Once collated, these projections can be compared to the declared levels of income for

the three extant accounts of Flavia Cuniberto (1688), L'ingresso (1692), and II figlio

delle selve (1700), where we can see the effect of fluctuating ticket sales on turnover.

This will establish a basis by which to undertake a brief comparative study of the Flavio

accounts and to create a model against which L'ingresso can be measured, not only in

terms of achievable revenue, but more significantly in identifying a precedent for the

post-production manipulation of the accounts for the promotion of opera in Modena,

and as a consequence the degree by which the accounting methods employed can be

seen to have served the mutual interests of both the duke and his impresario.

The second half of this chapter will address the reconciliation of Fontanelli's

outstanding loan and the treatment of the loss on L 'ingresso within this process, both in

financial and political terms, through an audit of the L'ingresso accounts and the loose

documents held therein. Central to this analysis will be the identification of an audit trail

that establishes the extent to which the loss was manipulated in terms both of its

valuation and of its formal settlement by an over-riding political need to satisfy the loan

without further cost to Fontanelli, which consequently determined and directed the

accounting strategy employed and so inextricably made the resolution of each liability

dependent upon the reconciliation of the other.

235


Production revenues

i. THE LOSS ON L'INGRESSO

Having thus addressed all areas of cost in Chapter 4, we finally come to the issue

of revenue received, and, as a consequence, we can attempt to assess the success of the

production in terms of the revenue levels it achieved. Accordingly, I should note from

the outset that any reference to the popularity of the opera should be read in terms of its

financial success, or not, as opposed to an attempt to use revenue as an indicator of the

popularity of L'ingresso with its public. The temptation to assume that if a given

production fails to achieve its targeted revenue, then it can be perceived as having been

rejected by its public-as has been the practice with L'ingresso to date-simply fails to

take all matters into account, not least, for example, the possibility that the projected

sales may have been overstated from the outset. 4

As we come to address the L 'ingresso accounts, we should recall that while they

end with a totalling of all expenditure incurred (though not necessarily paid), all income

listed remains the formal record of 'cash takings' officially received. This results in a

Profit and Loss Account (Ex. 5.1) which declares a loss in 1692 of 5,959 Ml:

Ex. 5.1: Profit and Loss Account: end summary, 1692 (f.20v)

Total expenditure [amdended to £24,186.18.2 in 1694]· £ 24,170.18.2

Total income - £ 18,211.00.0

Net loss £ 5,959.18.2

~ Ferrari Moreni, 'Un dramma in musica rappresentato in Modena nell'anno 1692', p. S63; Gandini, Cronistoria, 1, p. 79; Luin, 'Antonio Gianettini e la musica a Modena', p. 184.

236


As ever, any income from gambling, or from the sale of wines and foodstuffs is omitted

from the declared income, though amusingly a scribal error on folio 19r mistakenly lists

'Cavato delli Palchi, Banche e Giocho' within its heading of income streams, before

then leaving the 'entry' after 'Banche' entirely blank:. This repeats the treatment of such

income as seen in the accounts also for Flavio and II figlio (given in Chapter 2), where

gambling and the sale of food and wine were always kept outside the official ledgers.

We might hypothesise, therefore, that the scribe would have realised his error when he

came to enter the detail of the gambling income. At this point, in not wanting to ruin his

neat copy of the accounts, he may well have left the title entry untouched, hoping that

no one would notice his oversight. Its value to us here is that finally we have an entry

which actually recognises the existence of gambling and, in doing so, confirms that such

additional revenue streams really did exist. Moreover, the subsequent lack of detail

confirms that these funds remained at all times outside the agenda and not a matter of

ducal interest. Instead, while the duke underwrote Fontanelli's losses on production,

these complementary activities to the social event seem to have been taken as the

impresario's reward for his efforts. The implication is quite clearly that Francesco was

concerned only with investing in opera and was not too interested in how Fontanelli

carried out his wishes. As such, providing the impresario delivered 'public' opera to the

duke's satisfaction, then any additional benefits that he might gain as a by-product were

a matter for him alone.

It is in this light that we come to address the formally declared income of

L'ingresso. For the purposes of comparison between operas, I have ignored the 450 MI

received for the printing of the librettos, and so focus only on ducal 'regalo', ticket

sales, and box and bench rentals.s To this end, the 'Cavato dalli Bollettini' (f. 18r)

reveals the number of nightly ticket sales and so offers an opportunity to assess and

5 Thus, the total income of 18,211 MI equates to 17,761 MI when viewed in terms of the ducal 'regalo' and public sales.

237


compare the popularity of the production in terms of revenue earned over its twelve

performances. While the accounts for II figlio only provide an end total of 4,059

admissions over twenty-one performances at an average of 193 per night, the accounts

for Flavio provide a nightly summary that allows direct comparison of its popularity

with L 'ingresso. If we measure the income declared from public sources, a remarkable

parity in income achieved can be seen in respect of both productions (Table 5.1):

Table 5.1: Revenue streams from 'public' sources for Flavio and L'ingresso6

F/avlo (1688) Ml Ticket sales at 3 MI each 7,791 (2,597 tickets) Box rentals 1,541 Bench rentals 839 Total income from 'public' sales 10,171

L'ingresso (1692)

Ticket sales at 3 MI each 7,371 (2,457 tickets) Box rentals 1,540 Bench rentals 1,250 Total income from 'public' sales 10,161

Before addressing the issue of ticket sales, we should first note how the Flavio and

L'ingresso accounts (the latter of which note 'banche affittate a Giacomo Correggio il

tutto come dal conto del Signor Girolamo Britii insomma al No. 1,250 MI') reveal the

same procedures with regard to bench rentals, whereby some tiers of the theatre may

have been sub-let first by Fontanelli to Britii, and then by Britii to Correggio. The issue

is a small one, but bears comparison with the management structure identified in

Chapter 2 in respect of the Teatro Valentini and reveals a level of sub-letting previously

undocumented at the Teatro Fontanelli. We should also recognise that both box rentals

were probably at a fixed cost per season (hence their near identical totals), and that both

box and bench receipts relate to income accrued from the 154 boxes set out over six

tiers in the Teatro Fontanelli. While the box receipts appear to relate to boxes hired for

6 Sources: Flavia, I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 168S-170S.' Casso n. 8.a; L'ingressa, accounts.

238


the entire run, the ' cavato' from benches appears to apply to the nightly sales of those

remaining places. This is supported by the way in which the income is collated in all

three operas we have viewed, and also by the practice in Venice by which the nightly

income is attributed to two sources: the sale of bollet/ini and to takings ' from the nightly

rental of those boxes, usually in the highest, least desirable, row, not rented out for the

season'.7

By contrast to the stability of the boxes, the critical factor arising from Table 5.1

is that Flavio achieved higher sales over fewer performances (eleven as opposed to the

twelve of L 'ingresso). If we take these figures and compare the sale of bollettini on a

per-night basis (Table 5.2), then a very different perspective is revealed with regard

both to the ticket sales of the operas and to the tendencies of their publics:

Table 5.2: Flavio and L'ingresso: ticket sales per night8

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

ISO

100

SO

o 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

OF/avio • L'ingresso

9th 10th 11th 12th

Two points of significance emerge. First, whereas Flavio can be seen to grow steadi ly in

popularity from 160 on its first night to an end high of 490 on its last, L'ingresso can be

7 B. and J. Glixon, IlTVenting the Business o/Opera, p. 15.

S Sources: Flavio, I-MOos SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato' , 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685- 1705.' ass. n. 8.a; L'ingresso. accounts.

239


seen to fall from a near high of 321 on the opening 'gala' night, to just 178 on its last

staging (albeit that the pattern is subverted by a peak on its ninth performance). While

the margins are slender-as we would expect for a provincial theatre in a relatively

small centre where the sales-base was naturally restricted-L 'ingresso, nonetheless,

failed to grow in the way that Flavio achieved. Likewise, while Flavio averaged a

nightly turnout of 236, the average number of tickets sold in 1692 was just 205 per

night. If for the purposes of comparison to L 'ingressa, we apply the average for Flavia

over twelve nights, then the aggregate turnout totals 2,832, some 375 more than

L'ingressa (2,457) at a value of 1,125 Ml. It would seem, then, not only that Flavia can

be considered the more successful in terms of ticket sales, but also that its revenues

seem to have grown through the season. In contrast, the high turnout that one would

have expected for L 'ingressa on its premiere, if only because of the presence of the

duke and his new bride on her first evening among the Modenese social elite, soon fell

away and thereafter attracted relatively poor ticket sales.

Second, both productions share a repeated pattern of clear and sharp rises in

attendance levels throughout the run. In the case of Flavia, there are four nights where

the turnout rose to highs of 330, 406, 300 and 490, all of which occurred in four of the

last six performances. L'ingressa, too, can be seen to repeat this practice, though

noticeably at regulated intervals of the first, fifth and ninth nights, with lesser

attendances of321, 256 and 338. To some extent, such fluctuation can be addressed by

viewing the days when the performances were given, which we can compute for both

operas (Table 5.3). As identified in Chapter 2, each season was designed so that

Monday, Tuesday and Friday were unquestionably the most popular days in terms of the

number of performances given, with the remaining days serving in the main as rest

days.

240

Paul Atkin, Chapter .s

Table 5.3: Comparison of ticket sales against attendance at opera for Flavio and L'ingresso9

Flavio Dates - ticket sales Totals Ave sales

Monday 6/11 - 170 13/11 - 330 20/11 - 300 800 (3) 267 Tuesday 7/11-212 14/11 - 406 21111 - 490 1,108 (3) 369 Wednesday 8/11 - 112 112 (I) 112 Thursday 16/11 - 170 170 (I) 170 Friday 3/11-160 10/11 - 100 17/11 -147 407 (3) 136 Saturday none Sunday none

L'ingresso Dates - ticket sales Totals Ave sales

Monday 15/11 - 178 22/11 - 197 29/11 - 178 553 (3) 184 Tuesday 9/11 - 321 16/11-256 23/11 - 338 915 (3) 305 Wednesday 10/11 - 182 182 (1) 182 Thursday 18/11 - 140 140 (1) 140 Friday 12/11 - 185 19/11 - 142 26/11 - 146 473 (3) 158 Saturday 27/11-194 194 (I) 194 Sunday none

What becomes evident is that while the patterns of attendance for the days when opera

is given remain constant, L'ingresso generally (though not always) attracted a lesser

number of ticket sales in comparison to Flavio, and that, as I have noted, the numbers

attending reduced through the season while those for Flavio increased.

If on two occasions the number of tickets bought for Flavio surpassed 400 to

reach 406 and 490, then what do such returns tell us ultimately about the popularity of

L'ingresso and arguably of the Modenese court's enthusiasm for the marriage of

Francesco to Margherita, and, as a consequence, of her welcome to Modena, when on

this gala occasion a mere 321 tickets were sold? Of course, the relatively low ticket

sales might well be explained by the 16 MI charged to the L'ingresso accounts (f. 16r)

for the printing of invitation cards. The entry reveals that there would have been, what is

regrettably, an unidentified number of invited guests present on that first, and even

perhaps subsequent, nights. But if we take the 490 tickets sold on the last night of

Flavio, we might assume that the maximum number of tickets available for purchase on

9 Ibid.

241

Paul Atkin, Chapter'

any given night would have been around 500. This should not be confused with the

theatre's capacity as discussed in Chapter 2, which would have been in the region of

1,000 to 1,250, and which, significantly, would have included the rented boxes where

the more honoured guests would probably have been accommodated in any event. Even

so, if for the purposes of this example we allow roughly 180 spaces for those guests

who might have affected the number of tickets available for sale, so that we reconcile

the first night sales of 321 and assume a capacity audience, then as the season

progressed, one might generally have expected the number of invited guests to fall away

night after night, thereby allowing more tickets to be available for purchase. Certainly,

we would not expect the number of guests to have increased. Regardless, then, of the

fact that the first night might well have had its sales on the night restricted by an

estimated 180 invited guests, the fact remains that other than on the ninth night (338

tickets sold), the premiere achieved the highest number of ticket sales of any given

performance (321), thus reflecting the relative popularity of the gala occasion.

Thereafter, even if we continue to allow for a reduced number of tickets sold on the

basis of the invited guests, it remains undisputable that on subsequent nights sales fell

further at a time when we would expect the numbers of invited guests to have fallen,

and consequently tickets sold to have risen. That this did not happen means that the

numbers attracted to L'ingresso remained lower than for Flavio, even if for whatever

reason Friday night appears to have been more popular in 1692. Nonetheless, given the

occasion and the opportunity that the opera afforded of the very first chance to view the

newly arrived Margherita, it is not unreasonable to presume that in budgeting for the

opera, Fontanelli would have expected L'ingresso to have achieved better figures

overall and a full house on its opening night for what must surely have been one of the

most momentous evenings in Modenese society.

242


Accordingly, we are drawn to the conclusion that the ticket sales stated most

probably failed to achieve the budgeted targets. Indeed, it would seem inconceivable for

Fontanelli (and probably the duke's court) not to have taken into consideration the

increased likelihood of higher sales due to the social value of the spectacle, and for him

not to have been aware of the number of invited guests, when computing the level of his

investment in the lavish costumes and scenery for L'ingresso. As such, these figures

must have proven bad news for Fontanelli in more ways than one, presumably because

fewer tickets sold also equated to less people passing the evening in his theatre. As

such, the drop in tickets sold would have had a knock-on effect 'off record' of reducing

Fontanelli's take from food, wine and gambling, thus compounding his loss further.

The success of Flavio, and presumably of those operas given annually in the

years leading up to L'ingresso (for which there are no accounts), would suggest that

Fontanelli might have reasonably budgeted for a turnout at least equal to Flavio, which

had it been achieved over twelve nights would have yielded ticket sales of 8,496 MI

(1,125 Ml more than the total of 7,371 Ml actually achieved). Moreover, given the

occasion and increased investment in the production, Fontanelli might even have had

reason to set his targets towards the higher attendances achieved by Flavio. On even a

moderate basis, Fontanelli may have anticipated an average turnout (irrespective of and

in addition to the duke's invited guests) of, say, 350 per night or 12,600 MI over the

production (Le., 70% of the theatre's capacity).IO As was seen by the first night, this

quantity of ticket-buying patrons was evidently achievable. When viewed from this

perspective, our understanding of the cause of the heavy loss on L'ingresso changes

completely. Instead of the losses being attributed solely to the excesses of costumes and

scenery (not to mention the singers), the potential shortfall on projected ticket sales-

10 350 tickets at 3 MI, multiplied by 12 nights.

243


which on the basis of this hypothesis would have been 5,229 Mill-can now be seen in

itself to have been almost equal to the original loss in 1692 of5,959 Ml.

If so, then we arrive at quite a remarkable situation whereby despite all the

blatant propaganda and use of the Teatro Fontanelli for court celebration and ducal

display, Duke Francesco's experiment with 'public' opera ultimately failed as a

consequence of the opera-going public's rejection of a given production, and by its

resultant unwillingness or financial inability to participate and fulfil its role in support

of the duke's private entertainment. While, as noted in Chapter 2, the losses suffered

can be justified by the value in publicity brought to the ruling classes, ultimately it

seems that such costs were not sustainable indefinitely. As such, despite all of his power

and influence, Francesco was left exposed to carry the cost directly because of the

public's rejection of opera in Modena or, at least, of L 'ingresso. Consequently, we are

drawn to the conclusion that while previously the public in Modena had shown

encouraging signs of being able to sustain a growing opera industry, when it came to

L 'ingresso, then for whatever reason, their failure to buy tickets meant that despite the

huge investment by their duke, opera finally proved unsustainable.

Whether or not the public's rejection of L'ingresso was based on its poor

reception, the accounts suggest that it was their failure to buy tickets for a ducal festivity

which had sought to compare itself to the magnificence of the displays given by Louis

XIV that was ultimately the primary cause of the exceptional loss suffered. While such

losses have often been taken as the cost of a rich man's entertainment, the distinction in

respect of the disappointing return on ticket sales for L 'ingresso was simply that had

reasonable returns have been achieved, then there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a

deficit on production could have been avoided. Thus, the consequent shortfall inevitably

II 12,600 MI 'projected' less 7,371 MI actual.

244


raises the question of to what extent would Fontanelli (and, thereby, Francesco) have

anticipated and budgeted for higher sales, and, whether his computations would then

have given him sufficient justification to undertake the investment which followed?

ii. BUDGETING FOR A "PROFIT"

While, by 1692, Fontanelli would presumably have had several years of

accounting data upon which to base his projections for L 'ingresso, we are sadly limited

in any attempt at a comparative study of the accounts to Gandini's brief citation of the

prices charged by Toschi for the boxes and platea at the new theatre for public opera.12

While Gandini fails to cite the location of his source, the fact that these prices are

attributed directly to roschi, and not Fontanelli, would date the projections at

somewhere between 1681 and 1683. Nonetheless, the core data cited enables us to

reconstruct a reasonable income forecast by which to give context to the turnover on

L'ingresso.

It would seem from Gandini' s report that the aim at the outset had been to rent

twenty-four of the thirty boxes available on the 'primo ordine' at a rate of 40 MI per

box, per season (the same rate as charged for commedie). This presumably allowed for

six boxes to be allocated to Francesco free of charge, of which four are clearly identified

as such. Gandini confirms the total income as coming to 940 MI, noting that the box

taken by Cesare Ignazio had been discounted to 20 MI on account that it was 'troppo

vicino aHa scena,.13 This strategy is verified by two extant plans of the boxes for the

theatre in the archives, which corroborate Gandini but also show Cesare Ignazio to have

moved to box 9, a far more central position (thus returning the total income achievable

12 Gandini, Cronisloria, I, p. 69.

13 Ibid., primo ordine: 23 boxes at 40 MI = 920 MI plus Cesare Ignazio's box, discounted to 20 MI- 940 MI.

245


from the 'primo ordine' to 960 MI).14 Here, the two plans in question (which may well

have served as Gandini's source) show that of the 154 boxes for hire, anything from

fifteen (10%) up to a possible thirty (20%) boxes were left untaken, though this number

is subject to fluctuation as it is entirely unclear whether these relate to fixed bookings or

to budgeted (and therefore hoped for) sales, or simply boxes allocated under other

criteria. Additionally, some of the boxes, such as those allocated to the duke's pages and

the old impresario, appear not to have attracted a fee (although Gandini does allocate a

charge of 50 MI against the pages below). While Gandini's figures clearly relate to the

new theatre prior to Fontanelli's involvement, we should note that one of these plans is

dated 1687 (when no opera was given) and might, therefore, relate to Flavio Cuniberto

(given eventually in 1688). Gandini proceeds to detail Toschi's pricing policy for the

remainder of the theatre as follows:

I palchi di second'ordine pagavano ciascuno L. 50; la qual somma si ricavava pure dai dodici di facciata in terz'ordine. Da quelli di fianco si prendeva quello che si poteva avere. Nel terz'ordine eravi i1 palco dei soci Valentini e Toschi. Nella fila a terreno i1 palco dei signori paggi pagava Modenesi L. 50, e gli altri dalle L. 15 aIle 20. Le panche da sedere pagavano 5, 0 6 lire per ogni sera di Carnevale. IS

The aforementioned charge for the 'primo ordine' (40 MI) is rather curiously 10 MI

cheaper than those tiers above it, when one might have supposed that the duke's

preferred level would have attracted a higher price, not least by the implication that it

afforded the best view. This, as I shall come to note, might well reflect the possibility

that the duke's 'regalo' of 200 dobble effectively reserved these boxes for his guests or

favourites and that as such the price was discounted accordingly. In the light of what

these figures reveal, it is hugely regrettable that Gandini fails to reveal either his source

for his computations or the workings that eventually allow him to declare a Total Net

14 I-MOas SP, 'Progetti e spese per teatri e rappresentazioni', 'Liste dei servitori ducali che godevano del diritto di cntrare csenti in tcatro, 1681-1691', Casso n. 7.

IS Gandini, Cronistoria, I, pp. 69-70.

246


Profit achievable, inclusive of revenues to be gained from 'giuoco delle Carte' and from

those that 'davano i Burattini', which he estimates secured a 'guadagno netto annuo del

teatro ascendeva a Modenese L. 4,078' ,16 Ultimately, however, his figures remain our

only basis of comparison to those sums actually achieved later on. While the

contribution to profit from the income earned from privileges was addressed in Chapter

2, their importance here serves to underline not only an expectation of a surplus, but

also a specific and deliberate targeting of a profit by which we can ultimately seek to

measure and identify a better understanding of the failings of L 'ingresso.

We can do this by taking Gandini's core figures and tentatively computing

potential revenues for a model twelve-night production achievable from box rental and

ticket sales at a range of 50%, 75%, and 100% capacity (Table 5.4). In turn, we can then

seek to situate and compare the actual receipts as detailed in the L 'ingresso accounts, as

the following computations now identify:

16 Ibid., p. 70.

247


Table 5.4: Projected receipts from box rental and sale of bollettini at the Teatro Fontanelli, as per Gandini in comparison to L'ingresso l7

Projected receipts as per Gandini

Capacity Charge per Potential revenue over variances in (boxes) Gandini

at 50% MI MI

Ordini:

Terreno: paggi 50 25 Terreno: centre II 20 110 Terreno: wings 8 15 60 Basso: centre 12 20 105 Basso: wings 14 IS 480 Primo (4 free to SAS + 2) 24 40 480 Secondo (4 free to princes) 26 50 650 Terzo: centre (2 free to owners) 10 50 250 Terzo: wings 18 15 135 Quarto: centre 12 20 120 Quarto: wings 18 15 135

Total box receipts (12 free) 154 2,550

Platea over 12 nights at 500 6,000 5 15,000

Total projected receipts 17,550

Platea at L 'Ingresso prices 6,000 3 9,000

Total revised income 11,550

Actual receipts per L'ingresso accounts

Cavato delll paichl e banche

Cavato dalll bollettlnl

Total actual receipts

2,457

• Total capacity of boxes ~ 166 (- 12 free = 154 chargeable).

3

• Sale of bollettini estimated at 500 on basis of maximum of 490 for Flavio. • The income from palchi included the renting of the benches for L 'ingresso at 1,250 Ml.

capacity

at 750/. MI

38 165 90

158 720

720 975 375 203 180 203

3,825

22,500

26,325

13,500

17,325

at 1000/. MI

50 220 120 210 960 960

1,300 500 270 240 270

5,100

30,000

35,100

18,000

23,100

2,790 7,371

10,161

It has to be made abundantly clear from the outset that the above calculations, while

made in good faith, are entirely without an authenticated source by which an audit trail

can be accessed to corroborate the end data, and are therefore entirely reliant on the

17 After ibid., pp. 69-70; L'ingresso, accounts.

248


figures quoted by Gandini. With this caveat noted, the theatre's plans clearly identify a

total of 166 boxes (of which twelve appear to have been awarded gratis), against which

Gandini provides a clear pricing strategy (not confirmed on the plans). Thereafter, the

50%, 75% and 100% variations on uptake allow comfortably for those boxes, which

went unallocated as per the plans. Likewise, as we have seen above, the additional

nightly ticket sales for Flavio peaked at 490, thus suggesting that my own added

estimate of 500 is feasible.

Nonetheless, at first glance, a brief overview of the above projection suggests

that if we were to assume a 100% capacity then Toschi's figures would appear too

ambitious and, like most cash-flow forecasts, overstate the potential income. This is

most acute with regard the budgeting for the bollettini at '5, or 6 lire per ogni sera',

when L 'ingresso achieved only 3 Ml. 18 It is equally possible that the actual receipts later

reported for L'ingresso are considerably understated. This second option would again

bring into question the purpose and function of the L 'ingresso accounts, and allow for

the possibility raised in Chapter 2 whereby Fontanelli (with the duke's authority) might

have deducted a percentage or share of the actual takings from the sums declared within

the accounts; however, if 100% capacity appears overambitious, the potential for 50%

and 75% returns appear more realistic and would certainly reconcile better with the

receipts reported in the L 'ingresso accounts.

As such, there appears some basis to assume that both sets of figures have the

potential to be correct at their time of computation. If so, then when set against my

realisation of Gandiniffoschi's computations, L 'jngresso would appear to have operated

at just under half the theatre's earning capacity. This poor return would clearly explain

the huge loss of 5,959 Ml originally suffered and would support any argument in favour

of low ticket sales being the primary cause of the loss. Moreover, this hypothesis is

.1 Ibid .• p. 70.

249


corroborated, first, by the aggregate nightly ticket sales of 2,457, which equate to just

205 bollettini per night or 41 % of the capacity-again noting that Flavio achieved up to

490 at its height-and second, by the income from box and bench rentals whereby

L'ingresso totalled 2,790 MI or 55% of the projected capacity in Table 5.4. Similarly, if

we view these two sources as a single total of 10,161 MI returned from direct public

sales for L'ingresso against Gandini's total projected income achievable of 23,100 MI

(but after the adjustment of the price of bollettini to equal the actual recorded charge of

3 MI in 1692), then L'ingresso shows an end cumulative return of just 44% of its

potential earnings. Even if we allow a margin of error on these figures given the lack of

corroboration, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Fontanelli's increased investment

in costumes and scenery would have been made on the expectation of a better-attended

opera. Moreover, given the duke's control over music production and his promise to

make good the impresario's potential losses, we might suggest that Francesco's court

would have approved Fontanelli's expenditure under the same shared expectation of

higher revenues. Certainly, we shall come to note Fontanelli's claim that he only

exposed himself to such risk after having received the duke's guarantee that he would

suffer no harm.

While the two sets of figures appear ultimately reconcilable, Gandini's

projections in terms of box rentals are initially brought into question by the sharp

contrast to the prices cited by a listing of box rental revenues for Flavio, which shows

some eighty boxes rented to various aristocratic families by the same Girolamo Britii as

we noted sub-letting benches in the L'ingresso accounts. 19 Ofthe boxes rented, three are

assigned without a fee, including one for Britii, one for the old owner Valentini, and one

for a Dr Cassio who is unknown other than he might be the signatory on the final loan

settlement discussed below. There appear to be two price levels of 15 Ml and 21.10 Ml,

19 I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685·1705.' Casso n. 8.a.

250


giving a total income from boxes purchased for the season of 1,541.10. The handful of

charges at 30 MI and 43 MI would seem to be for two boxes, but might be for boxes at

the higher price range as indicated above. The accounts also detail nightly collections of

'cavato dalle banche' totalling 839 MI, but without a breakdown of the individual prices

charged.

The listing of boxes rented for Flavio offers several options which can be seen

as problematic when we come to reconcile them with Toschi's projections as presented

by Gandini. While, at first glance, the confirmation of just eighty boxes rented for

Flavio tends to support the suggestion of a similar c.50% turnout for L'ingresso, the

tiers in which the boxes have been rented are not identified, and this prevents a clear

and precise reconciliation with Toschi's budget, or a recalculation of his forecast.

However, the fees charged do enable us to match the prices cited against the lower-

priced boxes, but this leaves all of the higher-priced boxes in the first, second and third

(centre) tiers, plus the terreno ordine box reserved for the 'paggi', either untouched or

already taken.

This apparent anomaly could be resolved at a stroke if we were to return to the

issue raised in Chapter 2 whereby the duke's pre-production 'regalo' is taken as simply

a payment in lieu of the higher-priced box rentals identified by Toschi, but not evident

in Flavio. Depending on whether we took the first and second tiers only (for reasons

that will become apparent) or extended the argument to include the third tier (centre}-

both options would also include the added box for the duke's pages-the duke's

'regalo' of 7,600 MI would be seen to be well in excess of their 'market' price of2,310

MI or 2,810 MI respectively, thus leaving the duke as a generous patron.2° If so, this

would suggest an approach to opera in Modena drawn from practices Beth and Jonathan

:zo 2.310 MI = SO Mllerreno ordine: poggi, 960 MI primo ordine, 1,300 MI secondo ordine; or, plus sao Mllerzo ordine: centre-2,810MI.

251


Glixon have identified as prevalent in Venice since the 1670s, where to finance the

building of new theatres, they note, 'the regalo (or donativo) was a fee paid to guarantee

possession of a box in a particular theater' .21 While Francesco's advance would apply

annually to each new season, we can see how the reservation of the theatre's main core

for allocation at Francesco's discretion would have served to relocate his own inner

court within the theatre. The benefits to the duke of such a scheme are obvious and

would have enabled him to control not only the seating order of the main tiers but,

therein, to impose a hierarchy through the placement and proximity of favourites and

honoured guests with respect to the ducal boxes. Naturally those palchi allocated

directly to the royal family remained free of charge, as we can see and as protocol no

doubt dictated.

But it is when we return to Table 5.4 and note Toschi's projected income from

box receipts of 5,100 MI that a rather neat reconciliation becomes possible. If we

compare the actual takings from box and bench rentals on L 'ingresso of 2,790 MI, this

would leave a balance of 2,310 MI either seemingly unsold or taken up by Francesco.

Whether by coincidence, chance or planning, this sum correlates exactly with the value

of the first and second tiers plus the single box set aside for the duke's pages. In other

words, if we assume that Francesco's 'regalo' did not extend to the central boxes of the

third tier, but only to those now stated, then somewhat remarkably their value when

added to the total number of sales made by Fontanelli agrees exactly with the 5,100 MI

projected by Toschi.22 Put another way, if we assume a repricing post 1683 of the

central third tier boxes to c.20 Ml-noting that the 'third' tier was in reality the fifth of

six-then the total realisable sales for the 103 boxes remaining after Francesco totals

2,790 MI, the exact sum achieved by Fontanelli for box and bench rentals for

21 B. and J. Glixon, Inventing the Business o/Opera, p. 28.

22 Total box receipts of5,100 Mlless sales as per L'ingresso at 2,790 MI- 2,310 MI (see n. 20).

252


L'ingresso?3 If so, then this not only corroborates the accuracy of the original

projections, but also allows for L'ingresso to have achieved 100% capacity in the boxes

among the Modenese elite and invited guests (exactly as we might have expected for

such a gala occasion). In turn, this would identify the 41 % return on ticket sales in the

platea as the singular cause for the production's failure to achieve breakeven.24

This argument takes on some credence when we compare the takings from box

and bench receipts for L 'ingresso against those for II figlio (1700), given under Rinaldo.

First, the discrepancy between Francesco's 'regalo' of 7,600 MI and Rinaldo's making

good of the end-of-production loss of 4,274 MI (see Table 2.4) comfortably allows for

the purchase of the tiers in question. Second, the box and bench receipts from

L'ingresso at 2,790 MI are markedly lower than their equivalent of 4,620 MI from II

figlio (see Table 5.5), allowing for the possibility that the number of boxes for sale in

1692 had been duly restricted.25 Even if we allow for the higher number of

performances previously noted for n figlio (which should have been offset to some

extent by the per-season cost of the boxes), the rise in box receipts in association with

the fall in ducal 'regalo' is sufficiently marked to give some credibility to the suggestion

not only that Francesco's pre-production 'regalo' served to buy the boxes as suggested,

but that the natural knock-on effect was then to restrict the number left for Fontanelli to

sell to the public: hence the lower return on L'ingresso. It would also suggest that the

policy did not continue under Rinaldo, or was at least restricted.

However, while the resultant reduction in the number of boxes available for

rental would naturally have affected Fontanelli's ability to achieve breakeven on

production, the cost to the impresario in terms of lost revenue was by no means

23 154 boxes less llerreno ordine: paggl, 24 primo ordine, 26 secondo ordine. 103 boxes at the rates given in Table 5.4.

24 7,371 MI over 18,000 MI capacity - 41%.

25 I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705.' Casso n. 8.a.

253


catastrophic. If we adjust Gandini's forecast accordingly, then the result is a 10% fall in

the maximum income realisable from public sources from 23,100 MI to 20,790 M1.26 If

we then deduct the duke's 'regalo' (7,600 MI) from the declared expenditure on

L'ingresso of 24,170 MI (see Table 5.1), we can see that the sum of 16,570 MI

represents the resultant shortfall that Fontanelli would have needed to earn from public

sales in order to achieve breakeven. Having achieved a maximum return on box and

bench rentals of 2,790 MI, this would have left Fontanelli requiring a further 13,780 MI

from ticket sales; or, at 3 MI per ticket, some 4,593 bollettini over twelve nights, or 383

tickets per night (see Table 5.6 below). On a projected capacity of 500, this would

equate to a required turnout of 77%, not hugely over-optimistic given the occasion.

Naturally, all of this remains pure speculation on my part. By contrast, we might

simply assume that Toschi's prices for his boxes, like his bollettini, were overstated and

that the figures quoted in the Flavio accounts were the real prices. But if this was indeed

so, then consequently the above forecast of required earnings in terms of realisable

income (where I have effectively taken out of the equation all revenue from the higher

priced box rentals) would be further understated. To correct it, we would need to add

back the fifty-one boxes I have allocated to Francesco at, say, 20 MI each, thus

increasing Fontanelli's available revenue from 20,790 MI to a revised £21,810 MI and

so further improving his chances of breaking even. On this basis, the resultant turnover

achieved would equate to 47% of capacity, and we would arrive at exactly the same

conclusion.27

Whether or not we choose to incorporate the duke's 'regalo' into the projected

receipts or consider them as an additional source of revenue and accept a lower

attendance, it remains clear that, more or less, breakeven was comfortably achievable on

16 Total box receipts ofS,lOO Mlless 2,310 MI allocated to Francesco - 2,790 MI; plus 18,000 MI from the pla/ea - 20,790 MI.

27 10,161 MI over 21,810 MI = 47%.

254


relatively reasonable returns. When we subsequently add in any income earned from the

privileges granted, then a model for sustainable opera, albeit with ducal support, was not

entirely unrealistic for L 'ingresso after all, and this despite it being a more costly gala

exception to the normal diet of revivals.

Yet, with or without the ducal purchase of boxes, both Flavio and L'ingresso

ultimately fall short of their potential capacities, not least in terms of ticket sales. As

such, two questions arise. First, to what extent, given the increased investment in

production, was L'ingresso over-exposed to the risks of public sales? Second, would

such investment and the gala occasion of Margherita's entrance into Modena have given

reason for the impresario to expect a higher turnout for L'ingresso in comparison to the

previous returns for Flavio?

We can seek to answer these questions by reviewing the policy of nightly ticket

sales. Scholars have tended to assume that most boxes in an opera theatre in the

seventeenth century were rented on a seasonal basis, thus providing a degree of relative

security through the pre-production payment of their rent. Though by no means making

.. opera risk-free, the advantage of a high ratio of pre-paid rented boxes compared to

nightly ticket sales is obvious, in that it secures a certain level of capital investment

against which to undertake opera while reducing the risk should the production prove

unsuccessful. Indeed, this was the system prevalent in Venice.28 In Modena, the duke's

'regalo' (regardless of whether or not it equated to a bulk-purchase of boxes) clearly

functioned in exactly this way; but if we, in turn, review and compare our three key

operas and their primary sources of public income, then Table 5.5 identifies an anomaly

by which it soon becomes clear that box and bench rentals equated to around 25% of the

total income from public sources for the two productions under Francesco, despite the

28 B. and J. Glixon, Inventing the Business of Opera, pp. 17·34, otTers a valuable insight into how Venetian theatres relied upon boxes for the capital financing of productions, while pp. 3S3·7 compares the ratio between ticket sales and box rental.

255


fact that the Teatro Fontanelli was constructed almost solely of boxes with only the

platea apparently open to ticket sales. It also reveals a marked change in policy between

the two reigns of Francesco and Rinaldo.

Table 5.5: Comparison of declared revenue streams from 'public' sources for Flav;o, L ';ngresso, and Iljiglio29

Box Bench Ticket Total rentals rentals sales

MI MI MI MI

F1avio (1688) 11 perfonnances 1,541 839 7,791 10,171 Percentage contribution to income 15% 8% 77%

L'ingresso (1692) 12 perfonnances 1,540 1,250 7,371 10,161 Percentage contribution to income 15% 12% 73%

II jiglio (1700) 21 perfonnances 3,500 1,120 8,118 12,738 Percentage contribution to income 27% 9% 64%

Totals of all productions 6,581 3,209 23,280 33,070

While the weighting in favour of ticket sales under Francesco shows a noticeable drop

from Flavia at 77% and L'ingressa at 73%, it is clear that income taken on the door

over the two productions averaged at 75%. This is broadly in line with the ratios

identified by Gandini projections in Table 5.4. It would therefore seem feasible to

suggest either that some ticket sales may well have related to boxes, or that the above

hypothesis of Francesco effectively buying out the first, second, and (possibly) third

levels (and thereby restricting the number of boxes for sale) was, in fact, what occurred.

In any event, the issue of comparing ticket sales to box rentals is to some extent

irreconcilable here. Its purpose instead serves to illustrate that, whatever the reality of

how places were sold in the theatre at the time, it is not unreasonable now to conclude

that, despite the duke's 'regalo', L'ingresso (and opera in Modena generally) would

29 Sources: Flavio and Iljigfio,l-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 168'-170'.' Casso n. 8.a; L 'ingresso, accounts.

256

Paul Atkin, Chapter !i

have been more exposed to the potential fluctuations that accompany any dependency

on nightly ticket sales as opposed to being assured by rental income. In short, as far as

the issue of public sales was concerned, success was ultimately governed by the relative

popularity of the production. L 'ingresso was neither the first nor the last opera to have

failed at the box office.

Even so, this is not to state that nightly ticket sales were wildly erratic when

viewed from one production to another. As noted above, the difference required to have

secured a profit for L'ingresso was nominal. In reality, despite the fact that ticket sales

were susceptible to nightly variation, the figures for Flavio and L'ingresso are

remarkably similar when viewed over the entire production. In percentage terms, the

total yield from ticket sales reveals a proportionate drop of 4% between Flavio and

L'ingresso. The problem here is that the takings went down and not up. Indeed, the

income level falls when the comparative success of Flavio and the occasion in 1692

must have led Fontanelli to anticipate a rise in turnover and so enticed the impresario

into a greater investment in production. The downside was that this same high reliance

on nightly ticket sales would equally expose Fontanelli to greater risk should anticipated

ticket sales not be achieved, as indeed was ultimately the case. By contrast, Table 5.5

identifies that by 1700 there appears to have been a significant change in policy, so that

under Duke Rinaldo just 64% of the total sales to the public came from ticket sales: a

notable reduction in exposure and a more prudent structure, which was accompanied by

the change away from pre-production payments and a move back towards simply

making good the loss made on production. Whether such changes were as a direct result

of the difficulties encountered by L 'ingresso is undocumented.

By 1692, however, the theatre had been trading for seven years. While

Fontanelli would later claim to have sutTered losses before L'ingresso, he was

nonetheless an astute and successful businessman who, we might reasonably conclude,

257

Paul Atkin. Chapter'

would not have undertaken such an increased investment given the identified risk

without some projection of anticipated higher returns, or without ducal protection.

While it would be easy just to accept this last point as a risk-free blank cheque upon

which F ontanelli would have embarked on the increased costs, we have seen, and will

see, that the reality of opera in Modena was one of accounting and reporting upon every

detail of the expenditure incurred. This awareness of costs implies an intelligent,

professional and structured approach to opera production led by Fontanelli and his duke.

It thus appears that while we remain unable to compute the theatre's earning

capacity with absolute certainty, some sense of a general picture emerges. Moreover, we

are able to approximate the degree by which F ontanelli failed to achieve his targeted

budget for ticket sales if we work backwards through these same figures. Table 5.6 thus

identifies the shortfall in ticket sales required for the production to have broken even:

Table 5.6: Shortfall on ticket sales for L'ingresso30

Total expenditure in 1692

Less 'regalo' di 'Sua Altezza Serenissima' Less income from box and bench rentals

Net shortfall required from ticket sales

Total ticket sales required at 3 MI each

A verage required ticket sales per night

Less average ticket sales achieved per night

Nightly shortfall in ticket sales achieved

£ 24,170.18.2

£ 7,600.00.0 £ 2.790.00.0

£ 13,780.18.2

4,593

383

205

178

The required average nightly entrance at the door of 383 from a maximum of 500 (or

77% capacity) is exactly as identified above and is constant, regardless of whether these

figures show a failure by the opera to attract its public or of the theatre to compute its

costs properly. While these figures highlight an obvious shortfall between those sales

30 L '/ngresso, accounts.

258


which peaked at 338 and the required target of383, the fact that sales only averaged 205

. also shows clearly that the problem went well beyond the issue of the potential loss of

revenue on account of the invited guests. This is simply realised if we assume sales to

have stayed at 321 (inclusive of invited guests) for the entire run. On this basis, ticket

sales would have jumped from 7,371 Ml to 11,556 Ml. The resultant increased revenue

of 4,185 Ml would clearly have made a substantial impact on the deficit of 5,959 Ml.

Instead, the reality was that for eight of the twelve performances ticket sales failed to

reach even 200. While we might now explore innumerable options to identify levels of

sustainable loss (each of which would support a different theory), the bottom line is that

the circle cannot be squared: that is, after all, how unexpected losses occur. The aim

here is merely to seek to show how Fontanelli, and possibly Francesco, would have had

sufficient reason to anticipate higher returns from sales than were ultimately achieved.

Whether or not the duke would have been prepared to suffer the loss given the value of

political propaganda, the risky nature of a revenue structure based disproportionately on

nightly ticket sales simply left the impresario and his duke exposed to the failure of the

public to buy tickets.

The case ofFlavio Cuniberto (1688)

Domenico Gabrielli's apparent replacement of Giovanni Partenio's original

score to Flavia Cuniberta is unique among Modenese revivals in that while being the

third recorded production of Matteo Noris's libretto-and the first outside its double

staging at the Teatro Grimani in San Giovanni Grisostomo, Venice (1682 and 1687}-it

gains some notoriety as the only 'revival' where the music was rewritten (be it in part or

in whole) specifically for its staging at the Teatro Fontanelli,31 This aside, Flavia is in

]I Sartori,llibrelli, p. 208; the issue of whether it was Gabrielli or Partenio's score (in part or full) is briefly addressed in Chapter 4.

259


every other respect a standard revival of the type given annually at the Teatro

Fontanelli. The extant accounts for the opera show that from the initial computations the

production was able to achieve a declared profit of 451 Ml. On the face of it, then,

Flavio appears to present itself as a perfect example of the kind of ducal policy that we

have witnessed throughout this thesis, whereby the partnership of public sales and

private patronage served to cover production costs, while leaving the income from

privileges (and possibly a percentage of the takings) as the impresario's reward,

presumably with the end aim of achieving Gandini's 'guadagno netto'. Moreover, the

relative success of this model serves to provide a context by which to compare the

apparent failings of L 'ingresso.

By good fortune, the Teatro Fontanelli archive contains a number of loose

documents in relation to Flavio that have been kept together under the title' 1688: Affar

Economico della musica che nell' Autunno del soprascritto anno fece fare il Marchese

Decio Fontanelli,.32 As with the L'ingresso accounts, it has to be noted that these

documents appear to have been designed with a specific purpose in mind, leaving the

real nitty-gritty book-keeping hidden below and lost in time; both probably owe their

existence to the additional payments that Fontanelli succeeded in obtaining from

Francesco. Like L ';ngresso, the accounts for Flavio appear to have been computed

twice: first, in the immediate aftermath of its production, and second when the profit

figure was later set aside and replaced with an end loss of 3,059 Ml.

Prior to addressing the accounts for Flavio, however, it is worth placing its date

of production in context. While there is no factual confirmation to this effect, it seems

likely that Flavio had originally been scheduled for 1687 but was then postponed for

one year following the death of the duke's mother earlier in that year. The summary

statement recording payments to Fontanelli identifies Francesco as having made his

31/_MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a.

260


standard pre-production advance of 150 dobble in 1686. This is followed by a rare

second payment made 'questa estate, 1688' at Sassuolo in the sum of 50 dobble. While

nothing is certain, the two advances are clearly documented as pertaining to Flavio and

to 1688. There is, however, an apparent scribal error here in respect of the dating of the

first payment as 1686. This would suggest that it relates to a disbursement made on 17

May 1686, which is unlikely given that pre-production payments were generally made

only a few months in advance, and not more than a year before. I suspect, therefore, that

the 1686 payment related directly to one of the two productions given in that year, either

II Trespolo, tutore balordo (1686) or I due germani rivali (1686). The payment in itself

would have been made a month or two early, as the duke set off to visit his mother in

Rome in October 1686, thus suggesting that the operas were staged earlier than the

normal November. Instead, there is a second payment of 150 dobble made on 7 July

1687, which I believe relates to Flavio and is the payment to which the summary

statement refers. This payment was made just twelve days before Laura's death on 19

July 1687, which in tum might be the cause of the confusion. Consequently, the

production planned for the autumn was cancelled and no opera was staged in 1687.

Similarly, it is likely that the aforementioned plan of palchi, also dated in this same

year, might relate to box sales made in anticipation of Flavio being staged as initially

planned.

The subsequent time-delay between the pre-payments on box rentals in 1687 and

the production in 1688 might have caused subsequent cash-flow difficulties, which, in

tum, might also explain the motive for a loan made to Fontanelli post-production on 23

November 1688 in the sum of 3,059 Ml. Although, there is no formal confirmation of

why the loan was authorised, it might simply be that it served to make good those

additional costs that would have been incurred on the postponed production in respect

of payments made at the time out of the advanced rents taken as per the ' ~ 687 plan;

261


similarly, certain costs may then have been re-incurred in 1688, only to be partially

covered by the now reduced rental income. The same reason might also explain why

Francesco had taken the unusual step of paying a second smaller advance of 50 dobble

in addition to the first payment. Whatever the motivation, thereafter the pre-production

advance rose from 150 to a standard 200 dobble.

Whether or not this was the case, the accounts do not follow the format used in

L'ingresso, whereby the loss is openly adjusted as part of a reconciliation that pursues a

singular objective. Instead, the profit was put to one side and the 'direct costs of

production were carried forward to a separate sheet, where a series of jottings resulted

in these costs being offset against the income earned from public sources in order to re

compute a revised Net Loss of 3,059 Ml. The entire process reveals the ease with which

those who administered opera were willing and able to manipulate the accounts to arrive

at their desired conclusion.

This point is even more exacerbated by the fact the original Net Profit was

under-declared, and should have been stated in the sum of 2,091 Ml. To understand,

then, how opera was administered under Francesco, it is worth tracing the process by

which the profit and then loss were computed. The following statement (Table 5.7),

therefore, takes the original computation of the Net Profit of 451 Ml before I have

applied adjustments to show the real gross income earned, full expenses declared and

adjusted Net Profit. Note that the original profit of 451 Ml included the cost of Siface's

fee but that, as always, this was not a cost incurred by Fontanelli.

262

Table 5.7: Flavio Cuniberto (1688): Profit and Loss Account33

dobble @36MI Singers x7 at 30 dobble 210 7,560 Ha havuto da S.A.S.

x 1 at 25 dobble 25 900 Ha cavato alia porta, e da

Siface (repaid below) 50 1,800 sedersi come dalla nota Extras: paggio 7 252 data (takings shown net)

Additional musicians: Domenico Gabrielli 36 1,296 Da patchi come aI/a nota

Tiorba and trombetta 17 612 345 12,420

Cibaria 30 Ml x 40 days 1,200

Total expenses declared elf 13,620 Total income declared elf

Declared profit 451

14,071

Adjustments required to total income and total expenses declared

Total expenses declared BIF Less duke's payment of Siface Nightly costs deducted from cavato *

Revised total production costs

Total revised profit

*Nightly costs deducted from cavato Orchestra Lighting Scenery operators Doormen/Guards Tuning of 'cembali' Total

13,620 Total income declared BIF 1,800 Nightly benches not inc in cavato

2,860 Ticket sales not inc in cavato

14,680 Total revised income

2,091

16,771

MI 115 89 34

18 4

__ ....;2;.,;;6..;..0 x 11 nights - 2,860 MI


dobble @ 33 MI 200 6,600

5,930

1,541

14,071

14,071

14,071 839

1,861

16,771

16,771

While, once again, the income from gambling, wine and food has been omitted, the

accounts show clearly the reality of the profit available to Fontanelli, although the

expenses declared are limited. To this end, we should note the absence of costs of

scenery and costumes (probably due to reuse) and behind-the-scenes production, such as

the nightly costs of the orchestra, lighting, scenery operators, doormen and the tuning of

the 'cembali', all of which were paid directly at source from the 'cavato alla porta, e da

]] Ibid.

263


sedersi', which was then shown as net in the accounts (hence part of the need for my

amendment).34 The practice again reveals the influence of the Venetian theatres.3s

Having previously compared the costs incurred with those of L 'ingresso, these

figures serve here to provide some insight into the actual machinations of staging a

revival production at the Teatro Fontanelli and help to set into context the high costs of

both scenery and costumes in L'ingresso. Nonetheless, it is equally apparent that the

accounts in no way seek to portray a full and comprehensive report on the income and

expenditure of this production. To this end, a note is written directly under the originally

declared profit figure that confirms how ~ome items of expenditure are missing as 'it

Signor Marchese non haver pronta la nota'. To complicate matters further, two different

exchange rates are used: one for income (33 MI), the other for expenditure (36 MI). Had

the costs of the singers been computed at the same rate as the income (33 MI), then the

profit would have increased by a further 1,035 MI to 3,126 Ml. This simple effect of

applying a higher exchange rate to the expenditure thus understates the profit by a

further third.

Unlike L 'ingresso, there is no formal re-computation of the accounts to arrive at

the end loss. Instead, the following loose jottings (Table 5.8) are written out above the

usual payment order signed by the treasurer of the duke's chamber, Pietro Zerbini. This

payment is then confirmed against the earlier payments of 150 dobble and of 50 dobble

as noted, and the 50 dobble paid to Siface. The jottings are as follows:

34 Ibid. See also Martinelli BragJia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 146.

3S B. and J. Glixon,lnventing the Business o/Opera, p. IS.

264


Table 5.8: Flavio Cuniberto, Teatro Fontanelli (1688): jottings computing 'loss' on production36

[ref. a]

[ref. b]

345 50

295 50

345

295 36

1,770 8,85[0] 10,620

[ref. d] 1,541 [ref. e]

[ref. c]

1,541 5,930 7,471

295 36

1,680 8,85[0] 10,530

7,471 3,059

Under closer inspection (and by cross reference to Table 5.7), these figures reveal a

series of computations as follows: first, the scribe has taken the cost of the singers and

musicians (ref. a) at 345 dobble and then deducted the cost of Siface (50 dobble),

bringing the total cost to 295 dobble. This sum is then multiplied by 36 MI (ref. b) to

arrive at a total cost figure of 10,620 MI (Le., the total cost of the singers and musicians

as per the above accounts, less Siface). By the side of this computation (ref. c) is a

repeated calculation of 295 dobble at 36 MI which arrives at an incorrect end total of

10,530 MI.37 Nonetheless, it is this new revised total of 10,530 MI that is taken as the

final figure to be carried forward as what appears to be the sum representing the 'total

. direct cost of production' (i.e., it does not include the cost of 'cibaria' at 1,200 MI or

other indirect costs not declared in the accounts). Above this computation, the box

rental figure of 1,541 MI (ref. d) is noted on its own before then being added to the

income from 'net' ticket sales of 5,930 MI (ref. e) to provide a total net income of7,471

MI, which represents the total net sales receipts from 'public' sources (i.e., having first

l6/-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 168S-170S', Casso n. 8.a.

17 Both the computation of 10,620 MI (ref. b) and IO,S30 MI (ref. c) have been arrived at by a two-stage calculation that multiplied 29S dobbleldoppie by the exchange rate of 36 Ml. First 29S is multiplied by 6 (1,770 MI), then by 30 (8,8S[0] MI), before the two figures are totalled (10,620 MI). In the second calculation (ref. c), it would appear that although 29S remained the base figure for the multiplication by 30 (i.e., to again achieve 8,8S[O) MI), 280 was used as the base figure for the first pari of the computation (i.e., 6 x 280 - 1,680 MI). In this way, either by human error, or by a need to manipulate the figures to secure a more agreeable figure, Zerbini arrives at 10,S30 Ml.

265


deducted the nightly production costs listed in Table 5.7). This sum is then set against

the net cost total of 10,530 Ml to arrive at an apparent loss on production of 3,059 Ml,

the same sum now loaned to Fontanelli. The duke's pre-production 'regali' of 200

dobble (6,600 Ml) recorded in the aforementioned note is ignored completely for the

sake of computing the payment due to Fontanelli.

The payment of this precise sum to Fontanelli is, on the face of it, an example of

Francesco following the traditional responsibilities of a ducal patron being seen to make

good the end loss on production, except for two important factors. First, the payment

was not shown as a gift, but a loan 'da restituirle, come hli detto a tutto [ill carnevale

prossimo venturo 1689'; this, in itself, returns us to the issue of privileges and to the

commedie Fontanelli staged during carnival (as discussed in Chapter 2), where

presumably the profit gained as a result of the rights obtained would have earned

sufficient revenue to repay the loan within a single season, as the wording suggests;

whether or not the sum was repaid, and on time, is undocumented, but the fact that it

was not included in F ontanelli' s end settlement of his affairs in 1698 suggests that full

payment was indeed made, or that at some stage within the duke's lifetime the debt was

written off in some form. Second, it is important to remember that Fontanelli had not

declared a loss, and even if he had, the fact that the payment is a loan and not a gift still

left Fontanelli as being seen to be responsible for the end loss on production. On the

face of it, the theatre was being left to run on its own, albeit that opera was seemingly

sustained by a mix of ducal intervention and the profits from spoken plays and

privileges.

While the motive for this rather bizarre set of computations may never be

known, it does provide an example of how pretty much any outcome can be

manufactured from accounting data to suit the needs of a given situation. My own

suspicion is that the answer might lay in the size of the sum itself: 3,059 Ml was

266


between c.85 and c.93 dobble depending on the exchange rate applied. It was not a huge

sum, nor was it an inconsequential amount. It might, therefore, have been the perfect

amount to reflect the duke's gratitude for what may have proven a most successful

production or, alternatively, as an acknowledgement of the costs and inconvenience of

the cancelled production the year before. But, regardless of what the true motive was,

the real significance of the payment when viewed in light of the adjustments made is

that the loan ultimately identified the difference between the direct cost of production,

incorrectly shown as 10,530 Ml, and public receipts at 7,471 Ml to be symbolically

made good by a grateful duke, who may not have been too interested in when the

repayment of the loan was fulfilled.

We therefore return to the calculations above and to the established privileges,

which seem to support the theory that the duke with the aid of 'public' revenue on sales

ensured that the production costs would be covered, leaving Fontanelli free to collect his

profit from the income streams guaranteed by the privileges and commedie, even if that

meant sometimes repaying short-term loans that made up fabricated shortfalls of

income. This becomes critical in our understanding of the loss on L ';ngresso and the

process by which Fontanelli would have incurred greater expenditure than usual if

working under a gentleman's agreement by which production costs would have been

similarly protected, regardless of the reality of the situation. While this is not to suggest

that Fontanelli worked with a 'blank cheque', it does follow that on this basis he had

good reason to expect that his costs would have been protected both by precedent and

by the duke's promise. Indeed, as we now turn to addressing the loss on L ';ngresso, we

shall see that this is precisely what the impresario claimed. Whether or not Fontanelli

had been given a remit to embellish this production to one befitting such a politically

important gala occasion, the unexpected drop in the income achievable from public

sources meant simply that the loss was greater than anticipated.

267


Whatever the truth about the losses incurred before and because of L 'ingressa,

in the final analysis of the accounts the inevitable conclusion is that all of the extant data

at our disposal (including both the Flavia and L 'ingressa accounts) fall into the category

of 'incomplete records', in that they lack a complete and fully traceable audit trail to

prove their reliability or otherwise. In essence, without any evidence of the

reconciliation of journal records, or a full system of double-entry and balanced accounts

from where any given entry on the Profit and Loss Account can be traced, the author of

these accounts would have been entirely free to adjust these final figures in a manner

that suited the needs of the day, as is so evidently apparent with Flavia.

Nonetheless, even incomplete records can ultimately reveal a trend that, in turn,

helps to produce a picture of the administration that they serve. In this respect, there

remains sufficient data to offer a valuable insight into how opera production in Modena

was probably administered. Within the documents available, there is at no one point any

formally declared provision for the impresario to make a profit. Apart from it being in

bad taste to identify any potential gain, two possibilities seem to me to suggest

themselves, both of which may, in fact, just as easily go hand in hand as well as argue

against each other.

First, the economic structure for the commercial production of opera worked in

ways other than simple profit and loss. If profit was not the motive for producing opera,

then any loss in real terms may have been suffered as a necessary consequence and

absorbed by Fontanelli and other unidentified members of the aristocracy. In other

words, losses would be part of an acknowledged and accepted process of being both an

impresario and a patron, and might even have added to the moral value of the exercise

with a virtuous suffering of a loss for the sake of art and the benefit of others, not least

Francesco.

268


Second, the real profit available to Fontanelli lay hidden behind the figures. The

accounts show a theatre capable of making a profit but nonetheless declaring a loss. Yet

explicitly, the accounts show neither Fontanelli's share of ticket sales (as suggested by

the discrepancy between Gandini's ticket price of 5/6 Ml and the 3 Ml formally

declared), nor the revenue he would have obtained from gambling and other such

activities: the very same privileges that he had fought so hard to secure from Francesco

at the outset and which had been given as a precedent at the Teatro Valentini, the model

upon which 'public' opera had then been based.

But regardless of the reality hidden behind the accounts, the ducal ledgers

required reconciling and the death of Duke Francesco on 6 September 1694 appears to

have triggered the need to finally bring the Teatro Fontanelli accounts to a close. This

would be no easy matter. According to the ledgers, Fontanelli had just incurred a loss on

L'ingresso of 5,959.18.2 Ml and, worse still, he owed the ducal treasury a loan in the

region of 13,200 Ml.

The reconciliation of the ducal loan

Some time probably between the fire at the Teatro Valentini in 1681 and

Fontanelli's acquisition of the theatre on 30 October 1683, the duke solicited the

marquis to become the theatre's new owner and impresario. Fontanelli duly secured the

purchase via a property exchange, valuing the theatre at 81,141 Ml. On 1 July 1685,

some twenty months later and just four months prior to its inaugural production of II

Vespesiano, and whether to finance, aid or simply encourage Fontanelli, the duke

authorised a payment in the sum of 400 dobble (or 13,200 MI) which was officially

recorded as a loan to aid the refurbishment of the burnt theatre. As we have seen in

Chapter 2, whether or not Fontanelli truly incurred those costs remains unclear.

269


Certainly, a cost sheet for the 'Spesa da farsi ne! Teatro Fontanelli' totalling 12,540 Ml

appears in the Teatro Fontanelli file as an apparent contra-credit for the sum paid; but

the sheet was originally undated and its title originally bore no reference to either

impresario or indeed theatre: '1685' and 'Fontanelli' were added by another hand at a

seemingly later date. As such, we cannot confirm whether it was Fontanelli or Valentini

who actually suffered this cost.

The loan was officially to be repaid over ten years at 40 dobble per annum and

contained no apparent charge for interest. Yet, by the time of the duke's death nine

years later in 1694, Fontanelli had formally paid only the first year's instalment.

Whether or not the duke's loan was an inducement to buy the theatre, we know only

that by the time of Duke Francesco's death, Fontanelli had still only made the one

instalment of 1,320 Ml, nine years into a ten-year loan. On this basis, one might

reasonably presume that there had been no formal intention that Fontanelli repay this

sum. In any event, 1695 represented the end of the ten-year loan period. As a

consequence, the advance needed to be reconciled, at least on paper, because regardless

of at what stage a loan becomes a gift, accounting ledgers always require balancing.

This, then, would seem the most obvious reason for the production of a mixture

of eight statements, testaments and receipts that we find loosely collated together at the

rear of the L'ingresso accounts, each of which serves a clearly defined purpose in the

reconciliation of the loan. Within these documents, there are two primary statements:

F ontanelli' s original testament, which outlines his suggested settlement of the loan and

is undated, and the treasury's final confirmation of the reconciliation of the debt,

formally signed off on 31 October 1698. This would appear to have been overseen by

the duke's treasurer Pietro Zerbini, although no absolute confirmation is given.

Thereafter, the remaining six documents are as follows. There is the listing of the cast's

costumes from the opera (as detailed in full in Chapter 4), which were transferred to

270


Princess Margherita; the document references an original listing as being prepared on 13

August 1694 but is itself dated 15 September 1698. There is Antonio Cottini's affidavit

in support of Fontanelli's claim of ducal protection having been awarded to the

impresario. There are two further statements both of which have been prepared by the

duke's administration and serve as documentary support to two of the four main points

of agreement in the resolution of the loan: Zerbini's confirmation of sums held on

behalf of Fontanelli; and the award by the 'Tribunale Fattorale' to Fontanelli of a

stipend previously not paid. Finally, there are two receipts: the first records the payment

of 204 Ml to the copyist Domenico Giannini already included within the declared

deficit, while the second was prepared by the duke's cashier (Roncaglia) for payments

made post-production to musicians which had not been listed in the accounts ledger.

This second receipt ultimately creates a revised computation of the reduced loss post

production. Each of these supporting documents serves to varying degrees in the final

reconciliation process and, as such, all are integral to the verification of both

Fontanelli's opening statement and the end settlement. Collectively, these forms offer a

rare glimpse into the process of opera administration (or at least, its accounting) under

the direction of the duke's court, which extends from Francesco's death into the reign of

his uncle and successor Duke Rinaldo.

Not surprisingly, the two principal testaments detailing the loan settlement are

the most significant. When read in conjunction, they offer a glimpse of the process by

which the debt was reconciled. Regrettably, Fontanelli's statement is undated, although

his opening reference to the memory of Francesco dates the document after 6 September

1694 and before Zerbini' s closing entry of 31 October 1698. Cottini' s affidavit in

support of Fontanelli is also dated 31 October, though four years earlier, in 1694. It

would seem most likely, given Fontanelli's expectation that Cottini would support his

position ('tanto potra attestare di questa veriia it Signor Antonio Cottini'), that the

271


impresario's statement was, therefore, written some time between 6 September and 31

October 1694. Even then, the whole process took a further four years to resolve. In

between, there appears to have been more than a little manoeuvring as a deal was finally

struck in settlement of the loan and, in turn, of the loss on L'ingresso.

If we are to take Fontanelli's opening statement at face value-and the evidence

at hand suggests that we should-then the sequence of events is relatively clear.

Subsequent to the deficit on L'ingresso but before the duke's death (though it is not

clear when precisely), Fontanelli appears to have approached Francesco with a view to

reconciling both the loss suffered and the outstanding 1685 loan. The duke appears to

have responded by ordering his/at/ore to conduct a review of 'Ii conti' (inclusive of the

L'ingresso accounts Fontanelli had been instructed to keep). However, at this point

Fontanelli notes that the review was delayed because of his own urgent need to return to

Reggio to look after his wife (Enrichetta Molza), who, having become gravely ill, then

died. It appears that her death delayed Fontanelli from attending the duke at his summer

palace in Sassuolo, so that by the time of his arrival Francesco had become bed-ridden

before 'qual malatia rese l' Anima al Creatore'. The duke's death naturally changed

matters in court so that while Fontanelli appears initially to have sought resolution from

the fat/ore directly, the change in regime required that a new order to resolve the

accounts be obtained from Rinaldo (who was not yet officially the new duke: hence

Fontanelli's reference to him as 'Serenissimo Regnante'). This would seem to lead us to

the need for Fontanelli's statement as the issue escalated to being one of closing off

Francesco's affairs as well. Perhaps for this reason, Fontanelli notes that the/at/ore was

unable to speak directly with Rinaldo at that moment. Moreover, the closure of the

duke's affairs seemingly revealed broader problems as a consequence of 'Ie gravi

spese ... A causa del sposal itio, , which in turn supports Crowther's comments on the

financial difficulties following the wedding. Fontanelli now found himself in the middle

272

Paul Atkin, Chapter !I

of a protracted settlement, which was the very thing he had presumably sought to avoid,

not least given his age (seventy in 1694). As the matter carried over into Rinaldo's

reign, we learn from one of the supporting documents that Fontanelli was forced to take

his appeal to the 'Tribunale Fattorale' in order to achieve his desired resolution, as their

statement confirms: 'Desiderando il Marchese Decio Fontanelli ... che siano terminati li

conti vertenti tra esso, e la Camera Serenissima di molti anni scorsi, fece ricorso al

Tribunale Fattorale'. It was, presumably, their finding in his favour (and the award of an

additional stipend, addressed below) that would ultimately facilitate the eventual end

settlement in 1698.

From the outset, Fontanelli's statement bemoans his financial difficulties, not

least of which was the loss incurred on L'ingresso. However, his pursuit of the matter

does raise an anomaly critical to our understanding of the process. To date, our

historical reading as per the accounts, and as ratified by Bianconi and Walker, has long

been that the loss was duly protected at the time by Francesco taking full responsibility

for the deficit in return for the handing over to the duke of the wardrobe and scenery.38

Had this truly happened, then Fontanelli would have had no basis on which to claim

protection now from losses he would have already addressed. However, the settlement

of the loss in this way is unlikely given the duke's promise that the impresario would

suffer no harm. Clearly, this would have been the case had the impresario been forced to

hand over his assets. Fontanelli's pursuit of the loss, and the fact that the loan dominates

his own reconciliation, suggests fears for the duke's health may have prompted him to

seek to close off his accounts while the duke was still alive to honour his promise. The

intent, therefore, appears to have been to use the loss suffered as an accounting

adjustment to offset his outstanding liability for the loan. Fontanelli's testament thus

sets out the loan first and then seeks to claim contra-credits against his debt. By the

31 Bianconi and Walker, 'Production, Consumption', pp. 284-!l.

273

Paul AIkin, Chapler S

statement's end, Fontanelli, forever the businessman, succeeds in turning a debt owed

by him in the sum of 13,200 Ml to one owed to him in the sum of2,398 Ml.

Fontanelli's testimony is in places barely legible, but remains (along with the

end settlement) the source of much of the documentation of his theatre's history. This is

apparent, not least, in Fontanelli's oft-cited comment that the loan was made 'accio

riducessi il mio Teatro ad'uso d'opere musicali'. The sentiment is indicative of

Fontanelli's presentation of his case, which records at all opportunities his years ofloyal

service and the costs he suffered as a consequence. The impresario then moves on to

explain the circumstances that persuaded him to accept the contract to produce

L ';ngresso, and notes how

dopo varie opere da me fatte con notabile perdita cosi lasciai l'impresa; rna per la venuta a Modena della Serenissima Signora Duchessa Margherita sposa Sua Altezza mi fecce dire per il Signor Antonio Cottini, che desiderava per divertimento della Serenissima Sposa, ch'io facessi un'opera, risposi al medesimo ch'io non ero in istato di servirlo atteso Ie gravi perdite sofferte per 10 passato, e che Sua Altezza mi perdonasse se non 10 servivo prontamente, resa la risposta il Signor Antonio tomo da me e mi disse di nuovo che Sua Altezza desiderava da me questa sodisfatione con questo patto pero, che Sua Altezza mi havrebbe dato presentamente 200 doppie, e che tenessi conto del cavato, e della spesa poiche Sua Altezza non s'intendeva ne voleva havessi alcun danno, e tanto Sua Altezza mi confirmo a me, e tanto potra attestare di questa verita il Signor Antonio Cottini come ha fatto ancora in iscritto.

While the reference to the 200 doppie paid as a pre-production advance is consistent

with the system of patronage identified above, and the payment itself is duly declared

within the L'ingresso accounts, Fontanelli's testament sheds much light on the apparent

reality of opera production in Modena, and of his relationship to Francesco. If we are to

believe the impresario, then opera in Modena ceased prior to L ';ngresso, and not as a

consequence of it. Regrettably, the lack of accounting data on all other productions at

the Teatro Fontanelli (with the exception of Flavio) means that we cannot quantify the

pre-L ';ngresso losses or identify to which productions the impresario refers. What we

can note is that the reference is in the plural, thus suggesting that a minimum of two of

274


the three operas between Flavio and L 'ingresso would have been loss-making. If so,

then questions about the viability of opera in such a small centre as Modena are once

again raised, if not answered. We also learn much of Fontanelli's position by the fact

that he was able to reject the duke's initial request not just for an opera, but for such a

gala occasion. While it reiterates the fundamental employer-employee relationship

outlined in Chapter 2 in respect of the Accademia de' Dissonanti, it also underlines

F ontanelli' s claim of losses as giving him sufficient justification by which to be able to

refuse his duke.

Nonetheless, we should be careful to recall the purpose of the impresario's

testament and to place his comments in context of his motive for presenting this

particular version of events. The losses F ontanelli claims to have suffered are, of course,

no surprise, not least given the fact that he was in the process of seeking to clear the

loan he was now required to settle. We should also note that at no time in the settlement

process is any reference made by any party to the income earned from the privileges

gained; nor is Fontanelli ever required to use those funds to either settle the loan or

underwrite the loss. It would appear that any income from those sources was thus

deemed outside of the accounting structure and consequently did not require attention.

In other words, the money was Fontanelli's to keep as his reward for acting as

impresario. It is, therefore, hugely ·significant to our understanding of opera in Modena

that Fontanelli was able to seek protection against the loss incurred on L'ingresso

regardless of the profit he was probably able to make from the privileges he enjoyed.

Nevertheless, the impresario asserts that he had ceased promoting opera at the

Teatro Fontanelli prior to the duke's request that he stage L'ingresso. This contradicts

the underlying assumption of all previous research on Modena that L'ingresso was

produced within the context of an on-going policy of opera production annually every

autumn, which reached its apex with this celebratory offering of ducal propaganda and

275


display: the resulting supposition being that opera in Modena came to an end solely and

directly as a consequence of the huge loss suffered on this production. If we are to

accept the impresario's testament, then the implication is that opera in Modena had

come to an end one year earlier after L'inganno scoperto per vendetta (1691). Not only

does this change our understanding of the loss incurred in 1692, but, if true, it would

add weight to the argument by which, regardless of the exceptional case of L 'ingresso,

Modena was simply unable to support opera, despite the duke's efforts of patronage. It

might also challenge the forecasts for profit I have sought to examine above. Within this

scenario, the loss incurred on L 'ingresso, while clearly being the last nail in the coffin

of opera, was not so much the original cause of opera having come to an end, but

merely the latest and last deficit suffered in a series of losses, even if the evidence for

Flavio Cuniberto would seem to contradict this premise. But it remains a matter of fact

that Fontanelli's plight, given his clear and understandable aim of trying to extricate

himself from a debt of 13,200 Ml, simply means that we cannot rely on his statement in

its own right; consequently, we are left to ponder the extent to which Fontanelli was

building a picture that best protected his own interests.

In this respect, it is worth recalling a letter written on .behalf of Dottor Giovanni

Matteo Giannini (a librettist and court reporter on the musical and social life of Venice,

as opposed the music copyist, Domenico Giannini, whose payment I address below).

The letter to Cesare Ignazio is dated 3 April 1693 and requests that he in turn approach

Francesco to propose the doctor's own libretto for the forthcoming autumn season of

1693.39 Coming just four months after L 'ingresso, the letter is explicit in acknowledging

the apparent pressure being exerted on Francesco to reject Giannini's libretto,

presumably in favour of another: 'si sa, che altri costa maneggiano ogni sforzo

)9 For an insight into Giannini, see Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, p. liS, who credits him with recruiting the singers for II prencipe corsaro (1674), and for writing the libretto for the oratorio lilrio'!lo della caslita (1688). He should not be confused with the copyist Domenico Giannini.

276


segretamente per indurre di nuovo it Serenissima Signor Duca a non ordinare al Signor

Marchese Decio Fontanelli, che per la prima recita, che si fara, si vaglia dell'opera del

Giannini' .40 This was not the first time Giannini had sought a sponsor for his libretto. In

the year before, as late as 17 September 1692, he had written to Rinaldo asking him to

approach Francesco, lamenting the fact that the same libretto had at that time been

overlooked in favour of another, whereby 'la compositione ... fu consegnata al maestro

Zannettini per adomarla colle note musicali' .41 As such, Giannini's letters provide some

insight into how such matters were addressed. On each occasion, someone (not known)

wrote on his behalf and, in tum, approached (albeit unsuccessfully) first Rinaldo and

then Cesare Ignazio with the aim of seeking their influence over Francesco. Above all,

Giannini's letter of3 April 1693 serves to confirm that a debate was being held over the

choice of the next production. This leads me to speculate whether initially, at least,

opera did not die in the immediate aftermath of L ';ngresso, even though (noting that the

accounts are confirmed as being completed 'il present'Anno 1692') the duke's

accountants would most probably have been aware of the loss incurred by this time.

Perhaps this was the reason why no opera was eventually authorised, but nonetheless

there is enough activity to suggest that opera was not brutally killed in an instant as a

direct result of the failings of 1692 and that probably its death was longer and more

lingering. As such, depending on which testament one wishes to accept, we are left to

consider whether opera might have ceased in 1691, 1692 or 1693; or whether (given

Fontanelli's reference to various losses) the decline went back still further, possibly to

the aftermath of Flavio.

Within this context, the aim of Fontanelli's testimony would appear to be one of

showing the extent to which he had already suffered, as opposed to making any

40 I-MOas MM, Casso n. l.b.

41 Ibid.

277


reference to how he may well have profited: hence, again, the lack of any reference to

the privileges he had enjoyed. Indeed, his statement of the magnitude of his losses pre

L'ingresso would seem to serve primarily as a means by which Fontanelli establishes

and protects his position. Notably, he makes no effort to reclaim these prior losses,

which in itself suggests that they were not relevant to the issue, save to give gravitas to

his position both financially and also politically in the way in which his suffering

reinforces his close ties to Francesco. Moreover, the impresario's recalling of his losses

position him perfectly to play his trump card and to state categorically that the duke had

given his absolute word of honour that as a consequence that he, Fontanelli, would

suffer no loss on L'ingresso. But, it is here that we arrive at the point to which

Fontanelli has been building from the outset. The refusal to stage opera, the rejection of

the duke, and the heavy losses incurred all serve as an exposition of the impresario's

circumstances by which he positions himself in seeking to address his liability for the

debt of 13,200 Ml.

To this end, the statement of support by Antonio Cottini becomes a critical part

of his defence. As has become evident, Cottini was seemingly always involved in the

machinations of opera production, be it as a singer, aria-seller, or impresario. For his

part, he had worked closely with Fontanelli since Germanico sui Reno (Teatro Ducale,

1677), and would go on to sign the vast majority of the dedications at the Teatro

Fontanelli after the marquis had seemingly retired to become a 'sacerdote' following the

death of his wife in 1694. Cottini's testament is helpful in the light it sheds on

L'ingresso in terms both of the date of its commissioning (29 July 1692, in Sassuolo),

and also of its verification that the costs for Giannettini were assumed by Francesco.

Here, he supports Fontanelli to the hilt: 'et in caso di perdita [Francesco] non intendeva

che il suddetto Signor Marchese avesse d'aver alcun danno rna che Sua Altezza

Serenissima avrebbe fatto soddisfar tutto'.

278


The value of Cottini's affidavit is clear in that he bears witness to a ducal

promise to protect Fontanelli at all costs. With or without this statement, I suspect that

the aim of the duke's inner court, of which Fontanelli had long been an intimate

member, would have been to protect the retired impresario and honour Francesco's

pledge, but Cottini's confirmation of the ducal guarantee must surely be seen as

establishing an incontrovertible principle, which most probably ensured that thereafter it

became merely a question of procedure in finding the right means by which to process

and clear Fontanelli from any liability to repay the loan. This is exactly what appears to

have happened. Accordingly, Fontanelli's testament serves to set out a five-part strategy

(Ex. 5.2) to clear himself of the loan:

Ex. 5.2: Fontanelli's proposal for the loan settlement, 1694 (LD)

A cura dato doppie 100 Per donativo doppie 40 Perdita nell' opera Per Ii miei mandati

Somma

Pagati al Signo r Cottini [reo Cecchi]

Detrazione

[Deduction of Loan]

Resta Credito re il Marches e Decio

MI

3,300 1,340 5,900 4,108

14,648

950

15,598

13,200

2.398

Fontanelli first details four contra-credits totalling 14,648 MI before then adding a

payment to Cottini as a fifth credit to arrive at a total claim of 15,598 MI, against which

he offsets the loan to give him a counter-claim for net repayment of2,398 Ml. Although

the order of the four principal credits and their values change in the end settlement, they

remain in essence the basis for the agreement in reconciling the loan. As each entry is

examined, what soon becomes apparent is the fact that each is an accounting contra-

279


credit, which applies a given sum or valuation lying in an account elsewhere against the

liability Fontanelli holds on paper. As such, each can be seen to serve Fontanelli in

protecting him from making any payments in hard currency in order to settle his debt.

The first credit detailed by the impresario refers to the sum of 3,300 MI

previously banked by Fontanelli with Zerbini. The entry is supported by one of the

loose documents prepared by the court in support of the settlement and agrees the sum

exactly. While Fontanelli refers to it only as 'a cura dato doppie 100', the end settlement

sheds a little more light on the sum, confirming that the payment relates to 'dobble 100

che lascio in Banco del predetto Zerbini, sottoli X giugno del 1690 in conto sopradetto

come da attestato del medesimo Tesoriere'. The date is significant as it confirms a credit

on Fontanelli's account long before a settlement of the loan was sought. The sum itself

was valued (as are all sums in the final settlement) at 33 MI per dobble/doppie, hence

the valuation at 3,300 Ml. But it is Zerbini's own statement in support of this entry that

sheds most light on its origin and ties the credit to the original loan:

Ho dato credito ... al Signor Marchese Decio Fontanelli di lire tre milla tre cento monete corrente valuta di Doble cento a £33 l'una, che it medesimo Signore mi ha lasciate in un ordine dell' Altezza Serenissima in somma di Doble numero 200 simile, [che] diss'essere in conto di Doble 400 del sodetto valore che sino Ii 11 agosto 1685.

On this basis, it would seem that the duke had issued a written order to pay Fontanelli

200 dobble as the second half of the 400 dobble agreed in 1685 (issued 1 July, but now

seemingly authorised on 11 August, though apparently not paid in full at the time).

Fontanelli then took a further 100 dobble from Zerbini in June 1690, leaving 100 dobble

as the credit now claimed on his account. In this light, it seems that Fontanelli was still

owed 100 dobble from the 400 originally sanctioned, and as such he is able to claim it in

the above statement as a contra-credit against the original debt. However, the reason

why Fontanelli took the additional 100 dobble at this time is undocumented, though

given his references to the heavy losses incurred we might speculate that a deficit

280


suffered on II Mauritio in 1689 may have left him short of funds to stage Eteocle e

Polinice in the autumn of 1690.

The transaction reveals the complex nature of accounting at this time, and the

detachment between recorded and actual payments. For example, if Fontanelli had only

drawn 200 dobble (or 6,600 Ml) in 1685, then it would seem, after all, unlikely that he

had been responsible for the bill for 12,540 MI for making good the theatre ('Spesa da

farsi nel Teatro Fontanelli') which had seemingly been set against the original advance.

This would support the suggestion that the bill had originally been Valentini's

responsibility, whether wholly or in part (hence the withdrawal of 200 dobble only). It

also suggests that the credit of 400 dobble was, as proposed in Chapter 2, in reality an

inducement, or at least some manner of security to encourage Fontanelli to accept the

challenge of staging 'public' opera in Modena. Indeed, perhaps the nature of the

incentive is also borne out by the fact that, following the recalculated loss on Flavio in

1688, Fontanelli had not drawn on his remaining credit but had instead received a

further payment (again given as a loan) of 3,059 Ml, while leaving his advance safely

banked. Whatever the reality, it seems that both Fontanelli and Zerbini were now in

complete agreement that the sum should be offset against the original loan outstanding.

The second credit is equally undisputed in principle and recognises the sole

actual loan repayment of 1,320 MI already paid by Fontanelli nine years earlier, though

Fontanelli mistakenly lists the sum as 1,340 Ml. The end statement later confirms the

entry as 'DobbIe 40 che pago sotto Ii 22 xmbre 1685 al prenomato Serenissimo Signor

Duca, come dall'ingionto recap ito della medesima Altezza'. This is the one item among

the loan contra-credits where there is no apparent need for any supporting

documentation: it is seemingly taken as a fact.

The third credit addressed by Fontanelli is the loss on L'ingresso, which he

loosely records as 5,900 MI, as opposed 5,959.18.2 Ml. The precise valuation of the loss

281


incurred would be central to the loan reconciliation, and as such, its subsequent

manipulation post-production becomes integral to our identification of an audit trail in

respect of how both the loan and loss were ultimately settled. This item is therefore

addressed in more detail further below.

The fourth credit represents a contra-payment in lieu of an unpaid stipend in

respect of a commission from the duke dating from July 1692, the same time as

Francesco would have invited Fontanelli to produce L'ingresso. The sum is cited by the

impresario in the main body of his statement in terms that 'ho lasciato 26 de miei

mandati in ragione di £158 il mese come si puol vedere da libri in Camera che sono

£4,108'. As before, Fontanelli's totalling is round and lacks the need for the level of

precision we see in the end statement, where we see a far more precise entry for

'£4,122.19 per Ie provigioni del Signor Marchese da primo luglio 1692 a tutto Agosto

1694 a ragione di £158.11.6 i1 mese'. The undated and unsigned supporting testament

collated with the statements confirms that the stipend is in lieu of twenty-six months of

unpaid salary for the role of 'l'Onore Capitano della Guardia del Corpo', which

apparently was never drawn by Fontanelli. Whether or not Fontanelli could justifiably

lay claim to this sum (and it seems he proved he could, having taken the matter to the

'Tribunale Fattorale'), the credit when computed from the commissioning of the opera

up to the month before the death of Francesco does serve to provide a somewhat

convenient amount which fits well within an overall structure that succeeds in

computing a sum almost exactly equal to Fontanelli's remaining debt. As with much of

the detail in respect of the loan repayments and loss settlement, we again find an

accounting entry where there has been no apparent need to make any payment in cash,

but which serves at this point to facilitate an action which we might perceive to have

been desired by its originators.

282


Having thus totalled the four credits, F ontanelli then claims a supplementary

payment made by him via Cottini. F ontanelli notes how Giardini

mi porto ordine da parte di Sua Altezza ch'io dassi al Signor Cottini che partiva la mattina per la sua recita doppie 25 di queUe riserbate da mandare a Mantova al Signor Cortona, che esso Signor Duca me Ie havrebbe rimborsate che sono £950.

The reference to 'Signor Cortona' is to Domenico Cecchi ('it Cortona') who sang

Claudio Nerone in the opera. His full fee of 1,900 Ml was charged to the Fontanelli

accounts and contributed to the loss now being claimed by the impresario. But here

Fontanelli notably addresses an actual payment incurred, rather than a charge made

against the accounts. Reference to Cottini's supporting affidavit makes no mention of

Cecchi, though he does note that Francesco had 'regalato Siface, Checchino et piu it

mastro di cappella [Giannettini],. While both Siface and Giannettini were kept out of

the L 'ingresso accounts precisely because they were paid directly by Francesco, the

reference to Checchino (Francesco De Grandis) cross-references with a bill of payment

added to the accounts whereby the fee charged against the singer was recorded as

having been paid out of the ducal coffers on 11 March 1694. This is addressed below.

With the full fee for Cecchi also being properly charged within the L'ingresso accounts,

it remains at first uncertain as to why Fontanelli sought to claim back the original

advance of 950 Ml he had given to Cottini to pass on to the singer. After all, he did not

ask the same in respect of De Grandis, whose cost is similarly included within the loss

suffered. Certainly, his claim for Cecchi ultimately disappeared from the end settlement,

but that does not mean that the matter was not addressed. The distinction between De

Grandis and Cecchi is that while the former was an acceptance of cost, which resulted in

the duke settling his bill directly, Cecchi was a physical payment which had been made

in hard currency: hence Fontanelli's desire to recoup the money he had physically paid

283


out. While we cannot be certain how the matter was ultimately addressed, reference to

Roncaglia's payment of 1,220 MI below does offer a possible solution.

Nonetheless, with Cecchi's payment claimed, the impresario's statement initially

resulted in a total credit 'due' to Fontanelli of 15,598 Ml against which the loan was

easily settled, and which, in turn, created an end credit to Fontanelli's advantage of

some 2,398 Ml. Perhaps this computation reflects the extent to which Fontanelli was

always seeking to press his advantage; perhaps he was claiming no less than that to

which he was rightly entitled. Likewise, it might equally just be an example of the sort

of good business practice that sets out one's position high enough to allow an expected

counter-bid from the other party to bring down the final agreed sum to the one targeted

from the outset. Yet the purpose of these testaments was clearly not to create a new debt

to the duke's estate, but to absolve Fontanelli of an old one, and it is here that we must

return to his reference to the loss incurred on L 'ingresso.

The treatment of the loss is the most intriguing of all entries in the settlement as

it identifies an audit trail which for the first time clarifies how the accounts were

manipulated to reconcile and so satisfy the formal liability of the loan. As noted above

(Ex. 5.1), the loss suffered on L'ingresso in 1692 was 5,959.18.2 Ml, yet the following

extract from the end Profit and Loss Account shows how, by the time of the final

settlement, it had been adjusted down to 4,755.18.2 Ml (Ex. 5.3):

284

Paul Atkin, Chapter ~

Ex. 5.3: End summary and post-production amendments, c.1694-1698 (ff. 20v-21r)

[f.20v]

Total expenditure £ 24,170.18.2

Total income £ 18,211.00.0

Net loss £ 5,959.18.2

[f. 21r]

(Note of memorandum added in 1694)

(Total expenditure per accounts in 1692) £ 24,170.18.2

['Comparse' adjusted in 1694 to £222] £ 12.00.0

['Cantanti' adjusted in 1694 to £8,740] £ 4.00.0

(Total revised expenditure in 1694) £ 24,186.18.2

[Adjusted net loss in 1694) £ 5,975.18.2

(Memorandum to accounts added c. 1694 or 1698)

One deducts the sum of £1,220 having been paid on the order of His Most Serene Highness by Cashier Roncaglia to diverse musicians, as per the list, or copy of the same order of which expense one sees notated at the end of this account at [p.] 14 £ 1,220.00.0

(Final adjusted net loss in c.1694 or 1698) £ 4,755.18.2

Settled by scenery at £3,953.05.08

If we recall Francesco's instruction to thefattore to review the accounts, then we might

assume that it is his hand (probably in 1694) that first makes a couple of arithmetical

adjustments of no consequence which, as part of his audit, increase the original Total

Expenditure from 24,170.18.2 MI up by 16 MI to 24,186.18.2 Ml. Note, however, that

the fattore fails to identify an error in bringing forward the cost of costumes, which was

given as 3,953.15.8 MI in the ledger, but listed in the final summary as 3,953.05.8 MI

(see Ex. 5.1). As such, not only is the loss understated in the final summary by an

285


inconsequential 10 sold;, but so, too, is his final closing off of the loss in the accounts as

being satisfied by this lower sum. Notwithstanding this oversight, the correct value of

the costumes is nonetheless properly applied to the final reconciliation statement, which

we shall come to address below (Ex. 5.4).

Those errors identified in 1694 have the effect of increasing the loss to a revised

5,975.18.2 Ml. However, the critical amendment made by the Jattore relates to the

payment of 1,220 Ml made by Cashier Roncaglia in respect of the instrumentalists.

Whatever the reasoning behind the amendment, its effect was to reduce the loss figure

on production to the sum of 4,755.18.2 Ml which, when combined with the removal

from the reckoning of the 950 Ml paid for Domenico Cecchi, ultimately facilitated the

reconciliation of the loan with a negligible and inconsequential disbursement made 'a

spesa straordinaria' to Fontanelli of 298.17 Ml on 31 October 1698. While the payment

represented a substantial reduction from the impresario's opening claim of2,398 Ml, the

critical point is that Fontanelli's original debt had been cleared in full without him

making a single payment to the ducal treasury (save for the first instalment in 1685).

But we need to look more closely at the 'Roncaglia' payment. Both 'his' entry

and those of the arithmetical corrections appear to be in the hand oftheJattore, which is

entirely different from the remainder of the accounts. The amendments probably date

from Francesco's instruction in 1694, though conceivably this might be any time up to

the final settlement on 31 October 1698. Certainly, the amendments do not appear to be

part of any loss calculation made at the time of the production, nor did Fontanelli

acknowledge them in his statement. As such, the motive for their existence appears to

belong to 1694 and the loan reconciliation, more than to the loss computation in 1692.

Moreover, as we shall see, Roncaglia's payment is hugely problematic from the

perspective of computing the correct loss figure when, for example, it might equally

have served to increase the loss suffered, or have remained a separate matter entirely.

286


This issue becomes central to the next phase when we begin to view the motivation

behind the accounting decisions taken, and the perspective from which we must view

the effective ownership of the accounts. To do so, we need first to view the final

settlement as a whole and to note the way in which the liability is signed off by the

duke's treasury (Ex. 5.4):

Ex. 5.4: Final settlement and loan reconciliation, 1698 (LD)42

Al Signo r Marches e Decio Fontanelli fil sborsata dal gia Tesorie re Zerbini la valuta di Dobbl e 400 Italia per prestito che la g/orios a memoria del Serenissi mo Signo r Duca Francesco Secondo si compiacque di fare affinche potesse aggiustar il suo teatro delle comedie ad uso d'opere musicali da restituirgliela nel termine di dieci anni ogn'anno la rata come da copia ingiunta dell' ordin e in data di prim 0 lug/i 0 1685 quali Dobbl e 400 essendoli state valutate a ragione di £33 I'una dano

Rincontro del suddett 0 debit 0 si pongono Ie sottonotat e partite d'ordine di Sua Altezza Serenissima per bocca dell'IIIustrissimo Signor Consultore della Ducale camera, e sono

Per Dobbie 40 che pago sotto Ii 22 xmbre 1685 al prenomato Serenissimo Signor Duca, come dall'ingionto recapito della medesima Altez za sono a raguaglio suddetto

E Dobbl e 100 che lascio in Banco del predett 0 Zerbini sottoli X giugn 0 del 1690 in conto sopradett 0 come da attestato del medesimo Tesoriere sono

E £4122.19 per Ie provigio ni del Signo r Marches e da prim 0

lug/io 1692 a tutto Agosto 1694 a ragione di £158.11.6 iI mese

Per la perdita fatta di £4755.18 nella recita del Drama intitolato *1 L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone come da un libretto

esibito con recapito della Ducal e Guardarobba per abiti all'eroica per comedie statili consegnati, e quando si considerassero in uscita £3953.15.8 spese nelle scene che sono in essere appresso iI Signo r Marches e

Frances co Gatticoli[?] 24 7bre 1698 restarebbe haver e

£ 1,320.00

£ 3,300.00

£ 4,122.19

£ 4,755.18

*2 Si faccia buona la spesa delle scene al Signo r Marches e, e si aggiusta la scrittura con spedirle mandato dell'avvanzo tutto con participatione et ordin e di Sua Altezza Serenissima havuto dal Signor Conte di Marsciano. Carner a Ii 31 ottobr e 1698 Gio. Cassio di Com[?]

[Notes written in the margin by the side of the main text]

[£ = MI] £ 13,200.00

£ 13,498.17

£ 298.17

*1 fatta scrittura nell'uffizio del medesimo 1698 @28 et in libro Ragione di Modena 1697 @38. *2 fatto ordin e della £298.17 ques to di 31 ottobre 1698 a spesa straordinari a.

42 Note that the exchange rate cited of33 MI to 1 dobblaldoppia refers to 1685 and not to 1698 (then 38 MI).

287


The reduction of the loss on L';ngresso down from 5,975.18 Ml to 4,755.18 Ml and its

apparent offsetting by Fontanelli's handing over of the costumes and scenery leads us

into the process of how the deficit was finally addressed, and its critical role in the loan

reconciliation. On the face of it, a number of questions about the loan reconciliation

come to the fore, if we accept all of the testaments as given. First, why had Fontanelli

been required to settle the loss at all when he had claimed full ducal protection against

any deficit incurred? Second, why, if the loss had been protected from the outset, was

there now a need to use it as a counter-credit in the settlement of the loan? Third, if, in

essence, Francesco had taken responsibility for settling all outstanding accounts

following the loss in 1692, then by the time of the reconciliation in 1698 the deficit had

either been discharged or at best had represented a debt owed by Fontanelli to the duke,

as indeed did the loan. If so, then why was a debt Fontanelli owed to the duke used to

offset an even larger liability to the same party?

The answer to all these questions and, indeed, the key to the entire process, is

revealed by the closing statement (Ex. 5.4, ·2), which notes 'si faccia buona la spesa

delle scene al Signor Marchese'. When this note is read in tandem with the final entry

made by the Jattore (Ex. 5.3) on the L ';ngresso accounts ('settled by scenery at

£3,953.05.8'), then it becomes clear that the counter-credit to Fontanelli is not for

having suffered the loss, but rather for having had to make good the loss by formally

handing over his assets. The above settlement is not making good the loss suffered, but

recrediting Fontanelli for having satisfied the loss himself when he had not been

required to do so. Of course, the reality is probably merely one of an accounting

adjustment made on paper, while the probability is that the scenery moved nowhere,

even though the wardrobe was seemingly passed to Margherita. But in many respects,

that is the genius of the accounting adjustments: unbalanced books are reconciled

without any practical consequences to the key protagonists. Nonetheless, it is only when

288


we view the reconciliation of the loan and loss settlement from this perspective that the

two begin to unravel themselves as one single and wholly integrated process. The

difficulty is that, to do so, we also need to address the issue of the ownership of the

accounts if the decisions taken by the ducal treasury are to be reconciled with how the

objective was achieved.

The first step in this process is to address the treatment of Roncaglia's post-

production payment of 1,220 Ml. The motive for the entry becomes clear by the fact

that it reduced the Net Loss declared to a sum almost equal to the balance of loan

outstanding and thus enabled the final reconciliation of the debt. But it is the fact that an

additional cost served to reduce the deficit and not to increase it, as we would normally

expect, which revels for the first time that the ownership of the accounts had switched

from the theatre to the state. Instead of seeking to compute the actual loss on

production, the accounts were now driven by the need to reconcile the loss against

Fontanelli's outstanding loan.

Roncaglia's payment, as listed in the accounts, is supported by a separate

memorandum covering two payments made by the cashier. The sums listed (Ex. 5.5) on

the memorandum (or bill of payment) do not total the sum of 1,220 MI, but do appear to

have been included within the final adjustment:

Ex. 5.5: Payments by Cassiere Roncaglia, 1694 (LD)

Cassiere Roncaglia degl'effetti di cassa segreta pagate ad Antonio Cottini Nostro Musico doble cinque d'Italia effettive, e giusta val uta, sono l'intiero di doble trenta dovuteli per ricognitione d'haver cantato nell'ultimo dramma, che si rappresento nel Teatro Fontanelli diciamo DobbIe S. Di Camera Ii 27 Marzo 1694.

Cassiere Roncaglia degl'effetti di cassa segreta pagate ad Antonio Alemani nostro sonatore lire settantadue moneta corrente, oltre Ie lire cento sessant'otto, che Ii dovete sborsare in virtU d'altro nostro ordine, sono per compimento della ricognitione dovutali per havere operato dodici sere nell'ultimo dramma che si canto nel Teatro Fontanelli in ragione di lire venti per sera. Diciamo per compimento £72. Di Camera Ii 27 Marzo 1694.

289


Notably, both entries are dated 27 March 1694, which not only corresponds to the

period when the loss was taken on by the duke in terms of payments he then made, but

is in itself presumably related to the time when the fattore would have reviewed the

accounts. Roncaglia's entry in the accounts ledger (Ex. 5.3) confirms that the payments

made were to 'diverse musicians, as per the list, or copy of the same order of which

expense one sees notated at the end of this account in respect [p.] 14'. The reference to a

note at the end of the accounts thus appears to direct the reader specifically to this

memorandum of the two payments cited and further appears to identify it as a copy of

the original record. It also ties it to the payments made to the orchestra, listed at page 14

(f. 14r) of the accounts. In this way, we can now date Roncaglia's amendment to the

loss as probably being on or around 27 March 1694.

The payments made by the cashier to Cottini and Allemani are unquestionably

(and significantly) in addition to their earnings as listed within the main accounts.

Cottini's payment of 5 dobble (190 Ml) increases his original account entry of 25

dobble (950 Ml) to what Roncaglia now totals as 'sono l'intiero di doble trenta'.

Likewise, the payment of 72 Ml to Allemani is clearly cited as being in addition to the

168 Mllisted on folio 14r of the accounts ('oltre Ie lire cento sessant'otto, che li dovete

sborsare in virtu d'altro nostro ordine'). If we deduct the total payment (equivalent to

262 Ml) from the 1,220 Ml paid by Roncaglia, we are left with a balance of958 MI for

which there is no documentation. The sum, however, is remarkably close to Fontanelli's

payment of 950 Ml made to Cecchi ('il Cortona') in advance of the production. It is,

therefore, conceivable that this sum represented the reimbursement Fontanelli had

sought in his original statement, made at precisely this time and while Francesco was

still alive. While I must reiterate that, other than the two entries cited above, there is no

detailed breakdown given with respect to how Roncaglia arrives at the sum of 1,220 Ml

{and so there may well have been further payments to other musicians not listed which

290


make up the balance of this sum, or simply some rounding up of any of these three

payments to arrive at a recorded payment of 1,220 MI.), the inclusion of Cecchi's

payment within Roncaglia's total would certainly allow for a reasonably tidy

reconciliation of all points raised by the impresario. Equally, the payment to Fontanelli

would have justified the reduction in the loss incurred, as the impresario would have

been compensated for a cost he had physically suffered. However, it is also clear from

Fontanelli's own statement that he had sought settlement of the payment in addition to

the loss incurred of 5,959 Ml. But we should remember that Fontanelli was

fundamentally wrong in making this assertion. The critical factor in addressing the loss

is to remember that Fontanelli was asking the duke to accept in effect a debt for a

number of unpaid bills incurred in accruing the loss (Le., low receipts less high

expenses incurred equals bills outstanding equals loss). As such, although we will

address De Grandis in more detail below, we should note here that when he was

subsequently paid, because his fee had already been charged to the L'ingresso accounts,

and was therefore included within the loss, the size of the debt inherited did not change

and so no further adjustment of the deficit was required. The singer's fee formed part of

the total liability already accepted by Francesco. The same went for the payment of the

copyist Giannini, and indeed Cecchi to a point. The difference, however, was that as the

payment in respect of Cecchi served to reimburse an actual payment made out of

Fontanelli's own pocket (with the result that the debt inherited by Francesco was less

than the loss outstanding), then effectively the correct action from an accounting

perspective was to remove the payment from the total pool of liabilities outstanding and

to allocate it directly to the source that had suffered the original payment: Fontanelli.

The duke still accepted liability for the full loss, but in two separate parts: payments to

be reimbursed and liabilities to be paid.

291


Regardless, then, of whether Fontanelli had settled the loss by his handing over

of the wardrobe and scenery, or whether the duke simply honoured his pledge to protect

the impresario from any losses incurred, the dating of the Roncaglia memorandum

suggests that the payments were made after the loss had become the responsibility of the

duke. As such, whatever the make-up of the Roncaglia payments, it thus becomes clear

that from this point onwards we witness a change not only in the ownership of these

costs, but also in the perspective from which the duke's court now chose to view both

the L'ingresso accounts and the loss computed. Whereas, up to and including the

computation of the amended deficit in 1694, the accounts had clearly been constructed

from the sole perspective of the theatre, the fundamental change highlighted by the

Roncaglia payments was that they were employed to reduce the loss incurred, not

increase it, as we might have suspected of newly identified production costs (such as the

payments to Cottini and Allemani, and others if this was the case). Indeed, the point is

confirmed by reference to the duke's payment of Siface. Then, the singer's fee was not

included within the costs of production simply because it was not a cost incurred by the

theatre; equally, the duke's payment was also not recorded because it was not settling a

debt of the theatre. Had the accounts been computed as before, then this same principle

should have applied to the musicians, and so there would have been no necessity to

amend the loss.

Notwithstanding the principle that the bulk of Roncaglia's payment may have

been a reimbursement to Fontanelli, the fact that the loss was neither left unadjusted nor

increased, but was indeed reduced accordingly, suggests that the amendment did not

seek to compute the true loss incurred on L'ingresso, or its cost to the duke or

Fontanelli, but that by 1694 the aim had shifted from quantifying the loss suffered to

one of seeking to use it as a contra-credit to absolve Fontanelli from the outstanding

loan. When approached from this perspective, Roncaglia's payment (or at least the part

292


that applied to Cottini and Allemani) reduces the loss because the duke's court is seen

as having made a payment, which is not only in addition to the original costs incurred,

but which was not theirs to incur in the first place. The payment is effectively made on

behalf of Fontanelli and as such can rightly be deducted from the original sum owed to

him. Likewise, we have noted that the reimbursement in respect of Cecchi had the same

effect precisely because it reduced the loss Fontanelli had been seen to suffer. Thus, it is

only when the accounts have been turned completely full tilt and are viewed from a

perspective which is in direct contradiction to their original mode of composition that

we see how the ownership of the accounts has, by this time, transferred to the duke's

court and that, as a result, the loss must now be perceived within the context of a debt

repayable to Fontanelli and not one incurred by him.

The change in accounting philosophy can be corroborated by returning to the

payments of De Grandis ('il Checchino') and Giannini, where we can note that their

treatment did not require any adjustment to the original loss figure. Folio 15r of the

accounts details a charge for Francesco De Grandis of 1,900 Ml for singing the role of

Tigellino, while folio 9r records the cost of the music copyist Domenico at 204 Ml.

Both sums are included in the costs of the production and so contribute to the total loss

declared in 1692; however, a note dated 11 March 1694 has been added to folio 14v of

the accounts, which confirms that the payment for De Grandis was to be covered

belatedly by the duke 'alla forma praticata con Siface'. As Siface's fee had never been

included within the costs of production, no counter-credit was required in his case. By

contrast, because De Grandis had been charged to the accounts, a counter-credit would

ordinarily have been required here if the aim was to arrive at the correct loss incurred by

the theatre. Equally, the same scenario applies to Giannini, where a note at the rear of

the accounts, dated 5 February 1694, confirms the ducal payment of his fee. In both

cases, it soon becomes apparent that had the duke's court viewed the loss from the

293


perspective of cost to Fontanelli, then the loss declared in 1692 would have been

reduced further; however, if we once again view the accounts from the perspective of

the court addressing Fontanelli's claim, then both payments can be seen to have been

clearly computed (and therefore included) within the original loss the duke had now

taken on from Fontanelli. As Francesco had already accepted liability for these costs by

assuming responsibility for their debt, there was simply no requirement to amend the

loss when he finally came to make the disbursements.

Of course, to a very large extent, the issue of ownership of the accounts is an

irrelevance and even a distraction. Whichever way we choose to view the settlement,

the duke appears to pay the bills that remain within our sight today, while Fontanelli

claims a credit for the loss incurred. The reality is that from an accounting perspective

there was a need to write off the loan from the accounts, and from this viewpoint these

adjustments are merely the detail of how Fontanelli's debt was cleared. But the

impresario's original statement had created an unwanted problem in that he had then

computed a credit due to him of2,398 Ml. Whether or not my reading of the accounts is

correct, the adjustment for Roncaglia and the treatment of the payment to Cottini may

well be seen today as a calculated realignment of the loss so that the accounts finally

became reconciled.

As a consequence, we are ultimately left with a scenario by which, after their

original composition in 1692, the accounts ended up serving the opposite function by

1694, albeit that they were at all times prepared for the same master: Francesco. In

essence, we are able to identify categorically an accounting process that rejects the

structure by which the loss was originally computed in order to facilitate the

reconciliation of an inconvenient debt: Fontanelli's loan. That this happens and that

Fontanelli is not pursued for the said debt-not least, say, through the option of

repossessing the theatre he later sold--confirrns beyond question that there was an

294


overriding motivation to achieve two separate but related objectives. On an individual

level, Fontanelli's claim of ducal protection had instigated a process which would

ultimately require that he was absolved of his liabilities. On a political level,

Francesco's death at the start of the process elevated the reconciliation to one of closing

out his estate with minimal impact on the new duke's obligations. To this end, we

should be careful not to lose sight of the fact that the purpose of these accounts was not

only to reconcile Fontanelli and Francesco, but also to reconcile Francesco (now

deceased) and Rinaldo (his successor). Certainly, the new duke would have been eager

not to inherit his predecessor's liabilities. In this respect, the real question at issue seems

to have been whether Fontanelli's obligation to repay the initial loan had continued into

the new administration. After much effort, the same persistence with which Fontanelli

had secured his privileges in 1685 appears to have driven the entire process, so that four

years later his claim of ducal protection was upheld in his favour. As such, one has no

option other than to acknowledge, and even admire, the existence of a political desire to

select how, and through which process, the loss would be trimmed to a sum that

facilitated the reconciliation of the loan and closed out Francesco's liabilities caused by

his patronage of opera. From this perspective, the significance of the reduction of the

loss thus appears more related to what it achieves, or the end sum to which it arrives,

rather than applying a continuous and consistent policy to the computation of the loss

incurred on production. That this might be argued to contradict good accounting

practice and, certainly, the convention of consistency was clearly not a perspective

shared by the duke's treasury.

295


The treatment of the loss on L'ingresso with regard to the reconciliation of the loan

While Roncaglia's adjustment now facilitated a perfect reconciliation of

Fontanelli's outstanding loan, the matter remained a good deal more complicated than

merely amending the loss to a sum that ensured a rather neat and tidy closing of the

accounts. Of more concern within the context of an audit is the issue of how F ontanelli

had been able to use a loss he had incurred to payoff a loan he owed; and it is here that

we return to the issue of why the accounts were allegedly settled by the handing over of

the costumes and scenery.

To this end, the process of reconciling the loan must have caused or required the

duke's treasury to revisit precisely how the loss suffered on L'ingresso should be, or

had been, addressed. Of course, our understanding has long been that Francesco made

good the loss and settled all accounts outstanding, but had Fontanelli truly suffered the

loss at the time (by which I mean he had personally settled all accounts listed in his

ledger and had therefore physically incurred the deficit declared), then it would simply

have been a matter of honouring the duke's personal guarantee and making good the

loss precisely as a credit against the sum he owed on the loan outstanding. On the face

of it, the matter was indeed that simple. Certainly, while Fontanelli's testimony talks of

suffering losses, he makes no mention of handing over the costumes and scenery in lieu

of payment for the loss on L'ingresso; nor does he seek recompense on the basis of

having satisfied the loss in that way. Fontanelli simply seeks to offset the loan by

claiming a loss he presents as his own. Of course, noting his loose presentation of the

sums within his statement, he might simply not have felt the need to expand on the

matter at that point. In essence, the impresario had been promised ducal protection and,

as we have noted above, his focus seems to have been on the establishment of this

principle.

296


But the question remains, why was Fontanelli simply not credited for the loss

incurred in the final end settlement? Moreover, why was there the need to satisfy the

loss by his handing over of the costumes and scenery and then to make good that

transaction? In short, the second question answers the first. Had Fontanelli settled the

loss himself, then yes, it would simply have been a matter of crediting his loss against

the loan on the basis that the shortfall was under ducal protection and should not,

therefore, have been suffered by F ontanelli in the first instance. The fact that this did not

happen again reaffirms the view that the loss must have been protected from the outset

by Francesco.

The difficulty with this answer is simply that once the duke had protected his

impresario in the first part, then that debt was to all intents and purposes resolved. From

an accountancy perspective, it no longer existed, and having thus been settled, it could

not be used by Fontanelli as a credit against the outstanding loan. As such, the

impresario would have found himself in the unenviable position of being unable to clear

his loan and left holding a debt no one wanted. An alternative route needed to be sought

if F ontanelli' s claim for protection was to be upheld.

The answer, it seems, was to devise a process by which the accounting journals

should record the formal making good of the shortfall on Fontanelli's part by his

handing over of the costumes and scenery, which would then serve in lieu ofa payment

in real terms (Le., cash or other hard form of currency). The advantage of this

transaction was that these items were tangible assets against which a value had been

recorded, and so enabled the balancing of the books. They also had the advantage of not

greatly affecting or harming Fontanelli. After all, by 1694, there had been no opera

since 1692 and Fontanelli had, by his own words, simply retired ('cosi lasciai

l'impresa'). We might also suspect that in reality the scenery had nowhere else to go

and so probably stayed in the theatre. When Fontanelli eventually sold his theatre on 29

297


July 1705 for the sum of 57,308 Bolognese 'Quattro', he did so 'con tutte Ie scene,

teloni, tele, corde, legnami et orizonti' .43 While, of course, the reference might have

been to newly constructed scenery (or indeed, to scenery other than that used for

L 'ingresso), the prudent overseeing of Rinaldo and the reduced activity at the theatre

suggests Fontanelli never physically lost possession of the scenery, whatever the

accounting adjustments declared.

The issue of offsetting the loss against the loan has been visited only once

previously, by Bianconi and Walker, who touch briefly on L'ingresso as part of a wider

review of 'Production, Consumption and Political Function of Seventeenth-Century

Opera':

Fontanelli's deficit [on L'ingresso] was of the order of 4,755.18.2 Ml. This deficit was settled by handing the singers' costumes over to the ducal wardrobe, and by giving over the stage materials: Fontanelli had actually received from the Duke a loan of 13,200 Ml repayable in ten years from the opening of his theatre ... ofwhich 4,457.[0]1 Ml remained to be repaid at the time of the opera in 1692. This meant that F ontanelli lost in one fell swoop the remainder of the capital which the Duke had advanced him in 1685 to promote the activity of public theater.44

Bianconi and Walker's validation of events confirms that even following a brief

inspection, the reconciliation is seen to work, and the books appear balanced. Duke

Francesco, if only by implication, is acknowledged to have settled the loss in real terms,

while Fontanelli is seen to have made good the deficit by the handing over of the

costumes and scenery. But their claim that, as a consequence of the deficit, 'Fontanelli

lost in one fell swoop the remainder of the capital' is misleading, if not inaccurate.

In the first part, the balance of capital cited by Bianconi and Walker as being

4,457.01 Ml is incorrect, given that they compute it by first deducting the three counter-

credits (Le., the loan instalment, the credit held by Zerbini, and the unpaid stipend)

43 Martinelli Braglia, 'II Teatro Fontanelli', p. 150; Gandini, Cronisloria, I, pp. 89.90; I·MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena c nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685·1705', Casso n. 8.a.


298


listed in the final settlement (Ex. 5.4 above). In effect, they trace the strategy applied by

the accountants as they sought to compute a balance due approximately equal to the

revised loss, which was then used to cancel the loan. But the debt of 4,457.01 Ml is a

false balance computed between 1694 and 1698 and was not a running balance

outstanding at the time of L 'ingresso. Not least, we have noted how the stipend ran until

August 1694 and so would not have reached its full value in 1692. The computation of

the remaining capital in hand is also flawed, as it uses what was the actual remaining

capital of 3,300 Ml or 100 dobble (Le., the credit held by Zerbini) as a deduction to

arrive at the balance they are trying to identify.

In the second part, we need to be careful about the terminology used and, indeed,

from which perspective we view the capital invested. Capital is broadly defined as being

the value invested within a going concern. It is not an asset of the enterprise, but

effectively a liability owed to its investors. Accordingly, from Bianconi and Walker's

perspective the loan represented Fontanelli's capital. As such, the loss on L'ingresso

should not have been viewed as somehow soaking up the remainder of the capital, as

this only serves further to increase Fontanelli's liabilities. However, if we follow the

same principle applied to the L'ingresso accounts post-production and view the capital

outstanding from the perspective of it being the duke's investment (of which he was still

holding 3,300 Ml or 100 dobble), then not only is this factually correct, but Fontanelli's

suffering of the loss is compensated by the duke effectively releasing the remaining

capital invested in opera, plus a bit more to absolve Fontanelli of his debts. In this sense,

even though Fontanelli is seen to hand over his costumes and scenery (to which I shall

return shortly), it is not the impresario, but Duke Francesco who 'lost in one fell swoop

the remainder of the capital'. Indeed, we might speculate that this final loss of the

remaining capital advanced to Fontanelli in 1685 might actually have been the cause of

opera ceasing in Modena, as in making good the deficit the duke used up the last portion

299


of the original 400 dobble he had set aside to produce opera. Thereafter, with the budget

spent and funds relatively exhausted, it is possible that the limit for investment in

'public' opera had been reached.

This aside, what I believe Bianconi and Walker are trying to establish is that in

making made good the loss by handing over the wardrobe and scenery, the impresario

effectively lost his remaining assets. It is true that the costumes and scenery can, in this

sense, be rightfully regarded as assets of the theatre, given that they clearly held a

tangible value which was then used for the benefit of their owner (Fontanelli) to clear

his liabilities; however, their treatment up to that point from within the accounts had

been as 'revenue' items of expenditure (Le., charged within the end Profit and Loss

Account as expenditure to be offset against the income earned) as opposed to 'capital'

expenditure (Le., charged to the Balance Sheet as a longer term investment and not

deductible from turnover). Indeed, we have noted how, historically, it is as 'revenue'

items that the costumes and scenery have been held accountable as the primary cause of

the loss the impresario suffered on production. As such, we should also be clear to note

they were neither items bought out of the capital advanced to Fontanelli, nor do they

equate or represent the loss in capital that Bianconi and Walker note. Accordingly, it is

presumably from this perspective that Bianconi and Walker sought to show that

Fontanelli can be seen to have lost 'the remainder of the capital', not in terms of the loss

suffered, or in the reduction of his capital, but in terms of the transfer of ownership of

his assets. The distinction is small but significant. From Fontanelli's perspective, the

amount outstanding on the loan by 1694 was clearly a debt which needed to be settled.

Consequently, the loss on L'ingresso (even if amended down to 4,755.18.2 Ml) should

have had the effect not of depleting Fontanelli's capital, but instead of increasing his

liabilities, which may have pushed the impresario towards a fear of insolvency.

300


This had never been the intention. In reality, Fontanelli had never been granted

unfettered access to the cash sum represented by the loan, as indeed Zerbinrs statement

given above confirms. Although the advance may have been provided to encourage

Fontanelli to become the new impresario, his access to the funds clearly remained

dependent on him producing opera for as long as Francesco wanted, which (after all)

was the very purpose for which the loan had been designed. In this way, just as

Fontanelli could never be seen to benefit personally from the loan (or opera), nor could

he ever lose his capital in any sense of the type of personal loss proposed by Bianconi

and Walker. It is only through the duke's death that the matter is forced to its conclusion

and a resolution to absolve Fontanelli of a debt which is not really his to bear is

eventually manoeuvred into place.

It is, therefore, a measure of the degree to which the loan reconciliation was

carefully constructed that a double negative against Fontanelli could be turned into a

positive in his favour. Nonetheless, the critical issue was that the transfer of costumes

and scenery duly created a scenario by which the impresario could be seen to have

settled a debt which, as we have established, (having been under ducal protection) he

was not 'legally' required to have honoured. Significantly, then, it is not the loss which

is declared as being made good in this end settlement, but the 'cost' to Fontanelli of

handing over his assets when not obliged to do so. It is only when we view the end

settlement in these terms that the consequence of 'si faccia buona la spesa delle scene al

Signor Marchese' (Ex. 5.4, *2) becomes apparent, not least when read in context of the

formal treatment of the loss within the same final settlement:

Per la perdita fatta di £4755.18 nella recita del drarnma intitolato L'ingresso 0110

gioventu di Claudio Nerone come da un libretto esibito con recapito della Ducale Guardarobba per abiti all'eroica per commedie statili consegnati, e quando si considerassero in uscita £3953.15.8 spese nelle scene che sono in essere appresso it Signor Marchese £4755.18.45

45 See Ex. 5.4.

301


Noticeably, the valuation is for the scenery only. Of course, such valuations are to some

extent a complete nonsense and an irrelevance to the issue at hand, but they do serve

again to shed some insight into the philosophy behind the accounts. The 'valuation'

given to the scenery was its total cost of manufacture as listed in the accounts, which

conforms to the accounting-cost concept of recording assets at cost price, but that does

not mean to say that it was in any shape or form a realistic valuation of the true worth of

the asset at this time. By contrast, no formal value was given to the costumes, which had

cost 4,41O.l4.6 Ml to buy and make. Whether or not the wardrobe was taken as making

up the difference (Le., 802 Ml), the issue of valuation, I suspect, was not one of

recuperating these costs, but instead one of literally finding a value that could be used to

close off the loss in the first instance. To this end, it may well have been for political

motives that the cost of both costumes and scenery were not listed here, as together they

came to the sum of 8,964.10.2 Ml, which may then have given the unwanted impression

that the duke was profiting from his actions. By contrast, the registering of 3,953.l5.8

Ml in respect of the scenery alone left the duke as being seen the more generous in

accepting a lesser settlement.

However, initially at least, the premise of one debt serving to increase and not

eradicate another still stood and needed addressing. To this end, it is important to

remember here that the L'ingresso accounts end with a statement of Income and

Expenditure (Le., a Profit and Loss Account), which in this case produces a loss. They

do not end with a statement of payments out and receipts in, which creates an end,

overdrawn account. The loss would have needed paying, and for the ducal record now

to note that it had been settled by Fontanelli via the handing over of the costumes and

scenery serves to confirm once more that the debt must have been physically paid (or

settled) by Francesco, no doubt precisely under the terms of the original ducal

protection Fontanelli cites. After all, this would appear to have been the primary reason

302


for the extraordinary preparation of an accounting ledger that so exceeded the detail for

Flavio Cuniberto.

The presentation of the accounts reminds us that if we accept the duke's promise

of protection as given, then initially there would have been absolutely no need to

transfer these items over, not least if we recall the aforementioned intention to continue

producing opera after L'ingresso. The problem only arises through the need to reconcile

the loan. With Francesco now taking over responsibility for the loss, Fontanelli could no

longer reconcile a deficit he had not suffered against the loan. Without any adjustment

to the contrary, and without a loss suffered, Fontanelli would have found himself

without a credit by which to offset the loan, which would therefore have remained

outstanding. The duke's assumption of the loss on L ';ngresso had created, in

consequence, a tremendous difficulty in the reconciliation of the loan. In short, the very

enactment of the same ducal protection upon which Fontanelli had relied now

threatened his undoing.

But all was not over. By the wording of Fontanelli's testimony, the duke's

promise had not been to protect the loss, but to assure the impresario that 'Sua Altezza

non s'intendeva ne voleva havessi alcun danno'. Cottini had been slightly more specific:

'et in caso di perdita non intendeva che il suddetto Signor Marchese avesse d'aver alcun

danno'. The principle of protecting Fontanelli (as successfully argued) clearly extended

beyond the loss. Thus, a process was required to allow the loan to be written out of the

ducal ledgers, and it is here that, either by ducal dictate or by agreement, the idea of

using the value of costumes and scenery to compute a credit to Fontanelli by which to

write off the loss must surely have been suggested. Accordingly, while the duke's

coffers settled the outstanding creditors, a listing of the costumes (Ex. 4.5) was duly

prepared for the items to be formally passed over to the duke. Note, however, that the

consignment was formally recorded not as being from Fontanelli to Francesco but from

303


the ducal wardrobe to Margherita. Once more the question of ownership is vague. While

it remains possible that Francesco (or his clerks) might have demanded such a transfer

to satisfy the loss, their limited value and Fontanelli's citation of the duke's guarantee

makes this less probable. To this end, we should note that the listing for the costumes

has survived because of its value in the reconciliation of the loan; after all, it remains

extant today solely because it has been held with all the loose documents relative to this

very purpose. Moreover, its dating of 15 September 1698 is at exactly the time of the

loan reconciliation. Likewise, it is not, I suspect, without reason that it cites an earlier

version now lost but recorded as originally having been prepared on 13 August 1694,

just a month before the duke's death, but, nonetheless, dated after the payments made to

De Grandis and Giannini, and those made by Roncaglia. This would again support

Fontanelli's opening statement that attention had already moved towards closing off the

loss on L'ingresso and to reconciling the loan while Francesco was still alive, and

possibly out of a fear that the duke's condition was ever deteriorating.

The significance of these dates is that they serve to provide a trail of accounting

journals made which (although no longer extant) document how Fontanelli was

protected not once, but twice from significant losses. Apart from its value in identifying

the costumes worn on stage, the list of the wardrobe seemingly holds the key to

unravelling the procedures used to extricate F ontanelli from his predicament. The

solution appears to come through what may be no more than an accounting invention

for the handing over of the costumes and scenery, which through two contradictory

journal entries serves to clear Fontanelli first of the loss on L'ingresso in 1692 and then

of his liability for the loan in 1698. Consequentially, we have to consider whether the

transfer of assets served first in 1694 to settle formally the loss (despite the apparent

lack of recognition) or whether the idea belonged to 1698 as a way of undoing

Fontanelli's original protection by Francesco.

304


In theory, both options are possible and certainly not mutually exclusive. Quite

the contrary: what made logical sense in respect of the loss of 1692 could subsequently

be termed incorrect and require adjustment for the loan in 1698. In this way, we can see

that the listing prepared in August 1694 may have served to close off the L'ingresso

accounts by formally allowing Fontanelli to clear his debts simply by handing over

costumes and scenery that most probably remained in his use. In accepting these items

in lieu of payment of the losses incurred and, consequently, of the creditors the duke

had settled in March of that year, Francesco became the effective guarantor of the

production. As such, just as Fontanelli thus settled his debt, so Francesco took

ownership of the loss, so that those payments made on his part would have become a

matter for the ducal records, not the L 'ingresso accounts.

By September 1698, the preparation of the second listing of costumes would

have been required to give weight to the revised argument which then sought to use the

original journal as evidence that the loss had in reality been settled fully and wholly by

this transfer when, by reliance upon the now cited and accepted principle of ducal

protection, Fontanelli should not have been required to hand over his assets and so had

officially settled a loss that had not been his duty, responsibility or liability to 'pay'.

Thus, from an accounting perspective, the transfer needed to be reversed and so

facilitated the creation of a counter-credit against the loan, which together with the three

other contra-credits served to clear the original loan in full and without any liability in

\

any shape or form on the part of Fontanelli. This is not insignificant. If the ~an had,

indeed, been an inducement to pick up the reins of the theatre, then the advance had

been successfully written off without incurring tangible payments; in which case, the

use of a loss previously incurred proved a particularly useful accounting tool to serve a

distinctive accounting problem. Certainly, it served to glorify the memory of Francesco,

which is indeed how F ontanelli opened his testament. If this were the case, then in

305


effect a non-existent loan had been reconciled by the appropriation of a non-existent

responsibility for a debt that was not incurred. Under such criteria, a loan, which we

might interpret as only having existed on paper, was therefore repaid by contra-credits

and journal transfers and not by any single tangible payment. It is with this in mind that

we should note that all four credits used to settle the loan commonly served in that, at

the time of the agreement, their existence in any material form was, to say the least,

vague. The first two (Le., the first loan instalment and the credit held by Zerbini) related

to sums that were in effect already held on behalf of F ontanelli (or Francesco depending

on our perspective); while the last two (Le., the stipend and loss) were sums that

Fontanelli now claimed he was due (both of which remained formally in the possession

of the duke's estate). In this way, through what was no more than the manipulation of

accounting journals, Fontanelli would have been twice protected by the duke and his

court: first in 1692 from a loss, originally recorded as 5,959 Ml, and, second, in 1698

from a loan of 13,200 MI that had subsequently been reconciled away without any

payment on the impresario's behalf. As such, we are left to conclude that it could only

have been Francesco (or his successor) who ultimately suffered the loss on L'ingresso

in any real financial sense.

But affairs of state required that such indulgences were recorded and reconciled.

The fmal wording of the formal closure of the loan (Ex. 5.4, *2) is explicit in stating

that the credit had been authorised in order to make good the loss Fontanelli had

suffered by the transfer of his assets. The purpose from the outset had been to protect

Fontanelli from suffering any harm as a consequence of his services to the duke. Within

this remit, we can see how the payment to Cecchi was unique in that it related to a debt

that, for once, had truly been incurred in real terms by Fontanelli. It is for this reason

that, I suspect, the sum may have been made good directly within Roncaglia's payment

of 1,220 Ml. While this reimbursed Fontanelli for his original disbursement (and also

306


settled additional payments to Cottini and Allemani), its treatment in the final

reconciliation of the loss incurred on production (together with those payments to

Giannettini, Siface, De Grandis and Giannini which remained outside of the accounts)

clearly gave the lie to any suggestion that the accounts sought to compute the true cost

of L'ingresso. Instead, the collective function of all transactions viewed was quite

simply to achieve an end settlement, which with almost perfect symmetry allowed the

loan to be reconciled, achieving a final, nominal credit to Fontanelli of 298.17 MI (or

just under 8 dobble). This was sanctioned on 24 September 1698 and paid 'a spesa

straordinaria' on 31 October 1698. Such was the power and freedom of the duke's

treasury to map out its own accord and settlement to please whatever happened to be

politically expedient at any given time, be it 1694 or 1698, that the accounts were

reconciled to serve a political master without fear of audit or the challenge to apply

consistently the concepts and conventions of accountancy as public office would require

today. Put simply, the aim had been to reconcile Fontanelli's debt and to close off Duke

Francesco's accounts for opera, and this, with some manipulation, had been achieved

perfectly.

The difficulty, which consequently remains for us to unravel from the extant but

crucially incomplete records some 300 years later, is the question of the viability of

opera under Francesco. While the exceptional nature of L 'ingresso as a 'wedding' opera

detaches it from all of its predecessors at the Teatro Fontanelli and restricts its

contribution to this question, the growing losses identified by Fontanelli within the

context of the poor ticket sales for L 'ingresso suggest that in all probability opera was

not self-sustaining in Modena at this time. While we might argue that by virtue of being

a court wedding entertainment L'ingresso could reasonably be expected to have made a

loss, and might even have remained relatively good value-for-money, it would appear

that, nonetheless, the huge investment in costumes and scenery had been authorised on

307


the basis of higher returns than were ultimately achieved. While the duke's illness and

death ultimately cloud any insight into whether opera would have continued post-1692

as a valuable and cost-effective vehicle for ducal propaganda and publicity, the final

hypothesis would seem to be that opera would have remained viable so long as the duke

was prepared to underwrite its production. And that, in the final analysis, is always

going to be the conclusion for any system dependent primarily upon ducal patronage.

In conclusion, the evidence suggests that the relationship between patron and

impresario and the resultant mechanisms for opera production in Modena were a good

deal more complex than we may until now have understood, and that they pivoted on

the need for mutual co-operation in the pursuit of protecting shared interests. That by

the end of the seventeenth century we are still witnessing complicated processes by

which ducal patronage is hidden behind illusions of an autonomous impresario suggests

that little had changed in the administration and function of opera since its inception

under the Medici. In this respect, presumed distinctions between 'court' and 'civic', and

'private' and 'public' opera never became reality, at least not in the provincial centres of

Northern Italy. In this case-study, the loss incurred on the lavish production of

L'ingresso has been seen to be Fontanelli's in 1692 and Francesco's in 1694, but with

the ultimate responsibility falling to the state in 1698. The degree to which these losses

transcend paper and became reality is lost in time. In the end, although I have sought to

identify one particular argument for unravelling an audit trail which leads to the

computation of the end settlement from 1692 through to 1698, it is equally apparent that

none of these sums was necessarily required to balance precisely or that there was any

consistency in their calculation. Likewise, it becomes clear that the sums themselves are

an irrelevance, as the overwhelming will of the court remained unquestioned and

undoubted in its ability to manipulate and adapt what remains a set of incomplete

records to the desired end result, whatever the political expediency of the moment

308


required. What has been shown is that the mechanisms of opera patronage in Modena

were motioned by an accounting system that moved money around to cover money

moved around. Questions of who actually paid the final bill, if and when anyone paid

any bills, were thus willingly manipulated to achieve the political needs of the day and

always to protect those who served 'a' piedi di Sua Altezza Serenissima'.

309

Paul Atkin, Appendices

Appendices

310

Appendix A

The Este (1597-1780)1

LAURA 1591-1630

m. Alessandro I Pico, Duke of Mirandola

FRANCESCO I 1610-1658

Duke of Modena 1629-58 m. Maria f amese (1631)

m. Virtoria Famese (1648) m. Lucrezia Barbcrini (1654)

ALFONSO IV 1634-1662

Duke of Modena 1658-62 m. Laura Martinozzi (1655),

(1639-1687)

CESARE 1562-1628

Duke of Ferrara from 1597 to 13 January 1598 Duke of Modena from 13 January 1598 to 1628

m. Virginia dei Medici (1586)

ALFONSO III 1591-1644

BORSO 1606-1657

Duke of Modena 1628-29 m. Isabella eli Savoia (1608) later Padre G. Battista (1629)

LUIGI 1594-1664

Marquis of Montecchio & Scandiano

m. Ippolita d'Este (niece)

IPPOLITA m. Bono d'Este (uncle)

LUIGI FORESTO c.I648-1698 c.1652-1725

Marquis of Marquis of Scandiano Scandiano

OBIZZO CESARE RINALDO 1611-1644 1614-1677 1617-1672

Bishop of Cardinal Modena

ISABELLA 1635-1666

m. Ranuccio II Famese (1664)

ALMERICO 1641-1660

(Mother of Margherita Famese)

CESARE IGNAZIO c.1653-1713

Marquis of Montecchio

MARGHERITA 1618-1692

m. Ferrante Gonzaga, Duke of Guallalla

MARIA 1644-1684

ANGELA MARIA CATERINA c.1656-1722

m. Emanuele Filiberto di Savoia (1684)

ANNA BEATRICE 1626-1690

m. Alessandro U Pico, Duke of Mirandola

RINALDO I 1655-1737

m. Ranuccia II Cardinal 1686-95 Farncse(I668) Duke of Modena 1694-1737

, , ,

,

" ,

, , , ,

71 m. Carlotta Felicita eli Brunswick -,' (169S)

FRANCESCO 1657-1658

MARIA BEATRICE (MARY OF MODENA)

1658-1718

FRANCESCO II 1660-1694

Duke of Modena 1661-94 (nb. under regency ofhio mother,

Laura Mlltinozzi, 1662-74) m. Margherila Famese (1692),

daughter of Ranuccio U Famese (1664-1718)

FRANCESCO III 1698-1780

m. JunesU Stuart (1673) Queen of England (1685-88)

Duke of Modena 1737-80 m. Carlotta Aglae d'Orleano (1720)

m. Terell di Cutelbarco m. Renata Terell d'Harrach

nb. Francesco III wu the first of Rinaldo l'llhree children: Gian Federico (1700-27) & Enricbetta (1702-77)

I After Milano, 'Gii Estensi', p. 129 and Chiappini, Gil Eslensl, pp. 582-3, but updated for this case-study,

311

Appendix B

Chronology of Operas Given in Modena (1653-1705)

Year Teatro Ducale (1656-1755)

Also known as Teatro Ducale di

Piazza, Teatro della Spelta, Ducale Teatro Grande, Teatro di Modena, Teatro Nuovo, Teatro Domestico; and origina lly as Sal a della SpeJta (+)

11 prtnclpt corsaro scll/ava/ortunata

1675 II Clro

/I Girtllo 1677 Gtrmanlco sui Rtno

1681 1682

1683 1685

1686 given as 'private' amateur

productions ('accademie') by ' I del dei Nobili'

1687 /I marliN! d'omoll! 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 I dlseglli del lirallno sllIrhatl dol

1695 1696 1697

1698

1699

1700 1701

1702

1703

(0)

'Emcl/o 0 " legillllno 1Il01l0rco ... (G)

'invilla generosila dell 'oppresso (G)

Iribllnale de 'paZ:1 (G)

gluocchl cil'cmsi (G)

lIume ° La piela sullrono (G) l/il1/a biz=arra cr. Accademico)

'Achille ° la virtli risvegltala (G)

Timocrale (G)

Key: 'public ' opera / 'privale' opera

Reign of Francesco I (1629-58)

Reign of Francesco U (1674-94)

Teatro Fontanelli (1685-1705)

Formerly Teatro Valentini (1643-8 1)

Teatro Fontanelll opens 1685 /I Vtspu/ano I Ie I

/I Trespolo, tutore "'Iordo I due germanl rll'all (note:

incorrectly given as I due /raul/J rlI'all in G,)

(no opera following death of Laura)

F1al'lo Cunlbeno

11 "'aurltlo Ettocle e PoI/nice L 'Inganno COptrto per vendetta L '/ngrmo alia ,Iol'entil dl Claudio Nerone

/I Guistillo * INon dll/retlo al/ 'amor disuguagllQllza */** • both staged simultaneously 'n vicendn' , •• first given prvalely in summer (1697)

at the duke's palace, Sa suolo

/I jig/Jo delle stlve (1 700-0 1)

unknown opera given (G,T)

La Semiramlde

G Gandini, Croll/slorlo, I.

• Reign of Alfonso IV (1658-62) no opera. o Reign of Rinaldo I (1694- 173 7)

Teatro di Corte (1686-1860)

Fonncrly a ll works at the ducal palace were staged at the Teatro di Pala7.zo, noted by Tard ini as a ' teatrino privato' .·

I priml 1'01/ dell 'aquila aus/rlaea dol sogno Imperiale alia gloria·

pill/a Irlott/ante nella nasel/a del I m,~na"ca brl/anno [sic ] (T)

ditta/ore romano (T) Demetrio (T)

T Tnrdini, Ilealri di Modella ,

Regency ofLaur8 (1662-74)

The above takes Sartori,ll/brell/ Ilailani, as its principal and authoritative source, but wilh added Modenese sources of Gandini,

Crolli lor/a, I, and Tardini,llealri d/ Modena ; additional cross-referencing is 10 Chiarelli, t cOOici dl musico della Ra colla ESlfll.'e .

Where an opera is followed by one of the key letters (G or T, or both) Ihis signifies that the entry is not listed in Sartori, but in the provincial sourccls as identified above.

312

Appendix C

List of Operas Given in Modena (1653-1705) 1

Operas given at the Teatro Fontanelli (1685-1703)

1685 II Vespesiano [sic] cZ Venice (1678), Ferrara (1682) plus five occasions to 1685, often as II Vespas;ano

1686 II Trespolo, tu/ore balordo '" Bologna (1682 and 1686)

1686 / due german; rivali

1688 Flavio Cuniberto '" Venice (1682) but with new music

1689 /1 Mauritio - Venice (1687), Bergamo and Milan (both 1689)

1690 Eteocle e Polin ice - Milan (1684), also Venice (1675), Naples (1680)

1691 L 'inganno scoperto per vendetta - Venice (1691), Genoa (1691t

1692 L'ingresso aI/a gioventu di Claudio Nerone

1697 Non dafreno al/'amor disuguag/ianza '" Bologna (1687)"

1697 II Giustino - Venice (1683), Bologna (1691) plus five occasions to 1697

1700 II figlio delle selve' .. Rome (1687) plus ten occasions to 1700

1702 Unknown production

1703 La Semiramide - Bologna and Venice (1671) plus seven occasions to 1702.

G. C. Corradi (I.), C. Pallavicino (c.) I-MOe LXXXlII.H.23 (lib.). Mus. F. 894, 898 (ms.) Also: I-Bc, Bu (lib.)

G. C. Villifranchi (I.) after G. B. Ricciardi (1.),3 A. Stradella (c.) I-MOe LXX.F.27 (lib.), Mus. F. 1128 (ms.) Also: I-Bc (I. O. B. Ricciardi), Bu, Fm, Mh, Vgc (lib.)

anon. (I.), C. A. Lonati (c.) I-MOe LXX.H.II (lib.), Mus. F. 1549 (ms.) Also: I-Be, US-Ws (Jib.)

M. Noris (I.), D. Gabrielli (c.) I-MOe LXXXlII.D.19 (Jib.), Mus. F. 421 (ms.) Also: I-Bc, Fm, RE Pani::; (lib.)

A. Morselli (I.), D. Gabrielli (c.) I-MOe LXXXlII.H.22 (lib.), Mus. F 417 (ms). Also: I-Bu, Lg, Mh, Ve (To"efranca), Vge (lib.)

T. Fattorini (1.), G. Legrenzi (c.) I-MOe LXXXIll.D.41 (lib.), Mus. F. 628 (ms.) Also: 1- Fm, FZc, Mh, Mcom, Vge (Jib.)

F. Silvani (1.), G. A. Perti (C.) I-MOe LXXXlII.F.6 (Jib.), Mus. F. 921 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Re, D-Bds, US-Ws (lib.)

G. B. Neri (I.), A. Giannettini (c.) I-MOe LXX.G.6 (lib.). Mus. F. 499 (ms.); I-Rval, Barb. lat. 4206 (Antonio Zannettini [Giannettini), 'Arie diverse di una commedia ratta per Modena. Novembrc 1692') Also: I-Be, Fm, FZc, Rn, RE Pan;:; (Jib.)

anon. (I.), anon. (C.)5 I-MOe LXXXIII.F.27 (Jib.), Mus. F. IS43 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Bu, Re (Jib.)

N. Beregani (1.), G. Legrenzi (C.) I-MOe LXXXIll.F.34 (lib.); ms. not held. Also: I-Be, Re, Rn, Vge (lib.)

C. S. Capece (I.), C. Bani (c.) I-MOe LXXXIII.C.27 (lib.), Mus. F. 52 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Mh, US-We (lib.)

anon. (1.), anon. (co)'

anon. (1.), anon. (c.) I-MOe LXXXIII.1.25 (Jib); ms. not held. Also: I-Be, Mh, Rn, US-We (lib.); I-Ne (ms.)

313

Paul Atkin, Appendix C

Operas given at the Teatro Ducale di Piazza (1656-1685): also known as Teatro della Spelta, Dueale Teatro Grande, Teatro df Modena, Teatro Nuovo and Teatro Domestleo; and originally as the Sala della Spelta. 9

1653 Ersilla (then, Sala della Spella) '" Venice (1648)

1654 Gli amori d'Alessandro con Rossane (then, Sala della Spelta) '" Venice (1651)

1656 II Sancio

1656 Andromeda

1658 L 'Erosilda

1674 II prencipe corsaro not Venice (1658)

1674 La schiava/ortunata = Venice (1614)

1675 II Ciro '" Bologna (1666) 'con arie mutate. ,13

1675 II Girello '"' Ronciglione (1668)14, Bologna (1669)

1677 Germanico sui Reno = Venice (1616), Milan (1611)

1681 Helena rapita da Paride .. Venice (1671) 'con prologo e intermezzi nuovi e arie mutate. '; .. Enone Sehernita, Verona (1680) 'con arie mutate e il prologo aggiunto'.1S

1682 Amore maestro d'inganni 0

Lafinta in/erma '" Bologna (1682)

1683 Bassiano 0 II maggior impossibile - Venice (1682)

1685 Oreste in Argo

1685 L 'Alcibiade '"' Venice (1680)

G. Faustini (I.), anon. (c.) I-MOe M.V.H.lS.13 and LXX.l (lib); ms. not held. Also: I-Ne (lib.).

G. A. Cicognini (I.), F. Lucio (C.)IO I-MOe LXX.O.l8 (Venice lib.); ms. not held. Also: Rvat (Allaeei) and (Barberini), (lib.)

C. Rima (I.), anon. (c.)1\ I-MOe LXXXVIII.D.32 (lib.). ms not held. I-Mb, B-Bc (lib.); ms. not held.

B. Ferrari (I.), F. Manelli (C.)12 lib and mi. not held.

C. Vigarini (I.), B. Ferrari (c.) I-MOe LXXXVIII.D.28 (lib.), ml not held. I-MO Po/elti, Rvat (Barberini), (lib.); ms. not held.

G. B. Giardini (I.), P. Mazzi (c.) I-MOe LXXXIII.B.28 and XC.C.17 (lib.), Mus. F. 726 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Bu, Mb, Re, Vge (lib.)

G. A. Moniglia (I.), A. Cesti (C.) I-MOe XC.C.11 (lib.), Mus. F. 627 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Bu, Fn (Pa/al/no), Mb, Re, F-Pn (lib.),I-Vnm (ms.)

G. C. Sorrentino (I.), F. Cavalli and A. Mattioli (c.) I-MOe XC.A.41 (lib.), Mus. E. 306 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Bu. Mb, Vge (lib.)

F. Acciaioli (1.), A. Melani (c.) I-MOe LXXX.lII.B.2S (lib.), Mus. E. 181 (ms.)

Also: I-Bu (lib.); I-Ne (ms.)

G. C. Corradi (I.), G. Legrenzi (c.) I-MOe LXX.F.27 (lib.), Mus. F. 627 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Mb, GB-Lb/ (lib.)

A. Aureli (I.), D. Freschi (C.) I-MOe LXXX11I.B.28 (lib.), Mus. F. 394 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Bu (lib.)

anon. (I.), G. A. Manara (c.) I-MOe LXXX11l.C.21 (lib.). Mus. F. 671 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Re, Rn (lib.)

M. Noris (1.), C. Pallavicino (c.) I-MOe LXXE.6 (lib.), Mus. F. 896 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Rn, RE Panizzi, Vge (lib.)

G. A. Bergamori (I.), G. A. Perti (C.) I-MOe LXXXI11.B.lB (lib.), Mus. F. 922 (ms.) Also: I-Be, Re, Rn, Vge (lib.)

A. Aureli (C. Bertini I-Mae) (1.), M. A. Ziani (c.) I-MOe LXXXIII.B.2S and 28 (lib.). Mus. F. 1300 (ms.) Also: I-Be (lib.)

314


Operas given in court at the Teatro di Palazzo (1665-1685) and the Teatro di Corte (1686-1701)

1665 II Ciro in Lidia

1677 I primi voli del/'Aquila Austriaca dal sogno imperiale alia gloria'6

1686 L 'Eritrea 0 01 'inganni della maschera not L 'Eritrea given (1652-69); note Bologna (1654) held at I-MOe.17

1689 La pieta trion/ante nella nascita del monarca britanno [sic]

1696 Loscioglimento de' nodi del Fato

1697 Amorefra gl'impossibili '"' Rome (1693) 'con molte varianti'ZO

1698 Endimione - Ferrara (1655) but with variations, Lodi (1692), Milan (1693) and possible others

1700 II dittatore romano

1701 II Demetrio

Other operas cited

1658 II prencipe corsaro (Venice)

1682 Flavio Cuniberto (Venice, twice)

1683 IIlalamo preservato dallafedelta di Eudossa (Reggio Emilia)

G. B. Boccabadati (I.), S. Reni (c.) I-MOe LXXXIII.O.14 (lib.); ms. not held. Also: I-Be, Mb (lib.)

V. Carli (I.), G. M. Bononcini (c.) I-MOe LXXXIII.O.2 (lib.); ms. not held.

G. B. Rosselli Genesini (I.), A. Ferrari (c.) I-MOe LXXXVllI.O.24 (lib.). Mus. O. 268 (ms.) Also: I-PAc, Vge, B-Be (lib.)

anon. (I.), anon. (c.) lib. and ms. not held'"

F. Forti (1.), anon (c.) I-MOe LXX.l.4 (lib.);'9 ms. not held. Also: I-Rli (lib.)

G. Gigli (I.), C. Campelli (C.) I-MOe LXXXIII.O.l7 (lib.); ms. not held. Also: I-Be, Bu (lib.)

anon. (I.), G. Tricarico (1655) (c.) I-MOe LXXXIII.0.30 (lib.); ms. not held. Also: I-Be, US-Ws (lib.)

anon. French opera translated by 'un cavaliere della Corte,.21 lib. and ms. not held.

anon. (1.), anon. (C.) I-MOe LXXXIII.E.lO (Venice lib.); ms not held.

G. Castoreo (I.), unknown (C.), I-MOe LXXXIII.E.24 (lib.); ms. not held.

M. Noris (I.), D. Partenio (c.), I-MOe LXX.E.l5 (Jib.); ms. not held.

A. Morselli (I.), P. A. Ziani (c.), I-MOe LXXXIII. 0.21 (lib.), Mus. F.l554 (ms.)

Note also: libretto published source: Morselli, 'II talamo preservato dalla fedelta di Eudossa', in Italian Opera Librellos 1640-1770,56; score: Mayer Brown (ed.), 'n Talamo preservato dalla fedelta di Eudossa', in Italian Opera 1640-1770, 12.

1692 Ottaviano in Sicilia (Reggio Emilia) anon. (1.), F. Ballarotti (c.), I-MOe LXXXIII.O.l9 (lib.), Mus. F. 51 (ms.)

For full archival reference of all oratorios cited, see Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, pp. 191-200, Appendix I.

I This list has been compiled primarily on the basis of the archives held at the Biblioteca Estense Universitaria, Modena (I-MOe) and by reference to and citation from Sartori, I librelli ita/iani; Chiarelli, I codiei di musiea della raeeo/ta Estense; Oandin~ Cronisloria, I, and, Tardini,lteatri di Modena. All library sigla are per RISM and are expanded in Abbreviations (p. 18). Reference is first to the records held at I-MOe-where most of the extant librettos and manuscripts are held-and then to Sartori's listing of other libraries which hold further copies. Where there is no direct confirmation within the libretto/manuscript, then I have accepted Sartori's accreditation of author/composer, and where there is no listing in Sartori, I have then indicated production/author/composer as identified by either Oandini or Tardini. The debt owed to all four scholars is immeasurable.

31S


1 = signifies probable source of the revival. See Appendix D for specific comments made from my own review, although please note that I have not conducted a thorough investigation of all operas listed. I have merely sought to establish the extent to which the production in Modena is a revival, and if so whether it is an exact copy or varies from the original. I have also relied on notes with in I-MOe (attributed to Lodi, 'Catalogo delle opere musicali. CittA di Modena'), which document the source (e.g. 'Ia stessa' and so on). I have also accepted Sartori, I libretti italiani, wherever such comments exist.

) Gianturco, Alessandro Stradella (1639-1682), pp. 149-50.

4 Libretto confirms Venice as its source.

5 Muratori, Delle antiehila estensi, 2, p. 84, notes 'fu autore di questo drama Antonio Cottini', while I suspect that Tardini, Ileatri dl Modena, p. 81, is probably more accurate in noting 'fu dedicato illibretto al duca dal suo virtuoso di camera Antonio Cottini, che faceva l'impresario e i1 cantante'. Cottini's dedication records the work being given in Sassuolo during the previous summer. Both Non diljreno and II Giustino were given simultaneously 'a vicenda'.

6 Sartori, I libretti italiani, p. 243 (16619) confirms Bologna as source.

7 Opera might technically be dated 1700-01; Sartori, I libretti italiani, p. 159 (10194), dates the opera as 1701 (as per the jronlespi=io of the libretto), but the dedication is clearly dated 27 December 1700. The accounts are dated precisely (though curiously) as 'il present'Anno 1700'. As these become the prime documents of reference in this study, I have, therefore, taken 1700 as my point of reference throughout.

• This unknown production is confirmed as such in both Gandini, Cronistoria, I, p. 85, and Tardini, I teatrl di Modena, p. 864.

9 This list does not extend to the thirteen or so private amateur productions given in this period by I Convillorl del Collegio de' Nobili, some of which are listed under Appendix B at the Teatro Ducale (1687-1702), though the Conviltorl stayed at the theatre untill7S3 when they transferred to their own theatre (II Teatrino del Collegio San Carlo di ModenalIl Teatrino del Collegio dei Nobili). See Alessi, II Teatrino del Collegio San Carlo dl Modena; Gherpelli, L 'opera nei lealri dl Modena, pp. 38, 42. I have also not included La ni'!fa bizzarra (1701), A. Aureli (I.), M. A. Ziani (c.). It is cited in Tardini, Ilealri dl Modena, p. 1252, as being given at the Teatro Fontanelli (Carnevale 1700-01), but more specifically by Sartori, llibrelll ilalianl, p. 230 (16490), as being staged in September at the renovated 'Teatro Accademico dell'Aurora in centro'. Although the work is not directly identified as being by the Convittori, the academic reference links this work to those similarly referenced by Sartori and identified as such. As there is no specific Teatro Accademico recorded in Modena in 1701, the link to the Convilorrl at the Teatro Ducale seems to make it the most likely venue to fit such a description at this time. Note also that La ninfa bi::=arra - Venice (1697) and is held at: I-MOe LXX.H.36 (lib); ms. not extant; and also: I-Be, Mb, Rn, US-We (lib.).

10 Tardini,l teatri di Modena, p. 931, cites Francesco Lucio (c.).

II Ibid., p. 1337, cites Camillo Rima (\.).

11 Ibid., p. 934 cites both Ferrari and Manelli.

13 Sartori,llibrelli italiani, p. 133 (5669).

14 Ibid., p. 333 (12069).

15 Ibid., p. 10 (8721).

16 Tardini,lleatri di Modena, p. 1301, confirms 'rappresentato per la prima volta a Modena nel Teatro di Palazzo, nel giugno 1677'.

17 Ibid., p. 1100, confirms 'questo dramma scritto dal Conte Rosselli Genesini venne eseguito da cavalieri della Corte, la sera dell) mana 1686, in occasione dell'inaugurazione del nuovo Teatro di Corte'.

II Ibid., p. 1288, is the only source for this production.

19 Libretto held at I-MOe not listed in Sartori,llibrelli italianl.

10 Sartori,llibrelli italiani, p. 172 (1638).

11 Tardini,l tealrl di Modena. p. 1066, is the only source for this production.

316

Appendix D

Operas Given at the Teatro Fontanelli (1685-1692)1

Summary Analysis and Verification of Librettos held at the Biblioteca Estense Universitaria, Modena (I-MOe)

1. 1685 II Vespesiano [sic], Giulio Cesare Corradi (I.), Carlo Pallavicino (c.) lib. LXXXIII.H.23 0/2

Revival: given previously in Venice (Teatro Grimano di S. Giovanni Chrisostomo, 1678), lib. LXXXIII.B.2 <I' and Ferrara (Teatro Bonacossi, 1682), lib. LXXXIII.B.S <1'; plus four further productions before Modena. Sartori also notes productions post Modena at Parma (1689), Fabriano (1692), and Rome (1693).

'IL / VESPESIANO / DRAMA PER MUS/CA. IDa rappresentarsi in Modona nel / Teatro Fontanelli /

I'Anno 1685.1 DEDICATO, E CONSACRATO / All' Altezza Serenissima Del Signor / 0 U C A / DI MODONA, E REGGIO &c. / [decoration: Estejleur-de-lis design] / IN MODONA, / Per gli Eredi soliani Stamparia Ducale I Can Licenza de Superiori,3

'SERENISS/MA ALTEZZA': signed by Decio Fontanelli (undated). 'ARGOMENTO': unsigned. 'INTERLOCUTORl' Vespesiano. Tito } suoi figli Domiciano} Arricida moglie di Tito Attilio Generale di Vespesiano Sergio } Capitani di Domiciano Licinio } Gesilla Schiava di Vespesiano Zelto suo Custode Idrena Nutrice 'PERSONAGGI MUTI': 'Intermedi nell 'Alto Primo e Secondo'.

Nom; de Sig. Music; Sig. Antonio Cottini4

Sig. Ferdinando Chiaravali Sig. Francesco Ballerini Sig. Clarice Gilli Sig. Giuseppe Maria Segni detto Finalino Sig. Giovanni BuccelenLs

Sig. Giovanni MaroardL6

Sig. Francesca Maria [Sarti] Cottini. Sig. Francesco Barzaghi Sig. Antonio Predieri.' [not accredited].

Venice (1678) and Ferrara (1682) do not list performers against their detail of interlocutorl.

'SCENE': by act. I. 3 (sets); II. 3; III 3. Note sets include:' La. 'Piazza Antica di Rome col Palazzo di Vitellio' could be L'ingresso (L) L.I.h. 'Strada di Rome con Fahriche sontuose, ed una piccola Casa'.

I This listing was, in the first instance, compiled in the Biblioteca Estense, Modena (I-Mae) directly from the librettos identified within the library, as detailed. Photocopies were taken by the library staff for later cross verification. I have then sought to list the primary data such as title page, dedication, argomento, interlocutori, and scene-complexes etc. All other works identified as viewed also had similar copies taken. The aim was to document briefly the productions at the Teatro Fontanelli with a view to identifying the type of opera staged and whether these were new or revival productions. At a later stage, I have then sought to verify this data against other previous productions of these operas not held at I-Mae through the following sources: Sartori, I libretti italian/, Chiarelli, I codici di musica della rocco/to Estense, Gandini, Cronistoria, I, and Tardini, I teatri dl Modena.

1 ~ = Libretto viewed.

3 Note that where I cite from the libretto's title page, I have sought to maintain a semblance of the same typescript and layout given in the original, though I have maintained my editorial policy as identified in my Points of order and notes on transcriptions throughout. All libretto sources cited are held at I-Mae.

4 All singers who performed in L ';ngresso are given in bold for ease of identification. Note that where there are variations of the names of singers, this are cited as given, but with their 'standard' spelling given in the footnotes by reference to NOO or Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena.

S Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena, p. 64, gives Giovanni Bozzoleni.

6 Ibid., p. 59, gives Giovanni Marovaldi.

7 Note that certain basic scene-complexes are repeated regularly throughout each of the operas given at the Teatro Fontanelli. With this in mind, I have listed only those sets which had the potential to be adjusted and reused in L'lngresso. Naturally, the degree of possibility varies per example so that many of the entries are no more than mere suggestion.

317

Paul Atkin, Appendix 0

I.c. 'Sala preparata, & iIIuminata per Ie Reggie Mense' could be L.I.d. 'Salone maestoso nel Palazzo di Claudio con Apparato di Festa da Ballo'. n.b. 'Prigione orrida' could be L.III.b. 'Sito dirupato con Antri di Prigioni'. II.c. 'Delitiosa con Fontana' could be L. n.b. 'Giardino con Fontane' or could be L.I1I.a. 'Deliziosa'. III.c. 'Salone Imperiale' could be L.l.d. 'Salone maestoso nel Palazzo di Claudio con Apparato di Festa da Ballo'. Given the similarity of subject (i.e., a Roman Emperor), then it would appear logical that this opera might have been a source of the reused sets recorded for L ';ngresso, save for the issue of time and the productions in between. Further reading will also confirm a constant preference for historical opera subjects and a tendency to repeat/reuse key scene-sets. Thus, economics might have influenced the selection of similar topics as one assumes the cost of scenery would have been a factor.

While Modena does not acknowledge its source, Ferrara notes Venice as the first version and keeps to broadly the same scene-sets. However, there is some variation which is more obvious at the start of Act I where the opening text is completely different as indeed are their respective ends. The Modena revival is again relatively true to the scene-set of Venice though there is clear variance. Its text, however, starts with the same aria 'SI, sl vincero' as Venice, though its end is completely different. Even so, the Modena end matches parts of the Ferrara end suggesting that perhaps both might take their reference from Venice.'

2. 1686 II Tresp%, tutore balordo, Giovanni Cosimo Villifranchi (1.), after Giovanni Battista Ricciardi (1.), Alessandro Stradella (c.)9Iib. LXX.F.27 ./ Revival: given previously in Bologna II tulore balordo (1682 and 1686), while the libretto, LXXXIII.B.1l ~, is entitled II Trespolo tutore (although venue and lib. date is not given) and credits Gio Batt. Ricciardi (1.). Even so, Modena does appear to have been a revival of Bologna.

'IL I TRESPOLO I TUTORE BALORDO I OPERA DRAMMATICA I Per Musica I Da recitarsi nel Teatro Fontanelli II'Anno 1686./ CONSECRATO I All' Altezza Serenissima I DI FRANCESCO II. I Duca di Modona, Reggio &c. I [decorative scrolling design] I IN MODONA, I Per gli Eredi Soliani Stamparia Ducale 1686.1 Con Licen::a de' Superiori'

'SERENISSIMA ALTEZZA': signed by Decio Fontanelli ('Ottobre 1686'). 'INTERLOCUTORI NOM I DE SIGNORI RECITANTI Trespolo Tutore Balordo. Artemisia sua Pupilla innamorata del Tutore Nino suo Amante Ciro suo Fratello Pazzo Amante ancor esso d' Artemisia. Simona lor Balia, Vecchia Balorda. Despina sua Figliola accorta.

Sig. Pietro Paolo Fontana. Sig. Catterina Cherubini. Sig. Giuseppe Guazoni. Sig. Angiola Cocchi.

Sig. Antonio Predieri. Sig. Valeria Mezzadri.'

With the possible exceptions of Predieri and Fontana, none of these names is at all familiar to Modena. Predierila definitely sang in I due german; rivali as most probably did Fontana. lo One theory which might fit well with the unfamiliar singers, the single scene-set and the fact that Modena produced two operas in 1686 (see I due germani rivali below) might be that this opera was performed by a travelling company. If this were so, then it may have been imported whole, complete with singers. That the Modena libretto is a close repetition of the Bologna libretto might also support the suggestion that the same company may have given the opera there, though the undated Bologna libretto does not list the names of the cast and so prohibits confirmation of this possibility.

'La Scena si rappresenla in una Villa': no detailed breakdown of scene-complexes. 'AL LETTORE': unsigned; notably short argument of23 words only and is no more than a declaration of good catholic values.

Despite Sartori's citation of two productions in 1682 and 1686, his titles do not agree with the libretto cover of the Bologna production held at I-MOe which notes 'II Trespolo tulore' only. Gianturco confirms Villifranchi re-worked the original play by Ricciardi and that the pair effectively shared ownership of the libretto. I I It is clear from the content that one libretto is the revival of the other with the same protagonists

• Note that I have not sought to compare closely respective librettos, but only to identifY whether the production given in Modena was a revival or not, and if so from where it originated. I have also relied on notes within I-Mae (attributed to Lodi, 'Catalogo delle opere musicali. Citta di Modena'), which document the source (e.g., 'Ia stessa' and so on). I have also accepted Sartori, I libretti italiani, wherever such comments exist.

9 Dubowy, NGO, 3, p. I, suggests that Carlo Ambrogio Lonati may have been responsible for this revival in the same year his I due german; rivali was given in Modena.

10 I due germani rivall notes Pietro Paolo Fontana as opposed Pietro Antonio Fontana. I do not know if these names relate to the same person, relations, or namesakes.

II Gianturco, Alessandro Stradella {/639-1682}, pp. 149-50.

318

Paul Atkin, Appendix D

and scene-set. The opening of the Bologna libretto is the same in Modena, save for the re-styling of the text. The end of the librettos differ more substantially though one can see a common thread. Chiarelli notes that the one score held in I-MOe (Mus. F. 1128) relates to VB 14 and VCS6 (98 and 464 in her book respectively), but that these do not correspond. No indication is given of year.

3. 1686 I due germanl rivali, anon. (1.), Carlo Ambrogio Lonati (c.) lib. LXX.H.lI ~ Source: no previous production recorded. Sartori does not note any other production under this title.

'I DUE 1 GERMANI 1 RIV ALI 1 DRAMA PER MUSICA 1 Da recitarsi nel Teatro Fontanelli 1 l'Anno 1686./ Consecrato al/' Altezza Serenissima 1 DI FRANCESCO II. 1 Duca di Modona Reggio &c.1 [decoration: Este Eagle decorated with Este coat of arms with Este crown in its beak. Stands on latin text confirming the duke's dominion: 'MUT. REG. &C. DUX.' 1 IN MODONA. I Per gli Eredi Soli ani Stamparia Ducale 16861 Con Licenza de' Superiori.'

'SERENISSIA£4 AL TEZZA': signed by Decio Fontanelli ('Ottobre 1686'). Date confirms that both I due germani rivali and II Trespolo. tutore balordo were given together and possibly 'a vicenda'. 'ARGOMENTO': unsigned. 'A CHI LEGGE': similar in style and purpose to the 'allettore' of II Trespolo. 'Interlocvtori': 'Nomi de virtvosi che recitano' listed against 'interlocutori'. 'INTERLOCUTORI NOMI DE VIRTUOSI CHE RECITANO Costanzo } Fratelli Imperatori di Rome

} Costante }

Emilia } Nobili Romene, sorelle Clelia } Massimo loro Zio Console Romano. Publicola Generale di Costanzo.

Probo Capitan deUe Guardie di Costante.

Drito servo faceto di Costante. Delfa Matrona d'Emilia, e elelia.

• ACCOMPAGNAMENTI':

Sig. Giovanni Francesco Grossi Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissima Sig. Gioseppe GaUoni Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissima Sig. Barbara Riccioni Sig. Angiola Salicoli. Sig. Giovanni Battista Sensi. Sig. Antonio Borosini Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissima Sig. Francesco Antonio Pistochini [Pistocchi] Musico del Serenissimo di Parma. Sig. Pietro Antonio Fontana. Sig. Antonio Prediera Musico del Serenissimo di Mantova.' listed, but [not accredited).

Note how in this production there is an increased reference to the singers being identified as ducal musicians. This might suggest that this opera was the more important work of the two given in 1686.

'APPARENZE': by act. I. 3; II. 3; III 3. Note sets include: II.b. 'Sala Reggia illuminata' could be L 'ingresso (L) L.I.d. 'Salone maestoso nel Palazzo di Claudio con Apparato di Festa da BaUo'. lII.c. 'Gran piazza di Rome a vista del Pallaggio Imperiale' could be L.l.b. 'Strada di Rome con Fabriche sontuose, ed una piccola Casa'. As with II Vespesiano, the similarity of subject might have aUowed either or both of the above sets to have been used by L'ingresso in 1692.

The libretto clearly states the work's title as I due germani rivali, though there is some confusion over the key word 'germani' in other references to this opera. Sartori does not provide any relevant variant on this title. However, Gandini entitles the work I due /ralelll rivali,12 and Martinelli Braglia cites the work as I due gemelli rivali, (pietro Averara, 1., anon. c.).u Yet, reference to Sartori shows that Martinelli Braglia's citation is mistaken and in fact her opera refers to another production entirely, given in Turin (1690), which though held in I-MOe was never performed in Modena. 14 There is no reference anywhere in Sartori to Gandini's title. I have no information to support why Gandini uses a different title, the identity of his source, or whether his mistake is related in some way to Martinelli Braglia. Note that Tardini does manage to cite from the correct libretto source and that Chiarelli corroborates his listing by her cataloguing of the three-act manuscript score in I-MOe. IS Finally, Dubowy confirms Lonati's opera as I due germani rivali and cites its premiere as being given in Modena in 1686.16 I think on this basis we


U Martinelli Braglia, 'n Teatro Fontanelli', p. 153. Note that her references to titles and years are inconsistent with the above sources and seem in the main to be taken directly from Gandini, Cronisloria, I, pp. 68-79, who sometimes also uses incorrect titles.

1. Sartori,llibretti iwliani, pp. 256-7 (11488).

15 Tardini, 1 lealri di Modena, p. 1084; Chiarelli,l codic; di musica della raccolta Estense, pp. 213-14 (882-4).

16 Dubowy, NGO, 3, p. 1.

319


have to accept that it was written for Modena, or perhaps (as Dubowy suggests) part of a contract with Lonati, possibly including or (because of the success ot) his oratorio L'innocenza di Davide (Modena, 1686). For now, we must presume I due germani rivali not to have been a revival emanating from either of the other two titles. As such, it would appear that this was the first opera premiered at the Teatro Fontanelli, ifnot also the first to be written expressly for it.

1687 No opera given in Modena.

4. 1688 Flavio Cuniberto, Matteo Noris (I.), Domenico Gabrielli (c.) lib. LXXXIII.D.19./ Revival: given previously in Venice (Teatro Grimano in S. Giovanni Grisostomo, 1682), lib. LXX.E.l ./ and then subsequently in Livomo (1690), lib. LXX.G.36 ./ and Florence (1702), lib. LXXXIlI.H.4. Sartori lists eleven productions of which this is the third. The second production was also given in Venice, Teatro Grimani (1687).

'FLA VIO I CUNIBERTO I DRAMA PER MUSICA I Da rappresentarsi nel Teatro Fonta· I nelli l'Anno M.DC.LXXXVIII. I Consacrato all' Altezza Serenissima I DJ FRANCESCO II. I Duca di Modona, Reggio, &c. I [decorative floral design] I IN MODONA, I Per gli Eredi Soliani Stamparta Ducale 1688 I Can Ltcenza de' Superiori.' Note originalfrontespizio still extant detailing full Este coat of arms with two Este eagles and a nymph placing a crown above the Este coat of arms.

'SERENISSIM4 AL TEZZA': signed by Decio Fontanelli (Ottobre 1688). 'EPILOGO I Delle attioni del Drama.': unsigned. 'INTERLOCUTORI NOMI DE SIGNORI MUSICI Flavio Cuniberto

Emelinda sua Moglie.

Lotario Ugone

} Consiglieri. }

Emilia figlia di Lotario.

Teodata } figli di Ugone }

Guido } Vitige Capitano delle Guardie di Flavio.

Bleso servo di Lotario.

NEGL'INTERMEDII! Girillo Paggio asturo. Bleso sudetto.

Signor Giovanni Francesco Grossi Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissma. Signora Clarice Beni Venturini Virtuosa del Serenissimo di Parma Signor Giuseppe Canavese. Signor Antonio Cottini Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissma. Signora Francesca Sarti Cottini Virtuosa di Sua Altezza Serenissma. Signora Ottavia Monteneri Virtuosa di Sua Altezza Serenissma. Signor Giacinto Vasti Fiorentino. Signor Marco Antonio Origoni Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissma. Signor Pietro Paolo Benigni Musico del Serenissimo di Parma

Signor Francesco Mantovani. [as given above.]

Note the naming ofthe singers in the intermedi. The Venice libretto does not list the names of performers.

'APPARENZE DI SCENE.': by act. I. 4; II. 3; III 3. Note sets include: I.c. 'Amena di verdura nella Reggia' could be L'ingresso (L) L.I1.b. 'Giardino con Fontana', or L. liLa. 'Deliziosa'. I.d. 'Strada con fabriche' could be L'ingresso (L) L.I.b. 'Strada di Rome con Fabriche sontuose, ed una piccola Casa'. I1.a. 'Giardino Reale' could be L.Il.b. 'Giardino con Fontana'. I1.b. 'Sala contigua a gli Appartamenti d'Emelinda' could be L.Il.c. 'Atrio, che introduce ne gli Appartamenti di Claudio'. Likewise, III. 'Passeggi delitiosi nella Casa di Lotario' could also be L.I1.c. 'Atrio, che introduce ne gli Appartamenti di Claudio'. 'AL LEITORE': unsigned, short but identifies Gabrielli as the composer.

Gandini records Giovanni Domenico Partenio as the composer of the original version in Venice. However, the manuscript at I·MOe is clearly attributed to Gabrielli, while the libretto credits him as the composer of the music, which suggests that Gabrielli probably replaced Partenio's score in full or at least in the major partY The libretto, however, remains the same as Venice. The text of the libretto from the beginning to end matches word for word with the sole exception that the Modena libretto adds on an aria ('Chi e costante in amar speri goder. ') to the end of the Venice libretto. The drama itself is a clear revival of Venice. Characters match for both operas, but scenes are slightly adapted for the Modena production.

17 Gandini, Cronts/oria, I, p. 7S. See also Dubowy, '''Un riso bizzaro dell'estro poetico''', pp. 401.22, for a study of Noris's Venetian libretto. Note also Dubowy's dating of 1681 contradicts the libretto's own dating of 1682.

320


Indeed, if we note once again the repetition of scene-complexes, then presumably the motivation for these minor changes might have been to use better the scene-sets already in situ at the Teatro Fontanelli.

5. 1689 II Maurillo, Adriano Morselli (1.), Domenico Gabrielli (c.) lib. LXXXIII.H.22 ." Revival: given previously in Venice (Teatro Vendramino di S. Salvatore, 1687), lib. LXXXm.F.12 ~. Sartori notes a total of nineteen productions of which one, Rome (1669), entitled Scenario del Maurilio, is seemingly not the same production given in Venice (1687). Note that the Venice staging was also given in Bergamo and Milan (both 1689). Thereafter, all other fourteen productions were post-Modena.

'IL / MAURITIO / DRAMA / PER MUSICA / Da rappresentarsi in Modona / nel Teatro FONT ANELLI / I' Anno 1689. / Consecrato a/l' Altezza Serenissima / DI FRANCESCO / SECONDO, I DUCA DI MODONA, REGGIO, &c. I [decoration: Este coat of arms and crown] I In Modona, nella Stamparia del Degni. 1689.1 Con Licen=a de Superiori.' This is first libretto not printed by 'gli Eredi Soliani'.

'SERENISSIMA ALTEZZA.': signed by Decio FontaneIli (Ottobre 1689). 'AL LETTORE CORTESE.': unsigned. 'HISTORIA.': unsigned. "Si finge': continuation of 'historia'. 'INTERLOCUTORI NOMI DE' SIGNORI VIRTUOSI. Mauritio, Favorito di Tiberio, primo Imperatore. Tiberio Secondo Imperatore. Cosdroe Re di Persia.

Ergilda sua Moglie.

Placilla Figlia di Tiberio. Ircano Prencipe d'Egitto, finto Prisco.

Cirene Prencipessa d'Egitto amante d'Ircano.

Leno Eunucho Persiano.

Giove sopra I'Aquila. Apollo. Uno de' Tifei.' PERSONAGGI MUT!

Sig. Domenico Cecchi da Cortona, Musico del Serenissimo di Mantova. Sig. Antonio Cottini, Musico del Serenissima di Modona. Sig. Giovanni Francesco Grossi, detto Siface Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissima Signora Francesca Sarti Cottini Virtuosa di Sua Altezza Serenissima Signora Angiola Parisi. Sig. Faustino Marchesi, Musico di Sua Allezza Serenissima Signora Angiola Cocchi Virtuosa del Serenissima di Mantova. Sig. Giovanni Battista Vergelli Musico di Sua Allezza Serenissima [not accredited] [not accredited] [not accredited] [not accredited]

'Giove' and 'Apollo' are unusual for not having singers allocated to them, suggesting that the roles were minimal, if not muted, which is the case for 'Uno de' Tifei' and the 'Personaggi Muti' (evidently). Note that as we approach 1692, singers who are more familiar to the time of L 'ingresso begin to appear. Once again the original production (Venice, 1687) does not list the names of the cast.

'APPARENZE DI SCENE.': by act. I. S; II. 4; III 3. Note also 'La Scena si finge in Bisantio' is added at the end of the scene listing. This setting may well preclude the following sets from being used in L 'ingresso or equally might explain why they required adjusting (see discussion in Chapter 4). lb. 'Delitiosa negl' Appartamenti di Placilla' could be L'ingresso (L) L.IlI.a. 'Deliziosa'. I1.a. 'Sala negl' Appartamenti d'Ergilda' could be L.lc. 'Gabbinetto nella Casa d'Ellia Catulla'. H. 'Giardino Imperiale con finta Scena di verdura' could be L.Il.b. 'Giardino con Fontane'. II. 'Luogo spatioso dietro aile Mura, con Quercia eminente, e strada che conduce a gli Appartamenti d'Ergilda, Notte con Luna nuuolosa' could be L.I.b. 'Strada di Rome con Fabriche sontuose, ed una piccola Casa'. Ill. 'Luogo di spettacolo con Prigione, e Serraglio di Fiere' could be L.IIl.b. 'Sito dirupato con Antri di Prigioni'. Likewise, III. 'Luogo di spettacolo con Prigione, e Serraglio di Fiere' could be L.III.c. 'Anfiteatro di Spettacoli'. III. 'Salone Imperiale' could be L.I.d. 'Salone maestoso nel Palazzo di Claudio con Apparato di Festa da Ballo.'

A coincidence, given the marriage in 1692, is that the Venice production was dedicated to Duke Ranuccio H Famese of Parma. Modena is a clear revival of Venice. Even the 'al lettore cortese' is copied as is the change in style to include the additional 'Historia, Si finge', though in Modena it is broken into two parts over two facing sides of the libretto. Modena repeats exactly the same characters, though it again goes further in listing the performers where Venice does not. Note that changes to scenery were again probably dictated by costs (Modena could easily have adapted previous scene-sets from earlier productions), though both librettos note that the drama is set in 'Bisantio'. The text starts and ends with exact repeats of Venice production, thus suggesting that the work as a Whole had been revived without much, if any, change. An interesting side issue is a scene-complex in Act I entitled 'Delfino, che scherza nel Mare'.

321


6. 1690 Eteoc1e e Polin/ce, Teobaldo Fattorini (I.), Giovanni Legrenzi (c.) lib. LXXXIII.D.4 I ~ Revival: given previously in Milan (Regio Teatro di Milano, 1684), lib. LXX. OJ I .t. However, Sartori notes that the production was given originally in Venice (1675) and Naples (1680) plus on two other occasions before Modena. He also notes that it is the same production throughout.

'ETEOCLE, I E I POLIN ICE I DRAMA PER MUSICA I Da rappresentarsi in Modona nell Teatro Fontanelli. I Consecrato all" Altezza Serenissima I DI FRANCESCO II. I Duca di Modona, Reggio, &c. I [decoration: Este coat of arms and crown, repeated for the third consecutive production] I IN MODONA, M.DC.XC. I Per gIi Eredi Soliani Starnparia Ducale I Con Licenza de' Superiori'. Note original !rontespizio still extant with enactment of scene between Eteocle e Polin ice. but with Este eagle hovering above.

'SERENISSIMA ALTEZZA.': signed by Decio Fontanelli (Novembre 1690). 'ARGOMENTO': unsigned. 'Si finge.': only given as a sub-heading within the 'Argomento'. 'A chi Legge.': as 'si finge'. 'INTERLOCUTORl

ETEOCLE Re di Tebe.

POLIN ICE Fratello d'Eteocle;

ANTlGONA Sorella d'Eteocle, e di Polinice.

ARBANTE Aio d'Antigona. CLEANTE Confidente d'Eteocle. ADRASTO Re d'Argo DEIFILE Figlia d'Adrasto Principessa guerriera. ARGIA Sorella di Deifile. SILENA Nutrice d' Argia. TlDEO Principe d'Etolia.

LEN ONE Servo di Tideo. PERSONAGGI MUTI:

Nomi de' Signori Virtuosi, che rappresentano iI presente Drama. Sig. Domenico Cecchi da Cortona Musico del Serenissimo di Mantova. Sig. Giovanni Francesco Grossi Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissima Sig. Francesca Sarti Cottini Virtuosa di Sua Altezza Serenissima Sig. Antonio Cottini } Musici di Sua Altezza Sig. Antonio Borosini } Serenissima Sig. Antonio Francesco Carli } Sig. Maria Madalena Musi Virtuosa del Serenissimo di Mantova. Sig. Lucretia Pontissi Virtuosa del Serenissimo di Parma. Sig. Colomba Pancotti Bolognese. Sig. Giovanni Buzzoleni Musico del Serenissimo di Mantova. Sig. Giuseppe Marsiglij Bolognese. [not accredited]

Note that five of the eight singers who feature in L'ingresso are present in this opera. Note also that Lucretia Pontissi represents the Duke of Parma on this occasion, but by 1692 is representing the Duke of Mantua. For the first time, the source libretto (Milan 1684) lists the names of the singers in full. The list notes four singers who appear in Modena at various times. With respect to Modena, Francesca Sarti Cottini and her husband Antonio Cottini both sing the same roles as in Milan, as does Giovanni Buzzoleni. Additionally, Pietro Paolo Benigni also appears in Milan and in Flavio Cuniberto (1688). Given the appearance of Cottini in both productions, when considered in the light of the research of Jennifer Williams Brown, there might be a suggestion that Cottini brought this work to Modena, supporting her argument that Cottini acted as an 'aria broker'.11

'APPARENZE DI SCENE.': by act I. 5; II. 4; III 3. Note sets include: I.e. 'Strada remota' could be L 'ingresso (L) L.l.b. 'Strada di Rome con Fabriche sontuose, ed una piccola Casa.' II.c. 'Luogo delitioso occupato d'Adrasto.' could be L.IIl.a. 'Deliziosa' II.d. 'Giardino Reale' could be L.II.b. 'Giardino con Fontane'. lILa. 'Appartarnenti Reali' could be L.ILc. 'Atrio, che introduce ne gli Appartamenti di Claudio'. Likewise, III.c. 'Galleria Reggia' could be incorporated into L.Il.c. 'Atrio, che introduce ne gli Appartamenti di Claudio' where 's'apre in Prospetto una Portiera, e comparisce Claudio'. For both 'galleria' and 'in prospetto' there is a problem in agreeing the exact meaning. Both could mean a raised part of the scenery or even something at the rear of the set, or indeed other variations. Equally, they could each mean something different to each other. The action is located in Thebes: 'La Scena e in Tebe'.

Notwithstanding the original Venice production (1675), Modena is a clear revival of Milan (1684). The 'Argomento' and 'si finge' are exact copies from Milan. The 'a chi leggere' is likewise copied, save for the omission of the very last words 'vivi felice' in the Modena libretto. There is predominantly the same characters in each, though Milan also details 'Ombra d'Edipo Padre d'Eteocle, e di Polin ice' . Oedipus is not listed in any form in the Modena version, but there is a list of 'personaggi muti' that is not given in

.1 Williams Brown, 'On the Road with the "Suitcase Aria"', p. 14; pp. 6.23, also notes that arias sung in litalamo presef'llato (Reggio Emilia 1683), in which both Francesca and Antonio sang, were later included in the 1684 Milan production of Eleocle. If so, then, it would be interesting for future research to identify whether the Modena production included these same arias thus establishing at least part of the life cycle of an aria being performed in Reggio before returning to the duchy (Modena) via Milan.

322


the Milan production. Milan again lists the names of the singers. The scene-sets are identical save for the addition of 'strada remota' in I.e. Modena does not detail the balli noted in Milan. The libretto is identical to Milan at the start, but completely different at its the end.

7. 1691 L ';nganno scoperto per vendetta, Francesco Silvani (1.), Giacomo Antonio Perti (c.) lib. LXXXIII.F.6./ Revival: given previously in Venice (Teatro Vendramino di S. Salvatore, 1691) and Genoa (Teatro del Falcone, 1691). The Modena libretto confirms Venice as source 'fu pratticato l'Anno passato in Venetia', although the Venice libretto is unusually not held in I-MOe.

'L'JNGANNO / SCOPERTO PER VENDETTA / DRAMA PER MUSICA / Da rappresentarsi in Modona nel / Teatro Fontanelli / L'ANNO M.DC.LXXXXI. / Consacrato all' Altezza Serenissima / DI FRANCESCO II / Duca di Modona. Reggio, &c. / Este Coat of Arms / IN MODONA, M.DC.LXXXXI. / Per gli Eredi Giuliano Cassiani I Con Licenza de' Superiori. I Ad'instanza de' Cozzi, e Capponi.'

'SERENISSIMA AL TEZZA ': signed by Deeio Fontanelli (4 Novembre 1691). 'ARGOMENTO': unsigned. 'Benigno Lettore.': unsigned. But confirms Modena as a revival with 'c tanto fil pratticato l'Anno passato in Venetia.'. 'PERSONAGGI Nomi de' Signori Virtuosi, che rappresentano it Dramma. Siderme Seita creduto figlio di Ciro promesso Sig. Francesco Ballarini Musico del Serenissimo Marito di Mandane poi innamorato di Statira. di Mantova. Statira Amante di Dario. Sig. Maria Maddalena Musi Virtuosa del Serenissimo

Dario Prencipe Persiano Amante di Statim

Mandane figlia d'Artabano Amante di Siderme Artabano Padre di Mandane Prencipe Persiano Agesilao Preneipe Persiano Amante di Sig. Mandane Tersite Servo Arpina

Ombra di Ciro NeU'Intermedij Primo, e Secondo. iI sudetto Sig. Marsigli. E Sig. Prediera.'

di Mantova. Sig. Antonio Pistocchi Musico del Serenissimo di Parma. Sig. Diana Orelli Virtuosa di Camera di Madama Reale di Savoia. Sig. Pietro Mozzi Musico del Serenissimo di Mantova. Antonio Romolo Ferrini Musico del Serenissimo gran Preneipe di Toscana. Sig. Gioseppe Marsigli. Sig. Antonio Prediera Musico del Serenissimo di Parma. [not accredited]

Note that while the cast were relatively well known in Italy, they had (with the exception ofPistocchi and Marsigli) appeared rarely in Modena. This might suggest that this opera was brought to Modena as a compact whole, possibly from its source in Venice. There is no obvious reason as to why Francesco did not tum to his favoured singers in this one year, except that they may have been required for the same production in Genoa. Two of the singers (Domenico Cecchi and Anna Maria Torri-'Cecchi') both sang in L 'ingresso. 19 By contrast, Pistocchi sings here, but not in L'ingresso, while Marsigli is the only one to sing again in 1692. For the only time under Francesco, the layout is poor with the 'personaggi' being listed on the recto side of the folio with the singers overleaf on the verso. Note it also names the singers of the intermedi, which was rare.

'SCENE': by act. I. 3; II. 3; III 3. Note sets include: La. 'Tempio d'Apollo.' could be L'ingresso (L) L.II.a. 'Studio mal conservato, con statue di Filosofi, e Poeti antichi.' ILa. 'Delitiosa' could be L.III.a. 'Deliziosa'. II.c. 'Strada con la Casa di Statim' could be L.I.b. 'Strada di Rome con Fabriche sontuose, ed una piccola Casa.' lILa. 'Camera di Siderme con Letto' could be L.I.c. 'Gabbinetto nella Casa d'Ellia Catulla'. III.b. 'Strada fuori di Citta con Ie mura da vna parte esteriormente, e dall'altra Casa di Statira in Campagna.' could be L.l.b. 'Strada di Rome con Fabriche sontuose, ed una piccola Casa.' III.c. 'Salone Regio in Susa' could be L. I.d. 'Salone maestoso nel Palazzo di Claudio con Apparato di Festa da Ballo.'

19 Sartori, I libretti italiani, p. 446 (13187). Besutti and Timms, in NGO, 4, p. 764, identifY Anna Maria Torri, as 'Torri-Cecchi'.

323


Sartori identifies one extra character 'Arpina' for Modena when compared to Venice.2o However, I am unable to confirm the degree of similarity between librettos as, unfortunately, I-Mae does not have either of the two librettos from Genoa and Venice.

8. 1692 L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone, Giambattista (Giovanni Battista) Neri (1.), Antonio Giannettini (c.) lib. LXX.G.6 ./

20 Ibid.

Original Production: Sartori confirms that this was the only production under this title and the 'Argomento' confirms that the opera was written specifically for the wedding of Duke Francesco II d'Este and Princess Margherita Famese.

'L'INGRESSO lALLA GIOVENTU I DI CLAUDIO I NERONE I DRAMA PER MUSICA I Del Dottor Giovanni Battista Neri, IDa recitarsi nel Teatro Fontanelli I di Modona I CONSAGRATO I ALL' ALTEZZA SERENISSIMA I DI MARGHERITA I FARNESE D'ESTE I Duchessa di Modona, Reggio, &c. I [decoration: Este Crown held by cupid blowing a trumpet] I IN MODONA, M.DC.LXXXXII. / Nella Stamparia Vescovale. / Con Licenza de' Superiori. / Ad'instanza de' Cozzi, e Capponi.' This is the first and only opera not dedicated to Francesco II, though the reasons ofthe marriage are obvious.

'Serenissima Altezza': (referring to Margherita, not Francesco II) signed by Decio Fontanelli (4 Novembre 1692). It is also a page longer than the previous dedications and refers more directly to Este family name. 'ARGOMENTO AL LETTORE.': unsigned, but again a page or two pages longer than normal. It also brings the 'allettore' together with the 'Argomento'. 'V ARIAZIONI DI SCENE.': by act. I. 4; II. 3; III 3. (given in full and before the Interlocutori) L.I.a Bagno delizioso con Scala, che ascende ad un Poggio a parte. L.I.b Strada di Roma con Fabriche sontuose, ed una piccola Casa L.I.c Gabbinetto nella Casa d'Ellia Catulla L.l.d Salone maestoso nel Palazzo di Claudio con Apparato di Festa da Ballo. L.Il.a Studio mal conservato, con Statue di Filosofi, e Poeti antichi. L.II.b Giardino con Fontane. L.II.c Atrio, che introduce ne gli Appartamenti di Claudio. L.IIl.a Deliziosa. L.III.b Sito dirupato con Antri di Prigioni. L.III.c Anfiteatro di Spettacoli.

Likely or possible origins of sets. La No previous sets with any of stairway, bridge and/or bath. I.b II Vespesiano I, I due germ ani III, Flavia I, II Mauritio II, Eteocle I, L 'inganno II and III. I.c II Mauritio II, L 'inganno III. I.d II Vespesiano I and III, I due germani II, II Mauritio III, L 'inganno III. Il.a L 'inganno I. lI.b II Vespesiano II, Flavio I and 11,11 Mauritio II, Eteocle II. lI.c Flavio II and III, Eteocle m (twice). lILa II Vespesiano II, Flavio I, II Mauritio I, Eteocle II, L 'inganno II. m.b II Vespesiano II, II Mauritio III. lII.c II Mauritio 111.21

If we note the possible origins of scene-complexes, then there is only the first set that does not seem to have had the potential to have been adjusted from previous productions for this work. We know from the accounts that Clerici was paid for having made three long scenes and two short and for having adjusted all the others.22 The options for hypothesising over which scene-complexes were new, and which were repaired is endless. What the above information does confirm, however, is the probability that the same scene-sets would have been amended on a frequent basis for each new opera This in tum suggests an awareness and restriction of costs in production.

'BALLI.': 'Di Dame, e Cavalieri in Maschera / Di Morl con Torcie accesse. / Lotta, con Abbattimento giocoso.' Note again that the balli or intermedi are an embellishment to normal practice with a third added to follow the opera's finale. Each ballo followed the end of an act and is listed in order of performance.

21 As noted above, although I have sought to identify possible scene-complexes which could have been developed Cor L 'ingresso, some examples are naturally more plausible than others. The above is, therefore, in no way a definitive analysis.

22 L 'ingresso accounts (f. Sr) notes 'd'havere Catto Ire scene lunghe, e due corte e per havere rapezato Ie altre'.

324

'INTERLOCUTOR!. '

Claudio Nerone Imperatore.

Curtio Cavalier Romeno Amante d'IIIisa Tigellino Confidente di Claudio. Aspasio Senator Stoico rittirato.

Valleria [sic] sua Figlia

IIIisa Figlia d'Ellia Catulla

Ellia Catulla Matrona Nobile di Roma Grippo Servo. 'ACCOMPAGNAMENTI': 'Damigelle con IIIisa' 'Paggi.! Guardie. Con Claudio'.

Paul Atkin. Appendix 0

Nomi de Signori Virtuosi. che rappresenlano if Drama.

Sig. Domenico Cecchi di Cortona Musico del Serenissimo di Mantova Sig. Giovanni Francesco Grossi } Musici di Sua Sig. Francesco d~ [sic] Grandis } Allezza Serenissima Signor Antonio Cottini Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissima Signora Lucretia Pontissi Virtuosa del Serenissimo di Mantova Signor' Anna Maria Torri Virtuosa del Serenissimo di Parma Signora Lucia Bonetti Bolognese. Sig. Gioseffo Marsigli Bolognese. [not accredited]

Note that this is the first opera in which the esteemed Francesco De Grandis had sung in Modena It is also the first Modenese opera for Lucia Bonetti and Anna Maria Torri. That the Parmagiana Torri makes her first appearance in Modena ahead of the more regular choice of Francesca Maria Sarti Cottini may contribute to the argument that she may have been brought in from Parma to represent Margherita Farnese directly opposite Francesco Grossi (who was Francesco's favoured singer to replicate the marriage on stage for this wedding opera) is discussed in Chapter 3.

Cast o/L'ingresso and performances given in the previous seven operas at the Teatro Fontanelli:

Sig. Domenico Cecchi Sig. Giovanni Francesco Grossi Sig. Francesco De Grandis Signor Antonio Cottini Signora Lucretia Pontissi Signor' Anna Maria Torri Signora Lucia Bonetti Sig. Gioseffo Marsigli

Note also: Sig.a Francesca Maria Sarti Cottini

2 4 023 4 I o o 2

4

II Mauritio. Eleocle. I due germani, Flavio. II Mauritio, Eteocle.

II Vespesiano, Flavio, II Mauritio, Eteocle. Eteocle.

Eteocle, L'inganno.

II Vespesiano, Flavio. II Maurilio. Eteocle.

Of the seven previous productions staged at the Teatro Fontanelli, two stand out as potentially having been brought into Modena as whole productions. probably complete with their own singers. II Trespolo, tutore balordo does not feature any Modenese based singer and L 'inganno scoperto per vendetta only has a minor role of servant sung by Marsigli from Bologna This would leave five operas which seem most likely to have been produced in house, though even here I due germani rivali may have been imported before Grossi may have been inserted as the duke's favourite lead. Certainly, there is no record of it being performed elsewhere. Of the remaining four operas, four singers are featured on a consistent basis. These are: Cecchi, Grossi, Cottini and his wife Sarti Cottini.

l3 Contrary to Libby, NGO, I, p. 1106, De Grandis did not sing opera in Modena in 1685, as can be seen above.

325

Appendix E

Serenissima Altezza 1

Ecco humiliata a' piedi di Vostra Altezza Serenissima la mia riverente osservanza, che a' Raggi del suo Nome pretende di far apparir ben chiara quella divozione, che abbraccia per Fasto divoto I 'apertura di glorijicare Ie proprie rimostranze. Cercando I'ombra augusta d'un altissimo Padrocinio, confesso, che mi venne all'Idea iI gloriosissimo Nome del Serenissimo Signor Duca Francesco Sposo dell 'Altezza Vostra; ma nello scorgere un tal Nome improntato in tutte I 'Opere dalla piu rara Magnijicenza in quella guisa, che Fidia in ogni suo lavoro haveva impresso iI suo Nome, inestato con tale intrecciamento, che da esso tutto I 'essere, ed il conservarsi di quei gran simolacri dipendeva: cosi dalla conservazione del Gloriosissimo Nome del vostro Serenissimo Sposo, scorgendo dipendere tutto il bon essere de' Sudditi, e 10 stabilimento de ' Stati, son andato riflettendo in qual sito piu degno potersi rinvenire iI Nome del mio Principe, e non mi e parso trovarsi piu al vivo scolpito in Ritratto di piu esquisita jinezza, in Imagine piu giojellata dall 'affetto, che nel Cuore di Vostra Altezza Serenissima. Eccole dunque consagrato questo Drama, in cui rappresentandosi Ie FESTE dell'INGRESSO ALLA GIOVENTU d'un Cesare di Roma, si brama eferna la Gioventu del Vostro Sposo; e se ne deduce Auspici di felicissimi giorni, vedendo Ie sue Nozze segnate dalla Preciosa PERLA del vostro NOME. Che se fo stimata troppo vana la baldanza di Pompeo, che gode vedersi eretta nel suo Trionfo una Statua tutta di smisurate MARGHERITE composta; non sofJrendo gli occhi del livore di veder in un Gruppo Ie Spoglie d'un vasto Oceano; sara gloriosa, perche piu giusta la superbia di questa Drama, che vantara nel Nome dell'Altezza Vostra Serenissima la Statua di tante PERLE di Virtu formata, quante bastarebbero a render doviziosi gli Animi di piu Regine. Anzi se una bellissima MARGHERITA, che soura una gran Conca scintillava su I 'onde de Mari della Persia, dice Cedreno, che vedeasi venir seguitata da un gran Mostro Marino in forma d'arrabbiato Cane: credero, che questa del vostro Nome incastrata in fronte dell 'Opera presente, fara fuggir lontani i Mostri de Critici maligni, difendendo da loro morsi queste improvise fatiche d'una Poetica Penna, che in pochi giorni dettate, non hanno hauuto per iscopo del proprio vanto, che I 'ubbidienza a Sourani Comandi, come io non ho per ogetto d'ambizioni, che quell'umilissima Servitu, con che la Sorte mifo attualmente iIIustrar Ie prove d'un singolar rispetto, e decorar gli atti d'un profondissimo ossequio, che mi dicchiara

Di Vostra Altezza Serenissima

Modona, Ii 4 Novembre 1692.2

Humilissimo, Devotissimo, & Obligatissimo. Suddito, Vassallo, e Servitore

Decio Fontanelli.

I Please note that I have maintained my editorial policy as identified in my Points of order find notes on transcriptions throughout. In particular, I have replicated all uses of capitals and punctuation exactly as given in the transcript. This includes inconsistencies wh~re ~apitals are omitted having been used elsewhere (this is particularly true with 'Vostra' becoming ·vostra'). I have also mamtam~ the italic styling of the original. Note that neither the title 'Serenissima A1tezza', nor the Argomenlo a/ LeI/ore (AppendIX F) were given in italics.

2 Dates given in roman and thereafter the text stays in roman, save for Decio Fontanelli which is given in italic font. Note that although the dedication is dated 4 November, the L 'ingresso accounts confirm that the first performance was given on 9 November.

326

Paul Atkin, Appendix E

Most Serene Highness

Behold, bowed humbly at the feet of Your Most Serene Highness, my reverent obedience seeks, under the Rays of Your [Highness's] Name, to make very clearly apparent that devotion which embraces by way of a devout Festivity the opportunity to glorify its proper demonstration, In seeking the august protection of a most exalted Patron, I confess that the most glorious Name of His Most Serene Signor Duke Francesco, Husband of Your Highness, came to my Mind; but given that such a Name appears inscribed upon all the Works of rarest Magnificence, just as Phidius had in his every work impressed his name so that through such endorsement the very existence and conservation of those great statues came to depend,3 so on the preservation of the Most Glorious Name of your Most Serene Husband depends the entire well-being of Subjects and the stability of States, I then proceeded to reflect on where one might best find the Name of my Prince, and it did not seem to me that it could be more vividly engraved in a Portrait of more exquisite refinement, in an Image more bejewelled with affection, than in the heart of Your Most Serene Highness. Here, then, is this Drama dedicated to you, in which while representing the FESTIVITIES of the ENTRANCE INTO MANHOOD of a Caesar of Rome, one desires the Youth of Your Husband to be eternal; and from it deduce auspices of happiest days, in seeing his Wedding distinguished by the Precious PEARL of your NAME.4 For, if the boldness of Pompey was considered too vain that he delighted in seeing at his Triumph a Statue of himself erected and covered by innumerable MARGHERITES;5 then, by not tolerating the eyes of envy to see in one place all the spoils of a huge Ocean; it will thus become glorious because more just is the pride of this Drama that boasts in the Name of Your Most Serene Highness a Statue fashioned of so many PEARLS of Virtue that would be sufficient to enrich the Souls of many Queens. Indeed, while a most beautiful MARGHERIT A, upon a great Conch, sparkled on the waves of the Persian Sea, so says Cedreno, which was seen to be chased by a great Marine Monster in the guise of a mad Dog:6 I shall believe, therefore, that your Name emblazoned on the front of this present

] Hornblower and Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 1158, note Phidius as an Athenian sculptor (c.465-425 BC) regarded by Ancient critics as 'the greatest and most versatile of Greek sculptors',

• The reference to 'perla del vostro nome' is the beginning of an extended play on Margherita's name, which also signifies a pearl or precious stone (see my notes below on Pompey and on Cedreno).

5 Hornblower and Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, pp. 1215-16, 1554, confirm Pompey's full name as Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (106-48 BC). He is noted as having earned three triumphs to the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol in Rome for his military successes. However, they also note that 'the late republic interpretation of the rules came to be dominated by power and influence. Thus Pompey celebrated two triumphs without having been a magistrate', It is presumably to such audacity that Fontanelli refers, though the significance of the statue is unclear other than possibily that it was covered by endless precious stones: hence the reference to 'Marguerites' and Fontanelli's play on words. Note that I have kept his correct Italian spelling of 'Margherite' to give 'Margherites' in plural rather than the English spelling of 'Marguerite' in an attempt to convey better Fontanelli's pun.

6 Gentile e Tumminelli, Encic/opedia italiana di scienze, letlere ed arti, p. 174; Bompiani (ed.) Di:ionario Bompianl degli autori di tutti i tempi e di tutle Ie letlerature, p. 894 identifY Giorgio Cedreno as a Byzantine chronicler and historian of whom little is known. However, various Italian sources cite his Cronaca universale dol/a crea::ione (also known as The Chronicle ofCedreno) as his major work in which he writes of Persia ('Ia persiana') and he details mythologies; but I can find no precise account of the mythical story to which Fontanelli is referring. However, I am reminded of Botticelli's La Nascita di Venere (1484-85), which has its origins in Greco-Roman mythology and where we see the beautiful Venus standing on a large conch on the shore's edge having been blown to safety by the winds (represented by a winged man and woman). She is greeted by a woman who throws a cloak over Venus's naked body. Sadly, there is no angry dog or marine monster to be seen. Thus, my understanding would be that this is the comparison to which Fontanelli is alluding. Once again, it would appear that he is making a pun on Margherita's name also signifYing a pearl: hence a beautiful Margheritalpearl being in a great conch on the waves of the Persian Sea. Note additionally, that the Italian grammar on this occasion allows Fontanelli to be ambiguous in his use of 'she' or 'it'. I do not have that luxury and have therefore opted. for 'she' given that he is ultimately referring to Margherita. For Sandro Botticelli (i.e., Alessandro Filipepi, 1445-1510) see: Luchmat, Botticel/i Allegorie mitologiche, pp. 108-65. As regards the mad dog or marine monster, Graves, The Greek Myths, 2, p, 653, offers Scylla as a possible source. The once beautiful Scylla had been transformed (either by Circe 'jealous of the Sea-god

327

Paul Atkin, Appendix E

Work will make flee far away the Monsters of malicious Critics, defending from their snapping these improvised efforts of a Poetic Pen, dictated in just a few days, and which did not have as a goal their own boasting, but obedience to Sovereign Commands, as I do not have ambition as my objective, but that most humble act of Servitude, with which Fate now selects me to bring to light the proof of a singular respect, and to decorate the acts of a most profound homage, that declares me

Of Your Most Serene Highness

Modena, 4 November 1692.

Most Humble, Most Devoted and Most Obliged Subject, Vassal and Servant

Decio F ontanelli.

G1aucus's love for her, or by Arnphrite, similarly jealous of Poseidon's love') into 'a dog-like monster with six fearful heads and twelve feet. .. She would seize sailors, crack their bones, and slowly swallow them'. For Scylla, see Hornblower and Spawforth (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 1374.

328

Appendix F

ARGOMENTO AL LETTORE.1

Non vorrei, che ti tenessi ingannato dalle mie invenzioni; se mentre ti chiamo al Teatro ti guido ad una Festa da Ballo. Poiche volendoti sol spettatore, invito it tuo occhio, non it tuo piede. Non ti voglio introdure a raggirar it passo, dove una delle piu celebri Matrone dell'antica Roma si fa schemo del Popolo piu rilassato.

Giunto Claudio Nerone al fine dell' Adolescenza, rifferisce l'Istorico, che la prima lanugine, che gli spunto suI mento, tolta con un Rasojo gemmato a suon di Cetra, fu posta in una Palla d'Oro, e consagrata nel CampidogIio. Volle percio celebrare que 1 Giomo di si solenne passaggio alIa Gioventu con Publici Giochi chiamati da Lui Giovenili; e con un Ballo di tutte Ie Dame del Tebro, fra Ie quali Ellia Catulla coprendo con lascivi omamenti la deformita senile, si fe' veder danzar baldanzosa al pari delle pili leggiadre DonzeUe. Crede questa d' esser una di queUe Sibille, che davano gli Oracoli saltando: e da dovero li diede, rna furono solo intesi da Posteri della sua Stirpe privi per cosi indegna vanita de gli honori del Consolato.

Tal dunque tela f6 vedere, qual mi suppongo che fosse: e con tal motivo vengo a levar it Personaggio della Vecchia dall'uso commune di esser sempre 0 Serva, 0 Nudrice, e Parte non necessaria al vituppo, rendendola Sogetto Nobile, & obligato all'intreccio. Per la tessitura del quale appoggio pur anche gli Epissodii al fondamento Istorico; deducendoli dal genio pessimo, ch'havea l'istesso Claudio Nerone di sforzar Ii Senatori piu gravi, e Persone piu dotte ad intervenire alle di lui Feste per ridersi di loro, e porre in ludibrio it decoro de Gradi, e la maesta delle Toghe. Che perci<> vedrai la Virtu schemita, e vilipesa, rna pero nel fin trionfante in se stessa.

Vedrai dunque it Serio misto al ridicolo; e it tenero unite al morale, con quella varieta, che dall' angustia del tempo e stata permessa alIa fantasia: havendola astretta un Comando supremo a verseggiame in po chi giomi la Sceneggiatura; dove tutte Ie Parole, e Sentimenti, che oleggiano di Gentilesmo, devono esser tenute da te per tante Mascare, che si son poste Ie Muse, vergognandosi di comparir cosi intempestive in un publico Ballo, in cui solo ha da esser ammirata I'armonia Musicale del Signor Antonio Giannettini Maestro di Cappella di Serenissima Altezza Serenissima e l'inventione delle Scene del Signor Leonardo Clerici di Parma. E Dio ti prosperi.

[unsigned]

I Please note that I have maintained my editorial policy as identified in my Point! of order and notes on transcripdons throughout. In particular. I have replicated all uses of capitals and punctuation exactly as given in the transcript (hence the title remains as per the original). Unlike the dedication. the Argomento was not given in italics. Please note that like all librettos under Francesco II. the Argomento is unsigned. but from the use of the first person in the text would appear to have been written by the librettist. Giambattista Neri.

329

Paul Atkin, Appendix F

Argument to the Reader

I would not want that you should consider yourselves deceived by my inventions, if when I call you to the theatre I lead you to a ball. For in wanting you only as a spectator, I invite your eye, not your foot. I do not want to lead you to turn your step where one of the most celebrated matrons of ancient Rome mocks a more easy-going people.

The historian tells us that Claudio Nerone, having reached the end of adolescence, had the first hair that grew on his chin cut by a bejewelled razor to the sound of a lyre and placed on a golden altar, which was consecrated in the Campidoglio. For this reason, he wanted to celebrate the day of his solemn passage into manhood with public games that he called 'giovenili,;2 and with a ball of all the ladies of the Tiber, among whom Ellia Catulla, covering her deformity of old-age with lustful ornaments, drew attention to herself as she danced outrageously as one of the more graceful maidens. She believed herself to be one of the sibyls,3 who, leaping around, gave oracles, and she really did give them, but these were only understood by the descendants of her stock who were deprived of the honours of the consulate because of such shameful vanity.

This is how I therefore show her to you, in the way in which I presume she was; and for this reason, I come to take the character of the old woman away from the usual custom of her always being either a servant, or nanny, and a role not necessary to the story, rendering her as a noble character, and essential to the plot. In constructing the latter, I also base these episodes on an historical footing, deriving them from that evil genius that the same Claudio Nerone had of forcing the most solemn senators, and the wisest people to take part in his festivities, in order to ridicule them, and to place in mockery the decorum of the ranks and the majesty of the togas.4 This is why you will see virtue derided and vilified, but yet, in the end, triumphant in itself.

You will see, therefore, the serious mixed with the ridiculous; and the sentimental combined with the moral, with that variety which the restrictions of time allow the imagination to present, it having been compelled by a supreme command to be versified in just a few days, where all the words and sentiments that smack of paganism must be held by you as so many masks that the muses put on, being embarrassed about appearing in such haste at a public ball; in which must only be admired the harmonious music, by Signor Antonio Giannettini, maestro di cappella of His Most Serene Highness, and the inventions of scenery, by Signor Leonardo Clerici of Parma. May God help you prosper.

2 Battaglia (ed.). Grande di:ionario della lingua italiana, 6, p. 830, Giovenili was the term given to the theatrical games initiated by Nero. He continues to note that the games developed from a traditional family gathering which celebrated the son's first shave, as indeed we witness in this opera, and that the event was popularised by Nero when the cuttings from his own first shave were placed into a 'scatola d'oro'.

3 Battaglia (cd.), Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, 18, p. 1048. 'Sibille' being sibyls, a denomination of ladies from Ancient Greece who were in communication with divinity and so interpreted and gave out oracles. Hornblower and Spawforth, The O)(/ord Classical Dictionary, pp. 1400-1401, confirm the term as a generic one rather than a specific name, but go on to note that 'sibyline oracles' were recorded in the form of texts which were brought to Rome in the form of three books from the Cumaean Sibyl. These were to be consulted only at the command of the Senate.

4 Battaglia (ed.). Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, 6, p. 1012, provides no specific reference, but implies grad; as distinguished social groups marking levels of political success. Battaglia (ed.), Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, 20, p. 1102, refers to the toga as a symbolic expression of civil as opposed military power, but with specific reference to those in the legal profession such as magistrates and lawyers.

330

Appendix G: Act I

L'ingresso alia gioventil di Claudio Nerone Act I. Aria Structure: Cast order as listed in libretto

Alto Primo Seen a Prima No. I Aria No. 2 Recitativo No. 3 Aria No. 4 Recitativo No. 5 Aria Seena Second. No. 6 Reci tativo No. 7 Aria Seena Terza No. 8 No. 9 No. IO

Aria Recitativo Recitativo

No. I I Aria Seena Qua rta No. 12 Recitativollntro No. 13 Seena Quinta No. 14 No. 15 No. 16 No. 17 Seena Scst. No. 18 No. 19

Aria

Aria Recitativo Recitat ivo Recitativo

Arioso Aria

Seena Settima No. 20 Recitativo No.2 1 Aria Seena Ottava No. 22 Seena Nona No. 23 No. 24 No. 25 No. 26 No. 27

RecitativolArioso

Aria Recitat ivo Duettino Ariena Duetto

Seena Decima No. 28 Reci tativollntro No. 29 Aria Seena Und ecima No. 30 Recitativo Seena Duodecima No. 3 I Aria Seena Deeimaterza No. 32 Recitativo No. 33 Recitativo No. 34 Recitativo/Arioso No. 35 Recitativo No. 36 Recitativo No. 37 Aria No. 38 Recitativo No. 39 Duettino No. 40 Recitativo No. 4 1 Recitativo No. 42 Recitativo No. 43 Recitativo No. 44 Aria No. 45 Recitativo No. 46 Aria Seena Decimaquarta No. 47 Recitativollntro No. 48 Aria Secna Decimaquinta No. 49 Recitativo No. 50 Aria No. 5 1 No. 52 Aria totals Key:

Recitativollntro Aria

Character participating in Character singing ariettalarioso: Character singing duettino:

\ -'f; .' ..... '; 'n -

33 1

Appendix G: Act II

L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone Act II. Aria Structure: Cast order as listed in libretto

A tto Secondo Seena Prima No . I Aria No. 2 NO. 3 NO. 4

Recitativo Aria Recitativo

Seena Seeonda No . 5 Recitativo NO. 6 NO. 7 No. 8 No. 93 No. 10 No. 9b Seen a Terza No. 9c No. II No. 12 No. 13

Recitativo Aria Recitativo/Arioso Aria Recitativo Aria

Aria Recitativo Recitativo Aria

Seena Qua rta No. 13 Recitativo/Arioso No. 14 Aria Seena Quinta No. 16 Recitativo No. 17 Aria No. 18 Recitativo No. 19 Aria a dueno No. 20 Recitativo No . 2 1 Aria a dueno No. 22 Seen a Sesta No. 23 No. 24

Recitativo

Recitativo Aria

No. 25 Recitativo No. 26 Aria Seena Settima No. 27 Recitativo No. 28 Aria Seena Ottava No. 29 Recitativo No. 30 Ariena NO. 3 1 Aria Seena Nona No. 32 No. 33 No. 34 No. 35 NO. 36

Aria Recitativo Duettino Recitativo Duetto

Seen a Decima No. 37 Recitativo No. 38 Aria Seena Und ecima No. 39 Recitativo No. 40 Aria No. 4 1 Recitativo Seena Duodeei ma No. 42 Recitativo No. 43 Aria Seena Deeimaterza No. 44 Recitativo NO. 45 Duetto No. 46 Aria Seena Decimaq ua rta No. 47 Recitativo No. 48 Recitativo No. 49 Recitativo No. 50 Trio No. 51 ms. No. 52 IUS.

Arioso Aria

Seena Decimaquinta No. 53 Recitativo No. 54 Aria Seena Decimasesta No. 55 Recitativo No. 56 Recitativo No. 57 Duettino Seena Decimasettima No. 58 Recitativo Seena Decimaottava No. 59 Recitativo No. 60 Aria Aria totals Key: Character participating in

Character singing ariettalarioso: Character singing duettino:

.. -\ -

332

"" ~. * ..... , : ... > ".- , ~ ....... :;, . ..:~\ .. :...

. . \I II - \

\ -II : d

II II

Appendix G: Act III

L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone Act III. Aria Structure: Cast order as listed in libretto

Atto Terzo Seena Prima No. I Recitalivo No. 2 Aria Seena Seeonda No. 3 Recilativo No. 4 Reci tativo Seena Terza NO. 5 Recilalivo NO. 6 Aria Seena Qua rta NO. 7 Recilalivo No. 8 Recilalivo No. 9 Aria Seena Quinta No. 10 Recitativo No. 11 Aria • No. 12 Aria· Seena Sesta No. 13 Recitativo No. 14 Aria No. 15 Duello No. 16 Recilativo No. 17 Aria Seena Settima No. 18 Recilalivo No. 19 Duettino No. 20 Duetlo Seena Ottava NO. 21 Aria No. 22 Recitalivo Seen. ona No. 23 Recitativo No. 24 Duello No. 25 Recitativo No. 26 Duetto Seena Deci rna No. 27 Aria No. 28 Recilativo Seena Undeeima No. 29 Duello No. 30 Recitalivo Seen a Duodecima No. 31 Recitalivo No. 32 Recilativo No. 33 Aria Seena Ultima No. 34 Recitativo No. 35 Duettino No. 36 Recitativo No. 37 Recitativo No. 38 Recitativo No. 39 Duetto Aria totals Key: Character pal1icipating in

Character singing arietta/arioso: Character singing duettino:

Summary of Opera Act I Arias 19

Quetsllluettini 3 Act" Arias 21

Quetsllluettini 4 Irio I

Act'" Arias 10 Quetsllluettini 8

Totals Arias 50

Quets 10 lluettini Irio

Tota l Song. Sung 66

, ' . . , . -. " , '

II II f' • I

'. . ..

" "

3 3 2 d l 3 4 I 4

dl 01 TI TI 2 I 3 I 2

OJ 01 -d2 03 0 2 0 3

11 7 10 3 8

0 3 01 OJ 0 2 D4 d3 dl

TI TI

14 I2 I2 6 JJ

• Nos. II and 12 share the same music and are in fact the same aria, but have varying text.

333

,-. '. . . ~ . .

3 dl 3

01 TI I

D2-d2

7

OJ d3 T I

14

I DI -d l

I 01 -d2

2

D2 d2

6

I DI-d l

I DI -d l

2

D2 d l

Appendix H

The L'ingresso Accounts

'Conto della spesa, e cavato fatto per iI Drama intitolato L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone': Full Transcription and Translation with Facsimile

Key and notes

B.o/a il hracciolle hraccia = unit of measurement (literally an arm's length - a yard) lb. la Iihhralle Iihhre = unit of weight (a pound) oz. I'oncialle once = unit of weight (an ounce, 12 oz. to I lb.) £ la liralle lire: primarily Modenese lire [MI], but where noted also Venetian lire [VI] s. if soldoli soldi (20 soldi to 1 MI) d if denaroli denar; (12 denari to I soldo) No. numero = number [?] seemingly so, but unconfirmed. [p.] identifies original Italian pagination. f. specific folio reference within original pagination (r = recto, v = verso). @ signifies the Italian short-hand abbreviation of ' a carta', meaning 'on folio',

'SommaiSommata a dietro levata' = Total Brought Forward [from previous page] = Total BIF

• = refers to a note given in the text; multiple entries listed together are identified by the distinction in their subject matter, Generally, the reference serves to indicate a discrepancy between an amount charged to the accounts and its accompanying computation. To this end, I have identified all discrepancies and where possible identified why there is a conflict. In some cases, it is simply a numerical or scribal error; in others, some sums do seem to have been rounded up or down, so that the discrepancy is intentional. Note, however, that I have not amended any of the figures in the ledger, and have, therefore, reproduced the entries exactly as given in the original source. Where there is an entry in Modenese lire only (Le., no soldi or denari given), these have been naturally extended to show zero soldi and denari.

[sic] = confums the spelling of a name or word reproduced as per the source, but which differs from the standardised version applied throughout this thesis, and given here in the English translation. Where necessary, the standard version has been identified by verification against NO, NOO and Crowther, The Oratorio in Modena.

While the transcription seeks in the main to retain the original layout of the accounts, issues of space caused by a side-by-side translation mean that this is not always possible and that some line lengths do not always correspond to the facsimile which follows. To aid clarity, I have also separated specific entries by adding spaces between the data that mostly do not occur in the original text.

The quality of the facsimile which follows the transcription is regrettably poor. There is often evidence of showthrough and of an unrelated accounting sheet which overlaps the source. This has been captured within the microfilm copy from which this reproduction has been taken and should be ignored.

All Italian text has been reproduced as per the original source in an effort to maintain a sense of the time and flavour of the period, so that practices such as 'ij', variations in capitalisation, punctuation and so on, which occur naturally throughout the accounts, are left unaltered; however, where appropriate, changes to both punctuation and spelling have been made to aid clarity, and original inconsistencies (such as in the use of 'u' and 'v' etc.,) have been standardised; abbreviations have been extended and identified by the use of italics, in line with normal practice ..

The translation is my own, but only after invaluable editorial consultation, support and advice from: Tim Carter, Alessandra Chiarelli, Stefano Patuzzi, Matilde Coletta and Viivika Atkin.

334

Paul Atkin, Appendix H

[cover]

- 1692-

Conto della spesa, e cavato fatto per il Drama intitolato L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone.

Opera del Signo r Dottor Giovanni Battista Neri Bolognese, con musica del Signo r Antonio Zanettini Mastro di Cappella di Sua Alteua Serenissi mao E questo Drama e stato rapresentato in Moden a nel Teatro Fontanelli il present' Anno 1692.

Account of the expenditure and income made for the drama entitled L'ingresso alia gioventu di Claudio Nerone.

Opera by Sig. Doctor Giovanni Battista Neri, Bolognese, with music by Sig. Antonio Giannettini, maestro of the cappella of His Most Serene Highness. And this drama has been presented in Modena in the Teatro Fontanelli in the present year 1692.

335

[f. i.r]

Repertorio delli Cappi di Spesa, e Index of expenditure, and income Cavato beadings [p.]

Spesa dell'Abiti Cost of costumes @

Spesa della Scena Cost of scenery @ S

Portinari Doonnen @ 7 Iluminatione Lighting @ 8

Coppia [sic] della musica dell'Opera, Copying of the music of the opera, et altre Cose and other things @ 9 Viaggi Travel @ 10 Cibaria Subsistence @ 11

Operarij della Scena quando si recita Scenery operators during perfonnances @ 12 Comparse Extras @ 13 Orchesta [sic] Orchestra @ 14 Cantanti Singers @ IS Ballarini Dancers @ 16 Regallo di Sua Altezza Gift of His Highness @ 17 Cavato dalli Bolletti ni Income from ticket sales @ 18

Cavato delli Palchi Income from boxes @ 19 Stampa dell'Opera Printing of the libretto @ 20 Tutto it Ristretto di Spesa, e Cavato Total summary of expenditure and income @ 21

336

Spesa dell' Abiti

Nota di varie robbe fatte venire da Venetia, come dalle Iiste in filza No.1

Argento filato lb. 8 U8.I0 la lb.

Frangia alta d'argento falso B.a 14 pesa oz. 46 a s.311'oz.

Lama d'oro falso rochelIi No. 14 a s.54

Lama d'argento falso rochelIi No. 10 a s.54

Lustrini marche No.6 a £8 la marca

Margaritini di cristallo da lustrini

Oro filato falso lb. 4 a £8.10 la lb.

Perle grosse mazzi No. 10 a £5 iI mazzo

Penne da comparse No. 200 a s.10 I'una

Pietre bianche grande No. 600 a £6 iI cento

Pietre verde grosse No. 150 a £6 iI cento

Samis bianco B.a No. 26 a £4 iI B.o

Samis incarnato B.a No. 10 a £4 iI 0.0

Tocche

Verda B.a No. 40 Color d'oro B.a No. 21 Torchina o.a No. 30 Incarnata B.a No. 20 Biancha B.a No. 40

Somma B.a No. 151

[p.] 1

Cost of costumes

List ofvarious merchandise brought from Venice, as per the lists in file No.1

Spun [false] silver, 8 lb. at £8.10 per lb.

High fringe offalse silver, 14 B.a of 46 oz. at s.31 per oz.

False gold·leafed stones, 14 at s.54

False silver· leafed stones, 10 at s.54

Sequins, 6 batches at £8 per batch

Small pearls of coloured glass

Spun false gold, 4 lb. at £8.1 0 per lb.

Large pearls, 10 batches at £5 per batch

Feathers for the extras, 200 at s.1 0 each

Large white stones, 600 at £6 per hundred

Large green stones, 150 at £6 per hundred

White silk coth, 26 B.a at £4 per B.o

Flesh·pink silk cloth 10 B.a at £4 per B.o

Fine silk cloths

Green, 40 B.a Gold coloured, 21 B.a Deep blue, 30 B.a Flesh·pink, 20 B.a White, 40 B.a

Total [cit] 151 B.a

337


[f. lr]

[VI] £ 68.00.0

£ 71.06.0

£ 37.16.0

£ 27.00.0

£ 48.00.0

£ 2.02.0

£ 34.00.0

£ 50.00.0

£ 100.00.0

£ 36.00.0

£ 9.00.0

£ 104.00.0

£ 40.00.0

£ 627.04.0

Sommata delle Tocche a dietro levate B.a No. 151

AItre Tocche

Color d'oro B.a No. 30 Torchina B.a No. 40 Biancha B.a No. 100 Incamata B.a No. SO

In tutte sono B.a No. 371 a s.30 iI B.o

Somma a dietro levata

Cassette, e scatole, ove era dentro la sopradetta robba., come ancora iI bolIo, di San Marco, e transito

Condotta della predetta robba pagata alii Corrieri di Venetia

La presente somma e di moneta di Venetia[ ... ]

[ ... ] la quale e di moneta di Modona

Siegue la robba comprata in Modona

Aghi da cucire

Candelline da incerare

Colla garavella., e Todescha

Fumodi rasa

Filo di varij colori lb. 7 at £1 la lb.

Galon' d'oro falso oz. 8 a s.35 I'oz.

Total of fine silk cloths BIF 151 B.a

Other fine silk cloths

Gold coloured, 30 B.a Deep blue, 40 B.a White, 100 B.a Flesh-pink, 50 B.a

In total being 371 B.a at s.30 per B.o

Total BIF

Cases and boxes for the above merchandise, as well as the stamp ofSt Marks, and transit.

Carriage of the aforesaid merchandise paid to the couriers of Venice

The present sum in the coin of Venice [ ... ]

• [should equal £1,268.07.0 VI)

[ ... ] which in the coin of Modena equals

• [confinns exchange rate in 1692 of I V1- 1.35 MI)

Merchandise bought in Modena

Sewing needles

Small waxing candles

Garavella and German glue

Lampblack [carbon for marking and dyeing fabric)

Thread of various colours 7 lb. at £1 per lb.

False gold braid, 8 oz. at 8.35 per oz.

338

Paul Atkin. Appendix H

[f.lv]

£ 556.10.0

£ 627.04.0

£ 37.13.0

£ 47.00.0

£ ·1,268.17.0

[MI] £ ·1,712.03.0

[MI] £ 3.16.0

£ 1.10.0

£ 4.05.0

£ 0.13.0

£ 7.00.0

£ 14.00.0

£ 1.743.07.0

Guanti, tanto per Ii Personaggi, quanto per Ie comparse, e Damigelle, e Paggi, e per havere foderato la veste di Cottino [sic] di pellicia, come dalla lista in filz a No. 14

Somma di rincontro levat a

Dragante

Calzette di stame colorate Ii s.SS iI paio, sono paia No. 18 dli huomo

Calzette come sopra dli donna Ii s.40 iI paio sono paia No.6

Stringone di seta incamata B.a S6 Ii s.8 iI B.o

II tutto hautto dal Signa r Gio. Galli come in filz a No. 8

Lustrino incamato B.a 3\13 Ii £10 iI B.o

Mascare, tintura dell'alabarde delle Comparse, indorature, et altre fatture fatte d' Andrea Melotti, Indoratore, come dalla sua Iista in filz a S

Margaritini dli lustrini

Lama d'argento Marc'una

Siniglia ponso pezze 4 a £S la pezza

[p.] 2

Gloves, both for the characters, and for the extras, and the damsels, and the pages, and for having lined the garment ofCottini with fur, as per the list in file No. 14

Total BIF

Adragante Gum

Men's stockings of coloured yam at s.SS per pair, being 18 pairs

Ladies stockings as above at s.40 per pair, being 6 pairs

Flesh-pink silk lace/ribbon S6 B.a at s.8 perB.o

All [of the above] supplied by Sig. Gio. Galli as in file No.8

Flesh-pink sequin, 3\13 B.a at £10 per B.o

Masks, colouring of the halberds for the extras, gilded, and other things done by Andrea Melotti, gilder, as per his list in file [No.] S

Small pearls of coloured glass

Silver-leaf one batch [?J.

Vivid red chenille, 4 cloths at £S per cloth

• (price of men's stockings should be £49.10.0) • [meaning of Lama d'argen to Marc'una Wlclear)

339


£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

[f, 2r]

102.00.0

1,743.07.0

5.03.0

*46.10.0

12.00.0

22.08.0

33.07.0

40.00.0

11.00.0

5.08.0

20.00.0

£ 2,041.03.0

Scarpe paia 6 per Ie Damigelle A £4 iI paio

Scarpe paia 6 per Ii Ballerini A £3 iI paio

Scarpe paia 13 per Ie comparse A s.37 iI paio, come in filza No. 10: 11

Scarpe paia tre, e cotumi paia 4 per Ii Personaggi, come dalla Iista in filz a No.4

Somma a tergho levata

Siniglia verde B.a 25 it s.2 iI B.o

Dett a nera B.a 100 it s.2 d.4 iI B.o

Seta biancha e gialla oz. 4 A s.58 I'oz.

Seta color d'oro

Seta biancha oz. 2

Seta color d'oro, e biancha oz. 6 it s.58

Seta color d'oro oz. 2

Seta color d'oro

Tela rossa, e gialla B.a No. 72 A s.20

Dett a fina muschio B.a No. 60 A s.28

Detta come sopra A B.A 20

Dett a stralta A s.20 B.a 36

Dett a rossa fina A s.28 B.a 2

6 pairs of shoes for the damsels at £4 per pair

6 pairs of shoes for the ballerinas at £3 per pair

13 pairs of shoes for the extras at s.37 per pair as in file Nos. 10, 11

3 pairs of shoes, and 4 pairs of buskins for the characters, as per the list in file No.4

Total BIF

Green chenille, 25 B.a at s.2 per B.o

Same, black, 100 B.a at s.2 d.4 per B.o

White and yellow silk, 4 oz. at 5.58 per oz.

Gold coloured silk

White silk, 2 oz.

Gold coloured and white silk, 6 oz. at s.58

Gold coloured silk, 2 oz.

Gold coloured silk

Red and yellow fabric, 72 B.a at s.20

Same, fine musk, 60 B.a at s.28

Same, as above, 20 B.a

Same, as extracted, 36 B.a at s.20

Same, fine red, 2 B.a at s.28

• [gold coloured and white silk should cost £17.08.0]

340


[f. 2v]

£ 24.00.0

£ 18.00.0

£ 24.00.0

£ 53.00.0

£ 2,041.03.0

£ 2.10.0

£ 11.13.0

£ 11.12.0

£ 5.00.0

£ 5.16.0

£ ·17.06.0

£ 5.16.0

£ 2.00.0

£ 72.00.0

£ 84.00.0

£ 28.00.0

£ 36.00.0

£ 2.16.0

£ 2,444.12.0

[p.] 3

Seta rossa fina B.a 4'12 a s.28

Tela olma B.a 35 a s.27 il B.o

Dett a olma B.a 12 a s.25 iI B.o

Dett a B.a 5 a s.29 iI B.o

Detta color d'oro B.a 14% a s.25 iI B.o

Come in filz a No.2 e No.7

Somma di rincontro levata

Tela muschio B.a 20 A s.28 il B.o

Raso verde B.a 17'12 a £6.10 iI B.o

Raso biancho B.a 9 a £8.10 iI B.o

Raso torchino B.a 1'12 a £8 iI B.o

Raso incarnato B.a 4 a £5 iI B.o

Raso incarnato B.a 19\1. a £7 iI B.o

Raso carmese B.a 16 a £11 iI B.o

Samis oro fiorato B.a 15 A £7.06 iI B.o come in filz a No.3 e No.6

Resto di varie sorte

Galonzino oro falso oz. 5 a 5.50 J'oz.

Pizzetto oro falso oz. 2'12 a 8.50 I'oz.

Pizzo grande oro falso oz. 2'12 a 5.45 J'oz.

Passamano oro falso oz. 4\1. A 8.35 l'oz.

Tocca argen to di uarij colori comprata dA Vittello Sanguinetti Ebreo B.a 40 Ii 5.14 iI B.o


[f. 3r]

Fine red silk, 4'12 B.a at s.28 £ 6.06.0

Fabric from VIm [Germany], 35 B.a at £ ·47.09.0 s.27 per B.o

Same, from VIm, 12 B.a at s.25 per B.o £ 15.00.0

Same,S B.a at s.29 per B.o £ 7.05.0

Same, gold coloured, 14% B.a at s.25 per B.o £ 18.06.0

As in file No.2 and No. 7

Total BfF £ 2,444.12.0

Musk fabric, 20 B.a at s.28 per B.o £ 28.00.0

Green satin, 17'12 B.a at £6.10 per B.o £ ·110.10.0

White satin, 9 B.a at £8.10 per B.o £ 76.10.0

Deep blue satin, 1'12 B.a at £8 per B.o £ 12.00.0

Flesh-pink satin, 4 B.a at £5 per B.o £ 20.00.0

Flesh-pink satin, 19\1. B.a at £7 per B.o £ ·134.00.0

Crimson satin, 16 B.a at £11 per B.o £ 176.00.0

FloweredlBrocade gold silk cloth, 15 B.a at £7.06 per B.o, as in file No.3 and No.6 £ ·109.00.0

Remainder of various sorts £ 41.04.0

False gold braids 5 oz. at s.50 per oz. £ 12.10.0

Small false gold lace, 2'12 oz. at s.50 per oz. £ 6.05.0

Large false gold lace, 2'12 oz. at 8.45 per oz. £ ·6.12.6

False gold lace braid, 4\1. oz. at 5.35 per oz. £ ·33.05.0

Fine silver threaded silk cloth of various colours bought from Vittello Sanguinetti, Jew, 40 B.a at s.l4 per B.o £ 28.00.0

£ 3,332.14.6

• [fabric from Ulm should cost £47.05)

• [green satin should be £113.15, but seemingly no charge for V. B.o)

• [flesh-pink satin should be £134.15, but 1.15 not charged)

• [floweredlbrocade gold silk cloth should be £109.10, but 1.10 not charged)

• [large I'aIsc gold lace should be £5.12.6)

• [false gold lace trmming should be £7.08.09;

instead, £33.05 - 19 oz. at 1.35)

341

Varie robbe comprate a Sassuolo per la val uta come in filz a No.9 di

Somma a tergho levata

AI Tentore per havere tinto del filo giallo

Per havere mandato a Venetia un groppel to

Varie fatture fatte d' Antonio Barbanti Indoratore come dalla sua Iista in filz a 12

Cordelle di varie sorta che hanno servito per Ii finimenti dell'abiti de' Signo ri Musici, come in filz a No. 13

Altre robbe proviste dal Signa r Andrea Montanari, come da sua Iista in filz a 21

Oro, et Argento filato oz. 107 a s.30 l'oz. comprato da Simone Levi Valle Ebreo come dA sua lista in filz a No. 22

Oro filato comprato dA Frances co Canetti oz. 8 ferrarini 9 a s.30 I'oz. come dalla Iista in fi/za No. 23

A Domenico Cervatti Sarto per essere stato due voIte a Fiorano per tagliare e ponere all'ordine l'abiti d'huomo

A Steffano Monti Sarto da Donna per essere stato una volta a Fiorano a lavorare e tagliare abiti

Various merchandise bought at Sassuolo for the value as in file No.9 of

Total BIF

To the dyer for having dyed the yarn yellow

For having sent to Venice a package

Various things done by Antonio Barbanti, gilder, as per his list in file [No.] 12

Braided cords of various sorts that have served for the finishing touches on the clothes of the musicians, as in file No. 13

Other things supplied by Sig. Andrea Montanari, as per his list in file [No.] 21

Spun gold and silver, 107 oz. at s.30 per oz. bought from Simone Levi, valet, Jew as per his list in file No. 22

Spun gold, bought from Francesco Canetti, 8 oz. Ferrarese money [=] 9 oz. at s.30 per oz. as per the list in file No. 23

To Domenico Cervatti, dressmaker, for having been two times to Fiorano for cutting and putting in order the men's clothes

To Steffano Monti, women's dresssmaker, for having been once to Fiorano to work on and cut clothes

• [spun gold and silver should be ,£160.10)

• [spun gold should be .£13.\0 ifal9 oz)

342


[f. 3v]

£ 82.12.0

£ 3,332.14.6

£ 2.00.0

£ 4.00.0

£ 20.00.0

£ 166.10.0

£ 61.04.0

£ ·160.00.0

£ ·12.lS.0

£ 23.00.0

£ 10.00.0

£ 3,874.15.6

Alia Margherita Sarta, et ad'una sua giovane per essere state a Fiorano a lavorare 5 giomate

Sommata di rincont ro levata

Alia Camilla Schedoni Sarta per havere lavorato giomate No. 45 in Fiorano a s.15 iI giomo

A Domenico Sarto di Sassuolo per giornate No. 34 a s.20 la giornata

Lama d'oro, et d'argento B.a 5. Samis biancho, e 5 d'oro fatte venire da Bologna

Alii Mulatieri di Sua Altezza Serenissima per havere condotto a Moden a parte dell'abiti nelle stanghe dA Fiorano

Cordelia per la conciatura della Vecchia

Per fattura delle chiapetarie de' guanti

Cartone per Ie copole delle comparse

Calzette paia 5 seta di varij colori come dalla !ista in filz a No. 34

Polve di cipro per servitio de' Personaggi

Candelle di secco lb. 24 a s.1 0 la lb. che hanno servito per lavorare

[p.] 4

To Margherita, dressmaker, and to her assistant for having been to Fiorano to work for 5 days

Total BIF

To Camilla Schedoni, dressmaker, for having worked 45 days in Fiorano at s.15 per day

To Domenico, dressmaker, from Sassuolo for 34 days at s.20 per day

Gold- and silver-leaf silk cloths: white 5 B.a and gold 5 [B.a], brought from Bologna

To the mule drivers of His Most Serene Highness for having brought to Modena some of the clothes in the cart from Fiorano

Braided cord for the hair decoration of the old woman

For the making of the buttonholes on the gloves

Heavy-duty card for the head pieces of the extras

5 pairs of silk stockings of various colours as per the list in file No. 34

Make-up for the use of the characters

Tallow candles 24 lb. at s.10 per lb., which have served in order to work

343


[f. 4r]

£ 18.00.0

£ 3,874.15.6

£ 33.15.0

£ 34.00.0

£ 86.00.0

£ 8.08.0

£ 25.00.0

£ S.OO.O

£ 0.16.0

£ 156.00.0

£ S.OO.O

£ 12.00.0

£ 4,258.14.6

Aile due cantatrice due dopie per ciascheduna per Ii finimenti dell'abiti


To the two female singers, 2 doppie to each of them for the finishing touches on their clothes

Total BIF

344


[f. 4v]

£ 152.00.0

£ 4,258.14.6

£ 4,410.14.6

Spesa della Scena

Al Signo r Gio. Leonardo Clerici Pittore Parmegiano per sua fattura d'havere fatto tre scene lunghe, e due corte, e per havere rapezato Ie altre, s'e dato doppie d'Ita!ia No. cinquanta = dico 50: che sono di moneta di Modona lire mille e nove cento

Colori fatti venire da Venetia, come dalla !ista in filz a No.1: £89.6 moneta di Venetia, che sono di Modona

Altri colori comprati in Moden a come dana !ista in filz a No. 24

Chiodaria di varie sorta fatte venire da Venetia, come dana !ista in filz a No.1 £105.8 monel a di Venetia, sono di Modena

Legnami comprati per Carlo Cavani, come dana lista in filza No. 15

Altri legnami comprati da Santo Bosari, come dana sua !ista in filza 16

Altri legnami comprati da Giuseppe Cassiani, come in filz a No. 17

[p.) 5


Cost of scenery

To Sig. Gio. Leonardo Clerici, painter from Parma, for his workmanship in having built three long and two short scenes, and for having patched up the others, he is given 50 doppie ofItaly, which in the coin of Modena is one thousand and nine hundred Ml.

Colours brought from Venice, as per the !ist in file No.1: £89.6 [VI) Venetian coin, which are equal in Modena to

Other colours bought in Modena as per the list in file No. 24

Nails of various sorts brought from Venice, as per the list in file No.1 £105.8 [VI) Venetian coin, are of Modena

Timber bought through Carlo Cavani as per the !ist in file No. 15

Other timber bought from Santo Bosari, as per his !ist in file [No.) 16

Other timber bought from Giuseppe Cassiani, as in file No. 17

345

[f. 5r)

£ 1,900.00.0

£ 110.10.0

£ 30.03.0

£ 142.04.0

£ 210.16.0

£ 38.10.0

£ 16.04.0

£ 2,448.07.0

Cartoni, e carta comprata dal Signa r Antonio Capponi libraio, come dalla sua Iista in filz a No. 19


Corde, e cordami di varie sorte com prate dal Signa r Giuseppe Turini come dalla sua lista in fitz a No. 18

Ferri e fatture di frarezza fatte da Giulio Brugni come dalla sua lista in filz a No. 20

Tela di varie sorta B.a 1073 compra dal Signa r Andrea Montanari, come

da sua Iista in filza No. 2S

Tela B.a 126 come dalla Iista in filz a No. 26

Otto Iiste di Carlo Cavani di varie robbe proviste per iI servitio del Teatro,

e in queste v'c compreso giomate No. 39'h delIi Marangoni a £7 iI giorno, che importano

Et iI rimanente delle Iiste sono come dalle predel te Iiste in filz a No. 32

Altri colori comprati, come dalla lista in filz a No. 33

Heavy-duty card and paper bought from Sig. Antonio Capponi, bookseller, as per his list in file No. 19

Total BIF

Ropes and cordage of various types bought from Sig. Giuseppe Turini as per his list in file No. 18

Irons and ironmongery made by

Giulio Brugni as per his list in file No. 20

Fabric of various sorts, 1073 B.a bought from Sig. Andrea Montanari, as per his list in file No. 2S

Fabric 126 B.a as per the list in file No. 26

Eight lists from Carlo Cavani of various goods supplied for the service of the theatre and in which there is included 39'h days pay of the joiners at £7 per day, that comes to

And the remaining of the lists are as per the aforementioned lists in file No. 32

Other colours bought, as per the list in file No. 33

• [transfelTed to final swnmary as £3,953.05.8)

346


[f. Sv J

£ 25.17.0

£ 2,448.07.0

£ 33.13.0

£ 57.00.0

£ 746.04.8

£ 58.15.0

£ 276.10.0

£ 274.09.0

£ 33.00.0

£ t3,953.15.8


[p.] 6 [blank] [f.6r]

347


[p.] 7 [f. 7r]

Portinari Doormen

Signo r Giulio Borelli per assistere alia Porta in maschera

Pietro Mondi per pigliare Ii Bolletti ni

Signo r Antonio Capponi per la vendita delli Bolletti ni a £ lOla sera per dodici recite

Sig. Giulio Borelli for assisting at the door while wearing a mask

Pietro Mondi for the taking of the tickets

Sig. Antonio Capponi for the sale of the tickets at £I 0 per evening for twelve performances

348

£

£

£

60.00.0

12.00.0

120.00.0

£ 192.00.0


[p.] 8 [f. 8r]

Spesa dell'IIuminatione Cost of lighting

Tone No. 10 e eerini No. 60 per la seena pesorono intutto lb. 40: oz. 10 importarono moneta de Venetia £78.15 come in filz a No.1 che sono moneta di Moden a

Candelle di secco pesi No. 40 a £60 i1100 come dalla lista in fitz a No. 27

Oglio d'oliva lb. 600 A £48 iI cento come dalla lista in filz a No. 28

Bombace fioretto lb. 4 da fare Ii stopoli alii lumini come in filz a No. 29

Altre dieci torcie e sei candellotti comprati in Moden a come dalla lista in filz a No. 29 pesorano lb. 36: oz. 2 a £3

• [secco is cited as 'sego' by Ferrari Moreni, 'Un drarnma

in musica rappresentato in Modena neIranno 1692', p. 561.

10 torches and 60 tapers for the stage, weighing in total 40 lb. 10 oz. importing at £78.15 Venetian [VI] coin as in file No.1 that in Modenese [MI] coin are

Tallow candles weights No. 40 at £60· per 100 as per the list in file No. 27

Olive oil. 600 lb. at £48 per hundred as per the list in file No. 28

Finest wadding 4 lb. to make the wicks for the lights as per the list in file No. 29

Another ten torches and six large candles bought in Modena as per the list in file No. 29 weighing 36 lb. 2 oz. at £3

£ 105.16.0

£ 600.00.0

£ 288.00.0

£ 12.00.0

£ 108.10.0

£ 1,114.06.0

• [this would suggest 2S candles per weighted batch: 2S It 40/100 x £60)

349

Cop pia [sic] della musica dell'Opera et altre cose

AI Signa r Domenico Giannini per 408 foglij di coppia [sic] di musica Ii s.l 0 iI foglio, come in filza No. 31

Carta rigata quinterni No. 17 Ii s.50 il quinterno, che hit havuto il Signo r Zanettini

AI predetto Signor Zanettini carta dli scrivere, navole e spolverino

Legatura di 14 Iibri per I'Orchesta [sic]

AI Signo r Giacomo Coreggi* Segreta rio della Posta per havere mandato in varie cittli Ie parti alii recitanti

AI Sugiridore per 12 recite it s.20 la sera

• [Giacomo Correggio at p. 19.)

[p.] 9


Copying of the music of the opera, and other things

To Sig. Domenico Giannini, for 408 folios of music copy at s.10 per folio, as in file No. 31 £

Scored [manuscript] paper, 17 quinternions at s.50 per quinternion, that Sig. Giannettini has had £

To the aforementioned Sig. Giannettini, writing paper, ink-blotter and fine blotting-dust £

Binding of 14 books for the orchestra £

To Sig. Giacomo Correggio, Secretary of the Post for having sent in various cities the parts to the singers £

To the prompter for 12 performances at 5.20 per evening £

£

350

[f. 9r]

204.00.0

42.10.0

2.06.0

20.00.0

22.00.0

12.00.0

302.16.0


Viaggi

Per iI rinfresco delli Signori Musici di Panna nel venire a Moden a e nel ritorno a Panna

Per havere mandato a Mantova al Signo r Cortona tre espressi

Per havere mandato II Panna al Signo r Predieri un'espresso

Per it nolo di 4 Cavalli dli sedie* per duoi viaggi

Per havere mandato Ii Bologna it Signo r Giuseppe Marsilij in sedia per cambialura*

Per havere mandato un espresso a Bologna alia Bonetti

AI Signo r Cortona per Ii suoi Viaggi

Alii Mulatieri del Serenissi mo di Panna per havere condotto II Moden a Ie robbe de Signo ri Musici di Panna per suo regallo

[p.] 10

Travel

For the refreshment of the musicians of Panna in coming to Modena and in their return to Panna

For having sent to Mantua for Sig. [Cecchi di] Cortona three express [deliveries]

For having sent to Panna for Sig. [Antonio] Predieri one express [ delivery]

For the hire of 4 carriage-horses for two trips

For having sent to Bologna Sig. Giuseppe Marsigli by carriage via changing horses

For having sent an express delivery to Bologna for [Sig.a] Bonetti

To Sig. [Cecchi di] Cortona for his travels

To the mule drivers of His Most Serene of Panna for having brought to Modena the belongings of the musicians of Panna at his expense

• (,cavalli dlI sedie' suggests carriage-horses, as opposed 'cavalli dlI selle' for riding-horses)

• ['cambiatura' was the system of changing horses at eve!)' stop, so as to give a faster, more comfortable ride)

351

[f. lOr]

£ 39.00.0

£ 27.1S.0

£ 10.00.0

£ 26.10.0

£ 28.00.0

£ 4.1S.0

£ 160.00.0

£ 16.16.0

£ 312.16.0


[p.] 11 [f. llr]

Cibaria Subsistence

Per essere stato Ii Signo ri Musici con servitori suoi, et altre persone pigliate in casa per loro servigio giomate No. 40 in Moden a Ii £25.10 il giomo

Per essere stato Ii Ballarini al No. di 6 in Casa di Carlo Cavani giomate No. 32 a s.50 it giorno per persona

II Maestro delli sodetti vi e stato giomate No. 18 come in filz a No. [sic]

Che sommano

For the musicians having stayed with their servants, and other persons taken in house for their service, 40 days in Modena at £25.10 per day £ 1,020.00.0

For the 6 dancers having stayed at the house of Carlo Cavani, 32 days at 5.50 per day per person £ 480.00.0

The Master of the abovementioned [dancers], stayed there 18 days as in file No. [not given] £ 45.00.0

That total £ 525.00.0

£ 1,545.00.0

352

Paul Atkin. Appendix H

[p.] 12 [f. 121']

Operarij della Scena quando si recita Scenery operators during performances

Ogni sera che si recitava vi volevano 23 homini per Ie mutationi delle scene, per pagare Ii quali si dava d'accordato patto ogni sera a Carlo Cavani, Capo Maestro £30: e il del to era obligato a pagare, Ii predelti homini, e far preparare I'iluminatione come ancora di fare preparare la scena perle sere delle recite, si che pel' giomate No. 12: importa lutta la spesa.

Every evening where there was a performance, 23 men were needed to change the scenery, whose payment was given as agreed every evening to Carlo Cavani, Head Master £30; and the aforesaid was obliged to pay the aforementioned men, and to make ready the lighting and also to make ready the scenery for the evenings of performances, so that there were 12 days, including all costs. £

353

360.00.0


[p.] 13 [f. 13r]

Comparse Extras

Giovani che servivano per com parse erano No. 21 a qualli si dava ogni sera per ciasche d'uno s.10 sicche per 12 sere sono 126 [~correct cost entered in margin by the/allore in 1694]

Giovane, che servivano per Damigelle erano No.6 aile qualli si dava ogni sera per ciascuna £1 per 12 sere

Putti No.4 che servivano per paggi a s.1 0 per ciascuno ogni sera

21 young men served as extras, to each of whom was paid every evening s.10, so that for 12 evenings it comes to

6 young women served as damsels. to each of whom £ 1 was paid every evening for 12 evenings

4 children served as pages at 5.10 for each [and] every evening

[Transferred to final summary as £210]

[Adjusted in 1694]


• [should read £126; adjusted by the/aI/ore in 1694)

354

£ *120.00.0

£ 72.00.0

£ 24.00.0

£ 216.00.0

£ 6.00.0

£ 222.00.0


[p.] 14 [f. 14r]

Orchesta [sic] Orchestra

Signo r Domenico Bratti Organista di Sua Altezza Serenissi rna £ 15 ogni sera per 12 sere

Signo r Antonio Alemani [sic], e Signo r Tomaso Vittelli [sic] per havere sonato ambi il primo violino Ii £14 per ciascuno la sera

Signo r Ignatio Frangiossi [sic], et Monsil Amberville per havere sonato ambi Ii secondi violini £8 per ciascuno la sera

Alii Signo ri Quattro sonatori dli Viole £ 16 1a sera in tutti quattro

Signo r Paolo Piucelli [sic] sonatore da Contrabasso £12 1a sera

Signo r Simone Ascanij Tiorbista Ii £6 la sera

Signo r Antonio del Violoncello per 12 sere

AI Signo r Domenico Trombetta per 12 sere

Ali [quali] si agiunge ancora

II Signo r Angelo Mari a Fiore sonatore da Violoncello del Serenissi mo di Parma doppie No. 12 che sono moneta di Moden a

Signo r Giovanni Battista Bonini Tiorbista della det ta Altez za doppie No. 10 che sono

Signo r Sebastiano Ossa per accordare Ii cembali

Sig. Domenico Bratti, organist of his Most Serene Highness, £15 per evening for 12 evenings

Sig. Antonio Allemani, and Sig. Tomaso Vitali, both for having played first violin, at £ 14 each per evening

Sig. Ignatio Frangiolli, and Monseigneur Amberville, both for having played the second violins at £8 each per evening

To the four players of the violas at £ 16 per evening for all four of them.

Sig. Paolo Pincelli player of the contrabass, £12 per evening

Sig. Simone Ascani, theorbist at £6 per evening

Sig. Antonio, violoncello for 12 evenings

To Sig. Domenico, trumpet for 12 evenings

To these [costs] one adds further

Sig. Angelo Maria Fiore, player of the violoncello of His Most Serene of Parma.

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

12 doppie that are in the coin of Modena £

Sig. Giovanni Battista Bonini, theorbist of the aforementioned Highness 10 doppie that are £

Sig. Sebastiano Ossa for tuning the 'cembali' £

180.00.0

336.00.0

192.00.0

192.00.0

144.00.0

72.00.0

50.00.0

148.00.0

1,314.00.0

456.00.0

380.00.0

86.00.0

£ 2,236.00.0

355

Adi 11 marzo 1694

si e fatto ordine a Frances co de Grandis di doble SO in ragio ne di £38 alia forma

praticata con Siface che sono appunto Ie £1,900 notate nellibro, e conto Fontanelli.


[Note of memorandum added in 16941

On 11 March 1694

An order has been given to Francesco De Grandis for SO dobble at a rate of £38 in the manner adopted

with Siface that are, precisely, the £1,900 notated in

Fontanelli's book and account.

356

[f. 14v]


[p.] 15 [f. 15r]

Cantanti Singers

Signo r Giovanni Frances co Grossi detto Siface Musico di Sua Altezza Serenissima regalato dalla medesi rna Altezza

Signo r Domenico Cecchi da Cortona musico del Serenissi mo di Mantova, suo regallo doppie d'ltalia No. SO che sono di Moden a

Signo r Francesco De Grandis musico di Sua Altezza Serenissi rna suo regallo doppie No. SO sono

Signo r Antonio Cottini musico di Sua Altezza Serenissima suo regallo doppie No. 25 sono

Signo ra Lucretia Pontissi Venetiana detta la Trombettina Cantatrice del Serenissimo di Mantova per suo regallo, e viaggi doppie No. 32 sono di Moden a

Signo ra Anna Mari a Torr i detta la Becarina Cantatrice del Seren;ssi mo di Parma doppie 30 di paga, e doppie sei di regallo cosi d'accordo, sono 1,368 [= correct fec entered in margin by !ltc/allore in 1694)

Sig. Gio. Francesco Grossi, known as Siface, musician of His Most Serene Highness. gifted by His Highness [£] [0.00.0]

Sig. Domenico Cecchi from Cortona, musician of His Most Serene [Highness] of Mantua, his reward is SO Italian doppie, being in Modena £ 1,900.00.0

Sig. Francesco De Grandis, musician of His Most Serene Highness, his reward is SO doppie, being £ 1,900.00.0

Sig. Antonio Cottini, musician of His Most Serene Highness. his reward is 25 doppie, being £ 950.00.0

Sig.a Lucretia Pontissi, Venetian, known as 'The Little Trumpeter', singer of His Most Serene of Mantua, her reward, and travelling [costs] 32 doppie, being in Modena £ 1,216.00.0

Sig.a Anna Maria Torri, known as 'The Little Woodcock', singer of His Most Serene of Parma 30 doppie of pay, and 6 doppie as a gift. as agreed, being £ *1,364.00.0

£ 7,330.00.0

• [should read £1,368; adjustedby!lte/allore in 1694,scef.15v)

357

Signo ra Lucia Bonetti, Bolognese per la parte da Vecchia suo regallo compresovi la cibaria doppie No. 20 sono


Signo r Giuseppe Marsilio [sic] Bolognese per la parte del ridicolo doppie No.17 sono

Sig.a Lucia Bonetti, Bolognese, for the role of the old woman, her reward inclusive of food 20 doppie, being

Total BIF

Sig. Giuseppe Marsigli, Bolognese, for the role of the fool 17 doppie, being

[Total in 1692]

[Adjusted in 1694]


358


[f. ISv]

£ 760.00.0

£ 7,330.00.0

£ 646.00.0

£ 8,736,00.0

£ 4,00.0

£ 8.740.00,0

Ballarini

Li BalJarini erano Bolognesi, e iI suo Maestro si Chiarnava Giovanni Battista Rossino, questi erano iI No. di 6 et con iI Maestro sette, rna questo non operava; facevano Ii alt ri tre operationi, cioe duoi balli, et un combattimento, e per loro paga hanno havuto doppie No. 21; viaggi, e cibaria = Sono moneta di Moden a

[p.] 16


Dancers

The dancers were from Bologna, and their master was calJed Giovanni Battista Rossino; they were 6 in number, and with the master seven, but he did not dance; the dancers performed three operations, that is two ballets, and a mock battle, and for their pay they received 21 doppie travel and food, which in the coin of Modena is

359

[f. 16r]

£ 798.00.0

Regallo di Sua Altezza Serenissi ma e stato di doppie Italia etTettive No. 200 sono

Oltra il pagare iI Signa r Giovanni Frances co

Grossi detto Siface

[p.] 17


[f.17r]

Gift of His Most Serene Higbness being of200 doppie of Italy, which are £ 7,600.00.0

Also the payment of Sig. Giovanni Francesco Grossi, known as Siface

360


[p.) 18 [f. 18r)

Cavato dalli Bollettini Income from ticket sales [at 3 MI eacb]

Prima Recita delli 9 Novemb re Bollettini No. 321 First performance of9 November 321 tickets £ 963.00.0

Seconda Recita delli 10 det to Bolletti ni No. 182 Second performance of the 10th 182 tickets £ 546.00.0

Terza Recita delli 12 detto Bollettini No. 185 Third performance of the 12th 185 tickets £ 555.00.0

Quarta Recita delli IS det to Bolletti ni No. 178 Fourth performance of the 15th 178 tickets £ 534.00.0

Quinta Recita delli 16 detto Bolletti ni No. 256 Fifth performance of the 16th 256 tickets £ 768.00.0

Sesta Recita delli 18 detto Bollettini No. 140 Sixth performance of the 18th 140 tickets £ 420.00.0

Settima Recita delli 19 det to Bollettini No. 142 Seventh performance of the 19th 142 tickets £ 426.00.0

Ottava Recita delli 22 det to Bolletti ni No. 197 Eighth performance of the 22nd 197 tickets £ 591.00.0

Nona Recita delli 23 detto Bolletti ni No. 338 Ninth performance of the 23rd 338 tickets £ 1,014.00.0

Decima Recita delli 26 del to Bollettini No. 146 Tenth performance of the 26th 146 tickets £ 438.00.0

Undecima Recita delli 27 detto Bolletti ni No. 194 Eleventh performance of the 27th 194 tickets £ 582.00.0

Duodecima Recita delli 29 [detto] Bollettini No. 178 Twelth performance of the 29th 178 tickets £ 534.00.0

Bolletti ni No. 2,457 2,457 tickets £ 7,371.00.0

361


[p.] 19 [f. 19r]

Cavato delli Palchi, Banche e Giocho Income from boxes, benches and gambling

Palchi

Banche affittate a Giacomo Correggio· il tutto come dal conto del Signo r Girolamo Britij in filz a a1 No. [sic]

• [Giacomo Coreggi at p. 9.)

Boxes

Benches rented to Giacomo Correggio. in total as from the account of Sig. Girolamo Britij in file at No. [not given]

362

£ 1,540.00.0

£ 1,250.00.0

£ 2.790.00.0


[p.] 20 [f. 20r]

Per la stampa dell'Opera For the printing of the libretto

S'e obligato iI Signo r Antonio Capponi di far stampare l'Opera a [di] lui spese di dare al Signo r Marche se lire quattro cento cinquanta moneta corente, di fare stampare Ii Bollettini della Porta a sue spese, di dare cento libri legati dell'Opera, come ancora di fare legare Ii libri delli Serenissimi Padroni; Restando poi

a suo utile iI cavato di tutti Ii libretti dell'Opera

Cartelli d'invito

Rame del frontespicio delli libretti dell'Opera tagliato Ii Bologna

Sig. Antonio Capponi was obliged to print the work at his own expense and to give the Lord Marquis 450 MI in coin to have the tickets for the door printed at his expense, to give 100 bound books of the work, and also to bind the copies for the Most Serene Patrons, there remaining for his profit the income from all the librettos of the work

Invitation cards

Woodblock of the title-page of the librettos of the work cut in Bologna

363

£

£

£

450.00.0

16.00.0

38.00.0

£ 504.00.0

Ristretto della Spesa

Abiti

Scena

Portinari

I1uminatione

Coppia [sic] della musica

Viaggi

Cibaria

Operarij della Scena

Comparse

Orchesta [sic]

Cantanti

Ballarini

Somma la Spesa

Somma iI Cava to

Resta la perdita

@I

@S

@7

@8

@9

@IO

@II

@12

@13

@14

@IS

@16


Summary of expenditure

Costumes £

Scenery [should read D.9S1.1 n. but error not amendod) £

Doormen £

Lighting £

Copying of the music £

Travel £

Subsistence £

Scenery operators £

Extras [amended in 1694 to £222) £

Orchestra £

Singers [amended in 1694 to .£8.740) £

Dancers £

Total expenditure [amended to £24,186.18.2 in 1694)· £

Total income £

Net loss £

• [note that the total expenditure should have read £24,187.08.2, but the error noted on scenery was Dot amended by the [allllre

in his audit of 1694. As such, the fina] total expenditure was eventually adjusted to £24,186.\8.2. see f.2Ir)

364

[f. 20v]

4,410.14.6

3,9S3.0S.8

192.00.0

1,114.06.0

302.16.0

312.16.0

I,S4S.00.0

360.00.0

210.00.0

2,236.00.0

8,736.00.0

798.00.0

24,170.18,2

18,211.00.0

5,959.18.2


[p.21] [f. 21r]

Ristretto del Cavato Summary of income

Regallo di Sua Altezza Serenissi rna

Cavato delli Bollettini

Cavato delli Palchi

Stampa dell'Opera

Si levano £1,220 state pagate d'ordine di Sua Altezza Serenissima dal Cassiere

Roncaglia ai diversi suonatori, come da lista, o copia del medesim 0 ordin e della quale spesa,si vede notata in uscita di questo conto in questo @ 14

Comprese £3,953.05.8 in scena

@ 17 Gift of His Most Serene Highness

@ 18 Income from ticket sales

@ 19 Income from boxes

@ 20 Printing of the libretto

(Total income)

(Note of memorandum added in 1694)

(Total expenditure per accounts in 1692)

£ 7,600.00.0

£ 7,371.00.0

£ 2,790.00.0

£ 450.00.0

t 18,211.00.0

£ 24,170.18.2

['Comparse' adjusted in 1694 to £222, see f. 20v 1 £ 12.00.0

4.00.0 ['Cantanti' adjusted in 1694 to £8,740, see f. 20v 1 £

(Total revised expenditure in 1694) t 24,186.18.2

(Adjusted net loss in 1694) £ 5,975.18.2

(Memorandum to accounts added c. 1694 or 1698)

One deducts the sum of £ 1,220 having been paid on the order of His Most Serene Highness by Cashier Roncaglia to diverse musicians, as per the list, or copy of the same order of which expense one sees notated at the end of this account at [p.] 14

(Final adjusted net loss in c. 1694 or 1698)

Settled by scenery at £3,953.05.08

365

£ 1,220.00.0

£ 4,755.18.2

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: (cover]

--, " ~1'

,/ 7 -' ___ -2. _ _ _'''_._.

.'" -..... . .. ' .. ,

- -. -- ( ?

}6 . '1~

a'.oe-~ ) . . f

,'- ......

366

I · , . . ': -, , ,

"

I

\i \

' - . ~

, ,

, \ I

~ " \

1

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: [f. i.r]

""- " \ ..

1' / ~ '

/.

"

.

r . ,

, . , I,

", : .

\

\" ,

.

,

n,

j I , . ~.-C~_~~~~ ____ , .. . ,' t.- ....r

.....

367

--. ( L

. . l

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: ff. lr]

~ .... I _. ~ ~

368

. -.':-.. . . . ....... ... . . . , .

. ~ ., . '. ", , .

\ . " ' . . , .

I .

I'

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: rf.2r]

.,. '. -.. :- ....... ~ • J' , : " " ,

'" ~ ___ ~, __ ·1.~ ___ . ..I.L • ___ _ •. ~ 4 j .... -...01.~ ~1I!2It: .' i:""itl_ . ...

! : 0

.-"

\

:.- ~

o

:. U

370

..

\

\;

. ,

I

, ,

1;,'6,

Yf'J ,r .-'/' ; • I

· I ... J S,'1; ,

" '4 ~

, 7:ffl" .J',~?\.

· &! ' /t'1'3 i'

<1 I?, : ~ "I '1J,:

?/l " .' ~i I ,1 ',

/ ?1 ' f

" ~~ ,

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: rf. 2v]

,t!' ""'''"-, I __ _

1 '

. ...

371

!

. ~' . . ,'. ~ \ . , . " , 4

, ':/> ;

, " '

I '

f' f ,. I

\ " f I

" i I

-~ I

" .

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: ff.3r]

' . : . ~ .: .

.. --.. ... . I

1 . ~ I¥ '

',' ' ..

~

.... ! -

, -I .

I

, I -:..()

o :. (}

u .... d

( -:: ()

(' -tl I I

:?~ 1-.T":""; . • 'lIS • ~ .. -

f

372

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: [f. 3v]

. ~ I ..

, ~ ..... . I

r •

----

t"" --'

\! :l I t

~ :. . ; ,

373

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: [f. 4r]

I .,j/, . ~ ..

1 /J • I .; .... _ ........ ~ --:.. .... : ";'~ ';J _-..>...-_ ..- . ..-.t-,.L./----../"I.___-.-.. __ .-..r.o _~_ •

./7. ' .

. ::)2:'0

" . -; J ()-;.a

; a -- 0

: 'f-_ "

'I t

-. 0 -, 0 '

:' (~t50

374

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L ';ngresso Accounts: [f. 4v)

...... ....., _ ........ -.... -... ,.-

1 .Jo t. .

( .!. ~ I

: ,~

I/,i ., ef';;i · f:'J ~ , r ~ltl\; i ' I I I ;~~ S.r1.iI; '7t1iA

" .'. IjJ.W .r "'~f.i., .J g'.tJ j! 7/.'3 : ' ~I? I

'.1 . \'

') t ~\.."

, . ....

'7.1J~ d ?II , ' N'I ';'~ / .' I /?11.' 'j I?'l,"" "

.11/ / '.' /.

'J r . ) ..

, I ' , ~ ', I ( .

I

/1

. t_ ... · .. :

. ' ': ., . ~ - ... .., ',. .. ,. :

,

, .

\ \ .\":a ',".

( ' 'i

, . "

\.' ~ 'f

. :',1 ' ,

~-'~ .... - .. -.

. . t .. .,

~ , ,

~ ,

~

. ,

. .. ".' . . \ .. "

-, '- t

..

375

'0 . \

'.

.... ; " .. \. '

\ ".y ... t •

. :~ '\

,

~

~

~ ,

L r.

,

.. , *. ~ .

' . ,


376

, ,

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: [f. 5v)

377

. ---

, ' :: 0

-, ::. (J

''1-:.0

;:' . '. .,

:: ~

.. . ;

.- :

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: ff. 6rJ

...• . ~ "

378

.....

1:1

( ;>

, -

I ..

, ~

I

I ~

: '

·r , t

\ '\

: .... "

·, ."

c


.J (XJ /·6crznrj.dd~ ~

.. e; -.-.;: ...... . -= s =

379

7

. )

,

I·

I :..

I )

'"1'/

\'\ .~ .}

. ........ ---;-----I

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: [f. 8rI

I .:A: ' .. ,..-. ' - ' - ...... -... .

i ,

~ . I

,./ )

I 380


I .,' j. i~

.-~- -'~' .. " '"

- ...,:..... -.• ~: . .,;. .. : ~ ~~~~ ... I.""

381

\ ~ \~ .

. " I , '-:? ,. #

, ' : \ ,;> \

, ..

I •

,-

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'il1gresso Accounts: ff. lOr]

(

- 7= $"

. I ~

. /I/~ ) I /

/ I

382

.. »Ycs_at:

. .. - - '_ . ,. .

", ,

· ) .

, ' ~

· I \

· ; .

\. ,

- ...... .. '100

, ~ . .;~

II

--


....... ,

383

1 7~ ' ,[2 .r= Cifr i f -If)'

' "

~

I ,

, , . ~

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'illgresso Accounts: [f. 12r]

I ..... , . ,.

,-----:;;,-,;;;;,:--__ ....;... ......... ' ~xe_a -----_ra~=...__: .... -_ 384

.. ..

. f

"

! , ) I

I ~

"

.r .i /. I

't

, i ,

, :~ 1:.:

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L ';ngresso Accounts: [f. 14r]

I .-J. . -.- ~.-- - .. _ ... . !'

:--~. :~ ~~ , .. ~

/ -- -r' - ";"~~< ~ ...

~.

.,' ~ ~~¥~4~~'~~~~~"~~~~~-~'~~'~--~~~~ __ ~~~~~==~~~

; ...; ~\, I

1) _ ' .-

, __ -...:-....:.'--=_=::' ,.:;.....=:;.:::_=" :.;._;.:,' • ~-. ::;;"'%:::-.. ___ .... __ r _ ___ . __ :--, . ~ __

386

• I ~ .. 1'~ , '#'

I

. .. .

"

)

· · . ,

· · . 1 '-

I ,- 1

::~ ,J

;'1


• . t . ~ . \.J • (

~ J

~ j I . l ,

. ' I '-'~-'-: \ I

'. ,

~. I

" ... / t ,

j

• •

-

:

, 4 j ,

( ,. . '\.r t\ ". '" '-"'")' J.', ~. ,. ~

' . .. , ..

!

..... ... .,. , .

----. "";

387

.' ;~

..

..

-

,--;.

I ''; . :-

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: [f. lSr]

-- .-:--'. . ~ ' .' :". . . . . , , , -- - ...... . -. ~~-..;! • .• -

,;S' \ \ '

388

,~ .#.

. .

. . " >

," 77-

T ,·e " .

, .

....

~ .'\ '. ,


I ~~" , , :-

------------__ --____ e~ ____ ~---

. I

~', ' . t I.' . . • -, . .. "" ' ;"} ).: . . . ':\' '\ , ' \ '

~ , ~ ; \" : , V ,~

", . . ' :., . -1

1, , ~,' ;.. ... .,. . . .. '.

. '" ' ... . ~ - ...

.~ . ' . .

'~

• f

. ,

. \

..

,

/

. ~. ... ! .. .. . . . - t "

; t ' . - . , . .. '. ..

_. 7- -- ,--. 389

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: [f. 16rJ

I -~ . ~ '., .. .. ..

' "" Jb

,

.""

-

)

. ~

1 '. ., ---.-----~ . . _-- - ~--.. ----~- - - --

/. I • ,I

:... -

390

\ ,

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L ';ngresso Accounts: [f. 17r]

17

391

... . -

, ,

)

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'ingresso Accounts: [f. ISr]

I . :.l.- .. II'--~-.

J. - .... ~ .. ., .. ~---~- .. ,.., - - - -

392

", " ... .....

, ~

I I . ' . ., , ~

. . . )

)

I

} J

I

j • .{

Appendix H: Facsimile of the L'illgresso Accounts: [f. 19r]

"' .

_ -'(-'2 .... / _ /J "_o::!~ , _, ,,,,, ___ . u ~ _ ______ - -- .... ~~ I -: "' _ """' r lr- _ _ ... . ...

,

J ? , -:1 ," './1<" .

" .

~

~..,

. ,

~

. )

~

, •

I I , !

l \ I .. )

I

- --- -'-- " ---

393

I .}'

I

I -,.: ' I' .. ,

.~ .


-.--;---.... . ~ : ~ ... .

] , /1., _ _ . ..;"-.... _ _-(~'.: .. ~. ~ -:: - ~ ... . L~\..==_--.!..~ ,'-"~:F-~~1 ____ . . ' -""T • - ...... - - --~""-' - . . _-_ .. _- - _.

'",\: '. .,-, ~' :- -.~

.1

'20 '

fI '.' : • ,.. .- :'

,.. .. . . , .. ~

394

:~ # '

I

, ~

; . ,

, . , "

1 r~.

." J

., HI

t '

t'

. I


395

J' iii

" , :-

~ ! , "

'/!J: /'

(: ,1 1: 0

:ro --) " 0

'i' , ,() I •

d: ()

(J •• rJ

c'!O , d : O

~:()

~:tJ . -:J~:/')..

.,: 0

/"~:'2 '

-"

!

\ ( .. :·1


f"2. .-(- I., 0 -, e, ~ I\.

111.. -1 '

(;:{ ,:::,. J - '" ;;::-;" .. to."

c /~ '/c?L'~ r?- / ~'" r/-/;A-A'7~~ o r ~~a·./7~. r/: i?_/.~~ .... ,y~~~J ~ ~/c/n->"'~; ~--~""-~'~ D t

C~?~~ ~/V)~ .n-~,,, ~r:~ rr ~' 1~~~It~~ r'-H.'9./;I"~ .,...~ .

, '

. ,

I':" G" J ,r - - - - - --..;: I ("l. rl.." -

/-7_ ...... ~ _ /. ,.)1 /"7' -f- > r r- '':>- t'~ ~~"'c;;r V/"9 -/-Pl",.y, C/'C-~~-, 't:?'"

.. .. ~

396

Paul Atkin, Bibliography

Bibliography

Printed sources and theses

Accademia della Crusca, Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca, 51b edn., 7 vols. (Florence, Cellini, 1893).

Adani, Giuseppe and Bentini, ladranka (eds.), Atlante dei beni culturali dell 'Emilia Romagna, 4 (Milan, Rolo Banca 1473, 1996).

Adani, Giuseppe and Gherpelli, Giuseppe, 'I beni teatrali: scenogralia scenotecnica e costumi', in Adani and Bentini (eds.). Atlante dei beni cullurali del/'Emi/ia Romagna, 4: 307-56.

Alessi, Isabella, 1/ teatrino del Collegio San Carlo di Modena (Parma, Universita degli studi di Parma, Corso di Laurea in Letlere, 1994).

Amorth, Luigi, 'Concessioni e limitazioni a Laura Martinozzi in un documento del 1675', in Alii e memorie della deputa::ione Modenese di storiapatria, 1112 (1981), 57-61.

Amorth, Luigi, Modena capilale: Storia di Modena e dei suoi duchi dol 1598 al 1860 (Milan, Banca Popolare di Modena, 1967, reprinted 1998).

Anon., A Discourse oJthe Dukedom oj Modena (London, William Crook, 1674), reproduced with Italian translation in Rita Severi, II matrimonio reale di Maria di Modena, 28-72.

Anon (ed.), 'Albo Accademica 1684-1822', in Memorie della Regia Accademica di Scienze, Lellere ed Arti in Modena, 20/3 (La Societa TipograligaiAntica Tipografia Soliani, Modena, 1882), vii-ix.

Arnold, Denis and Arnold, Elsie, The Oratorio in Venice, 'RMA Monographs', 2 (London, Royal Musical Association, 1986).

Balestrieri, Lina, Feste e spellacoli alia corte di Farnese, 'Quademi Parmigiani', 6 (Parma, Palatina, 1981).

Barnett, Dene, The Art oJGesture: The Practices and PrinCiples oj Eighteenth-Century Acting (Heidelburg, Winter, 1987).

Basso, Alberto (ed.), Dizionario encielopedico universale della musica e del musicisti, 10 vols. (Turin, Unione Tipogralico Editrice Torinese,1999).

Battaglia, Salvatore (ed.), Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, 21 vols. (Turin, Unione Tipogralico Editrice Torinese, 2004).

Baumont, Olivier, La musique Q Versailles (Versailles, Actes Sud/Chateau de Versailles, 2007),

Beltrami, Giacomo, 'II ducato di Modena Ira Francia e Austria (Francesco II d'Este, 1674-1694)" in Alii e memorle, deputazione dl storia patria per Ie antiche provincie modenese, 8/9 (1957), 100-42.

Benatli, Geminiano, Famiglie nobili e patrizie nelle terre del Ducato di Modena (Modena, Lions Club, 1983).

Besutti, Paola, 'Bonetti, Lucia', in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary oJOpera, I: 537.

Besutti, Paola, 'Cottini [Cottina], Antonio [Galli, Antonio Pietro]" in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary oj Opera, I: 998-9.

Besutli, Paola, 'Marsigli [Marsiglio, Marsili], Giuseppe', in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary oJOpera, 3: 229.

Besutti, Paola, and Timms, Colin, 'Torri [Torri Cecchi], Anna Maria ['La BeccarinaT, in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary oJOpera, 4: 764.

Biagi, Guido, 'Letlere di Lodovico Antonio Muratori', in Rivista delle biblioteche e deg/i archIYl, 7 (1896), 40-41.

Bianchini Braglia, Elena, 0 regina, 0 santa: Maria Beatrice d'Este, sovrana spodestata per la sua/ede callolica; tunica /laliana suI trono d'inghilterra (Modena, Terra e identitA, 2005).

Bianconi, Lorenzo, Storio della musica, 4: II Seicento (Turin, Edizioni di Torino, 1982), trans. David Bryant as Music In the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996).

Bianconi, Lorenzo, and Walker, Thomas, 'Production, Consumption and Political Function of Seventeenth-Century Opera', in Early Music History, 4 (1984). 209-96.

Bianconi, Lorenzo (ed.), La drammaturgia musicale (Bologna, II Mulino, 1986).

Bianconi, Lorenzo, and Pestelli, Giorgio (eds.), Opera Production and lis Resources (The History oj Italian Opera, 2/4), trans. Lydia Cochrane (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1998).

Bianconi, Lorenzo, and Pestelli, Giorgio (eds.), Opera on Stage (The History 0/ Italian Opera, 215), trans. Kate Singleton (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2002).

397


Bianconi, Lorenzo, and Pestelli, Giorgio (eds.), Opera in Theory and Practice. Image and Myth (History of Italian Opera, 2/6), trans. Kenneth Chambers and Mary Whittall (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2004).

Bini, Mauro (ed.), Gli Estensi, 2: La corte di Modena (Modena, n Bulino, 1999).

Bompiani, Valentino (ed.), Di:ionario Bompiani degli aulor; di lulli Ilempi e di lulle Ie lelleralure, 2 (Milan, Gruppo Editoriale Fabbri, Bompiani, Sonzogno, Etas, 1987).

Bowder, Diana (ed.), Who Was Who in Ihe Roman World 753 BC - AD 476 (Oxford, Phaidon Press, 1980).

Burke, Peter, The Iialian Renaissance: Cullure and Society in Iialy (2nd edn., Cambridge, Polity Press, 2005).

Burke, Peter, Popular Cullure in Early Modem Europe (3n! rev. edn., Burlington, Ashgate, 2006).

Carandini, Antonio, Memorie pubbliche della cillo di Modena raccolle e serilte da Anlonio Carandini Modenese II qual morl il 1732, Biblioteca Estense Universitaria, Archivio Muratoriano, filza 39, fasc. 17.b, cited in Milano, 'Gli Estensi: La corte di Modena', in Bini (ed.), Gli Eslensi, 2: La corte di Modena, 9-137.

Carter, Tim,Jacopo Peri 1561-1633: His Life and Works, 2 vols. (New York, Garland Publishing. 1989).

Carter, Tim, Monleverdi's Musical Theatre (New Haven and London, Yale University Press. 2002).

Carter, Tim, 'Mask and Illusion: Italian Opera after 1637', in Tim Carter and John Butt (eds.), The Cambridge Hislory of Seventeenth-Cenlury Music (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2005), 241-82.

Castiglione, Baldassare [1478-15291.lllibro del corlegiano (Venice, Nelle case d'Aldo Romano e d'Andrea d'Asola, 1528), trans. George Bull. The Book oflhe Courtier (rev. ed., Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1976).

Celletti, Rodolfo, A Hislory of Bel Canlo, trans. Frederick Fuller (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991, reprinted 200 I).

Chiappini, Luciano, Gli Eslensi: mille anni di sloria (3,d edn., Ferrara, Corbo Editore, 200 I).

Chiarelli. Alessandra, 'La collezione estense di musica stradelliana: per un'indagine sulla sua formazione', in Gianturco (ed.), Alessandro Siradella e Modena, 116-24.

Chiarelli, Alessandra, Colle:ionismo musicale nellardo Seicenlo: Le raccolle manoscrille di arie da opere ilaliana nella Biblioleca Eslense di Modena, 2 vols. (Ph.D. diss., Universita di Bologna, 1986).

Chiarelli, Alessandra,1 codici di musica della raccolla Eslense (Florence, Olschki, 1987).

Chiarelli, Alessandra, Ghirardini, Gherardo and Lucchi, Marta, Tealro musica e comunila: Da Modena capilale a Modena italiana, in 'Quademi dell'Archivio Storico', 4 (Modena, Archivio StoricolComune di Modena, 1996).

Chiarelli. Alessandra, 'Fonti e vita musicale estense tra corte, coJlezionismo e accademie: Raccolta bibliografica e tradizione inventariale', in Bini (ed.), Gli ESlensi, 2: La corle di Modena, 263-309.

Corradini, Elena, 'Spes publica: medaglie Estensi', in Bini (ed.), Gli Eslensi, 2: La corle di Modena, 3 10-21.

Crocioni. Giovanni, Ilealri di Reggio nell 'Emilia (sec.l. xvi-xx) (Reggio Emilia, Cooperativa Lavoranti Tipografi, 1907).

Crowther, Victor, 'Alessandro Stradella and the Oratorio Tradition in Modena', in Gianturco (ed.), Alessandro Slradella e Modena, 51-64.

Crowther, Victor, 'A Case-Study in the Power of the Purse: The Management of the Ducal Cappella in Modena in the Reign of Francesco II d'Este', in Journal oflhe Royal Musical Associalion, 11512 (1990),207-19.

Crowther, Victor, The Oralorio in Modena (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992).

Crowther, Victor, The Oralorio in Bologna, 1650-1730 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1999).

Dahlhaus, Carl, 'What is a Musical Drama?', in Cambridge Opera Journal, 112 (1989), 99-111.

Dall'Olio, Giambattista, La musica (Modena, La Societa Tipografiga, 1794).

Davoli, Susi (ed.), Civilla lealrale e Sellecento emiliano (Bologna, n Mulino, 1986).

DelDonna, Anthony, and Polzenetti, Pierpaolo (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Eighleenlh-Cenlury Opera (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009). .

Della Seta, Fabrizio, 'Some Difficulties in the Historiography of Italian Opera', in Cambridge Opera Journal, lOll (1998),3-14.

Donnington, Robert, The Rise of Opera (London, Faber and Faber, 1981).

Drei, Giovanni (completed by Giuseppina A1legri Tassoni),1 Farnese: grandez:a e decaden:a di unO dinaslia Italiano (Rome, La Libreria deJlo Stato, 1954).

398


Dubowy, Norbert, 'Ernst August, Giannettini und die Serenata in Venedig (1685/86)', in Analecta musicologica, 30/1 (1998), 167-235.

Dubowy, Norbert, '''Un riso bizzaro dell'estro poetico": II Flavio Cuniberto (1681) di Matteo Noris e iI dramma per musica del secondo seicento', in Musica e storia, 1212 (Bologna, II Mulino, 2004), 401-22.

Durante, Sergio, 'Pistocchi, Francesco Antonio Massimiliano [Mamiliano] [,Pistocchino', 'Pistocco,]" in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, 3: 1022.

Fabbri, Paolo, '11 municipio e la corte: 11 tcatro per musica tra Reggio e Modena nel secondo Seicento', in Gianturco (ed.), Alessandro Stradella e Modena, 160-86.

Fabbri, Paolo, and Verti, Roberto, Due secoli di teatro per musica a Reggio Emilia: Repertorio cronologico delle opere e del balli 1645-1857 (Reggio Emilia, Teatro Municipale Valli, 1987).

Fabbri, Paolo,ll secolo cantante: Per una storia del libretto d'opera nel Seicento (Bologna, II Mulino, 1990).

Feldman, Martha, 'Magic Mirrors and the Seria Stage: Thoughts toward a Ritual View', in Journal of the American Musicological SOCiety, 48/3 (1995),423-84.

Fenlon, lain, Music and Patronage in Sixteenth-Century Mantua, I (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1980).

Ferrari Moreni, Giovanni, 'Un dramma in musica rappresentato in Modena nell'anno 1692', in Messaggere dl Modena, 593 (Modena, 14 June 1852),561-3. Also often referred to as Gio. Fr. Ferrari Moreni, 'Religiomale Modenese "Panaro"', 4 VI 1852 lunedl, sotto iI titolo: un dramma in musica rappresentato in Modena nell'Archivio, 1692. Both references are to the same article. /I Panaro is the colloquial name of the Messaggere di Modena. The dating of4 June 1852 is incorrect and should read 14 June 1852.

Franchi, Saverio, Drammaturgia romana: Repertorio bibliografico eronologieo del testi drammatiei pubblieatl aRoma e nel Lazio, Secolo XVI/ (Rome, Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1988).

Franchin~ Giuseppe, Cronaca Modonese, 3 (Modena, 1796).

Freeman, Robert, Opera Without Drama: Currents of Change in Italian Opera, 1675-1725, 'Studies in Musicology', 35 (Ann Arbor, UMI Research Press, 1981).

Gandini, Alessandro, Cronistoria dei teatri di Modena dal1539 al 1871,1 (Modena, 1873; facsimile edn., Bologna, Forni Editrice 1969).

Gentile, Giovanni, e Tumminelli, Calogero (eds.), Enciclopedia Italiana di scienze, lettere ed artl, 17 (Roma, Istituto della enciclopedia italiana fondata da Giovanni Treccani, 1951).

Gherpelli, Giuseppe, L 'opera nei teatri di Modena (Modena, Poligrafico Artioli, 1988).

Gherpelli, Giuseppe, 'I beni teatrali: arte e arredi nei teatri', in Adani and Bentini (eds.), in Atlante del beni eulturali dell 'Emilia Romagna, 4: 203-306.

Gianturco, Carolyn, The Operas of Alessandro Stradella (/644-1682), 2 vols. (D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1970).

Gianturco, Carolyn, '/I Trespolo tulore di Stradella e di Pasquini: due diverse concezioni dell'opera comica', in Maria Teresa Muraro (ed.), Venezia e il melodramma nel Set/ecento, 'Studi di musica veneta', 6 (Florence, Olschki, 1978), 185-98.

Gianturco, Carolyn (ed.), Alessandro Stradella e Modena: Alii del convegno internazionale di studi Modena 15-17 dicembre 1983 (Modena, Teatro Comunale di Modena, 1984).

Gianturco, Carolyn, Alessandro Stradella (/639-1682): His Life and MusiC, 'Oxford Monographs on Music' (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1994).

Glixon, Beth, and Glixon, Jonathan, Inventing the Business of Opera: The Impresario and His World in Seventeenth-Century Venice (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006).

Glover, Jane, Cavalli (London, B. T. Batsford, 1978).

Graves, Robert, The Greek Myths, 2 vols. (London, The Folio Society, 1996).

Groag, Edmund, and Stein, Arthur (eds.), Prosopographia imperii romani, saec. I. II. Ill, pars J (2nd cdn., Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 1933).

Grout, Donald, and Palisca, Claude, A History of Western Music (6 th rev. edn., New York, Norton, 2001).

Heller, Wendy, 'Tacitus Incognito: Opera as History in L'incoronazione di Poppea', in Journal of the American Musicological Society, 5211 (1999), 39-96.

Hibbert, Christopher, The Rise and Fall of the House of Medici (London, The Folio Society, 1998).

Ho~mes, William, Opera Observed: Views of a Florentine Impresario in the Early Eighteenth Century (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1993).

399


Hornblower, Simon, and Spawforth, Anthony (eds.), The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998).

Hornblower, Simon, and Spawforth, Anthony (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (3N edn., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999).

Hume, Robert, 'The Politics of Opera in Late Seventeenth-Century London', in Cambridge Opera Journal, 1011 (1998), 15-44.

lotti, Roberta (ed.), Gli Estensi, I: fA corte di Ferrara (Modena, n Bulino, 1997).

lotti, Roberta, 'La politica dell'amore, 2: Altri casi matrimoniali in Casa d'Este', in Bini (ed.), Gli Estensi, 2: fA corte di Modena, 138-180.

Ivanovich, Cristoforo, Memorie teatrali di Venezia (Venice, 1687; facsimile edn., Lucca, Libreria Musicale Italiana Editrice, 1993).

Jander, Owen, 'The Cantata in Accademia: Music for the Accademia de' Dissonanti and their Duke, Francesco II d'Este', in Rivista italiana di musicologia, 10 (1975), 519-44.

Jarrard, Alice, Architecture as Performance in Seventeenth-Century Europe: Court Ritual in Modena, Rome, and Paris (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003).

Johnson, Victoria, Fulcher, Jane and Ertman, Thomas (eds.), Opera and Society in Italy and France from Monteverdi to Bourdieu (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007).

Ketterer, Robert, Ancient Rome in Early Opera (Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 2009).

Kimbell, David, Italian Opera (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994).

Klenz, William, Giovanni Maria Bononcini 0/ Modena: A Chapter in Baroque Music (Durham NC, Duke University Press, 1962).

Lazarelli, Maoro Alessandro, In/ormazione del/'Archivio del Monistero di San Pietro di Modena, S. Nella quafe incidentemente occo"ono molte notizie dei pontefici, vescovi di Modena, e signori d'Este, come anche della citta, e di molte /amiglie di Modena dall'anno 1651 sino all'anno 1695. sec. XVII (Modena, 1710-12).

Libby, Dennis, 'De Grandis, Francesco', in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary o/Opera, 1: 1106.

Lindgren, Lowell, 'Critiques of Opera in London, 170S-1719', in Alberto Colzani and Norbert Dubowy (eds.), 1/ melodramma italiano in ltalia e in Germania nell 'eta barocca: Alii del V Convegno internazionafe sulla musica italiani nef secolo XVIIIBeitriige zumftinften internationalen symposium uber die ilalienische musik im 17. Jahrhundert (Como, Antiquae Musicae Italicae Studiosi, 1995), 145-65.

Litta, Pompeo, Famiglie celebri d'italia, 'Voce "d'Este", IV., tav. XVI' (Milan, Stamperia Giusti, 1819).

Lodi, Pio, 'Catalogo delle opere musicali: Citt8 di Modena', in Bolletino dell'associazione del musicologia italiana, 8 (Parma, Officina Grafica: Fresching, 1926), IOS-41.

Lucchi, Marta, 'I beni musicali', in Adani and Bentini (eds.), Atlante dei beni culturali dell 'Emilia Romagna, 4: 127-202.

Luchinat, Cristina, Bollicelli allegorie mitofogiche (Milan, Electa, 2001).

Luin, Elisabetta, Antonio Giannellini e la musica a Modena alia fine del sec. XVII (Modena, Societa Tipografiga Modenese, 1931).

Luin, Elisabetta, 'Antonio Giannettini e la musica a Modena alia fine del sec. XVII', in Alii e memorie, della r. deputazione di storia potria per Ie provincie modenesi, 717 (1931), 145-230.

Luin, Elisabetta (ed.), 'Repertorio dei Iibri musicali di S.A.S. Francesco II d'Este nell' Archivio di Stato di Modena', in La bibliofilia: Revista di storia dellibro, 38 (1936), 418-45.

MacNeil, Anne, 'Weeping at the Water's Edge', in Early MusiC, 27 (1999), 406-18.

Macy, Laura (ed.), The Grove Book o/Opera Singers (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008).

Mamczarz, Irene, Le Theatre Farnese de Parme et Ie drame musical italien (/618-1732): etude d'un lieu theatral, des representations, des/ormes: drame pastoral, intermedes, opera-tournoi, drame mUSical, 'Teatro studi e testi', S (Florence, Olschki, 1988).

Mamone, Sara, 'Most Serene Brothers-Princes-Irnpresarios: Theater in Florence under the Management and Protection of Mattias, Giovan Carlo, and Leopoldo de' Medici', in Journal 0/ Seventeenth-Century Music 9.1 (2003) <http://www.sscmjscm.press.uluc.edu/jscmlv9/nollMamone.html>.

Mangini, Nicola,l teatri di Venezia (Milan, Mursia, 1974).

Marri, Federico, 'Muratori, la musica e iI melodrama negli anni milanesi (1695-1700)', in Fabio Marri (ed.), Muratoriana, 16 (Modena, Aedes Muratoriana, 1988), 19-133.

Martinelli Braglia, Graziella, '1\ Teatro Fontanelli: Note su impresari e artisti nella Modena di Francesco II e Rinaldo I' in Gianturco (ed.) Alessandro Stradella e Modena, 139-59. '

400


Maylender, Michele, Storie della Accademie d'ltalia, 2 (Bologna, L. Cappelli, 1926).

Milano, Ernesto, 'Casa d'Este dall'anno Mille al1598', in lotti (ed.), Gli Estensi, 1: La corte di Ferrara, 9·94.

Milano, Ernesto, 'Gli Estensi: La corte di Modena', in Bini (ed.), Gli Estensi, 2: La corte di Modena, 9·137.

Miller, John, James II, 'Yale English Monarchs' (3rd edn., New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2000).

Montecchi, Giorgio (ed.), 'I beni bibliografici', in Adani and Bentini (eds.), Atlante dei beni culturall dell'Emilia Romagna, 4: 13· 126.

Morselli, Adriano, 'n talamo preservato dalla fedelta di Eudossa', in Howard Mayer Brown (ed.) Italian Opera Librettos 1640· 1770,56 (New York, Garland Publishing, 1978).

Murata, Margaret, Operasfor the Papal Court, 1631·1668, 'Studies in Musicology', 39 (Ann Arbor, UMI Research Press, 1981).

Muratori, Ludovico Antonio, Del/a perfetta poesia italiana (Modena, 1706).

Muratori, Ludovico Antonio, Del/e antichita estensi ed italiane, 2 (Modena, Stamperia Ducale, 1740).

Muratori, Ludovico Antonio, Annali d'ltalia dol principia dell'era volgare sino al/'anno 1749,11: Dal/'anno 1601 del/'era volgare fino al/ 'anno 1700 (Milan, Giovambatista Pasquali, 1749).

Musgrave, Peter, Land and Economy in Baroque /taly: Valpolicel/a, 1630·1797 (Leicester, Leicester University Press, 1992).

Nannini, Marco Cesare, Gli Estensi di Modena, ed. Piero Bargellini (Modena, Societa Tipografiga Editrice Modenese, 1959).

Nannini, Marco Cesare, Umanita e pieta di un duca di Modena: Francesco II d'Este (Modena, Societa Tipografiga ModeneselMucchi, 1961).

Nannini, Marco Cesare, 'Francesco II d'Este e L. A. Muratori', in Alti e memorie, deputazione di storia patria per Ie antiche provincie modenese, 912 (1962), 213·16.

Nasalli Rocca, Emilio,I Farnese (Varese, L'editore dall'Oglio, 1969).

Oman, Carola, Mary of Modena (London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1962).

Pascucci, Giovanni, Archivio Segreto Estense, 'Casa e Stato' (Roma, Ministero dell'lntero Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di stato XII1, Archivio di Stato di Modena, 1953).

Plank, Steven, 'Monmouth in Italy: L 'Ambitione Debel/ata', in Musical Times, 13211780 (1991), 280·84.

Price, Curtis, 'Political Allegory in Late Seventeenth.Century English Opera', in Nigel Fortune (ed.), Music and Theatre: Essays in Honor of Winton Dean (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987), 1-30.

Price, Curtis, Milhous, Judith and Hume, Robert, Italian Opera in Late Eighteenth·Century London, 1: The King's Theatre, Haymarket, 1778·1791 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995).

Ragazzi, Maria, Maria Beatrice d'Este, regina d 'Inghilte"a (Assisi, Pro Civitate Christiana, 1942).

Rapp, Richard,Industry and Economic Dec/ine in Seventeenth·Century Venice (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1976).

Roccatagliati, Alessandro, 'Modena', in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, 3: 419·20.

Romagnoli, Sergio, and Garbero, Elvira (eds.), Teatro a Reggio Emilia, 1: Dal rinoscimento aI/a rivoluzione francese (Florence, Sansoni, 1980).

Rombaldi, Odoardo, Gli Estensi al governo di Reggio dal 1532 al 1859: ricerche (Reggio Emilia, AGE, 1959).

Rombaldi, Odoardo, Aspetti e problemi di un secolo di governo estense a Modena e a Reggio Emilia: da Alfonso IVa Rinaldo I, 1658·1737 (Modena, Aedes Muratoriana, 1995).

Roncaglia, Giuseppe, 'Giuseppe Colombi e la vita musicale modenese durante il regno di Francesco II d'Este', in Attl e memorie del/'Accademia di Scienze, Lettere e Arti di Modena, 5/10 (Modena, 1950),47·52.

Room, Adrian, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (16111 edn., London, Cassell, 2001).

Rosand, Ellen, Opera in Seventeenth-Century Venice: The Creation ofa Genre (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992).

Rosselli, John, The Opera Industry in Italy from Cimarosa to Verdi: The Role of the Impresario (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984).

Rosselli, John, 'From Princely Service to the Open Market: Singers of Italian Opera and their Patrons, 1600.1850', in Cambridge Opera Journal, 111 (1989), 1-32.

Rosselli, John, Singers of Italian Opera: The History of a ProfeSSion (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992).

401


Sadie, Stanley and Bashford, Christina (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, 4 vols. (London, Macmillan, 1992, reprinted 1997).

Sadie, Stanley and Tyrrell, John (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 29 vols. (2nd edn., London, Macmillan, 2001).

Sandford, Francis, The History of the Coronation of the Most High, Most Mighty, and Most Excellent MONARCH. JAMES II (London, Thomas Newcomb, 1687), reproduced with Italian translation in Rita Severi, II matrimonio reale di Maria di Modena, 73· 93.

Sartori, Claudio, Ilibrelti italiani a stampa dalle origini al 1800, catalogo analitico con /6 Indici, 7 vols. (Cuneo, Bertola and Locatelli,1990·94).

Saunders, Harry, 'Neri, Giambattista [Giovanni Battista]', in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, 3: 571-2.

Schnoebelen, Anne, 'Predieri, Antonio', in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, 3: 1088·9.

Severi, Rita, II matrimonio reale di Maria di Modena: Testi e immagini dall'lnghilterra (/674-1688) (Modena, Fiorino Editore, 1993).

Soloman, Nicholas, 'Signs of the Times: A Look at Late Eighteenth-Century Gesturing', in Early MUSiC, 17 (\989), 551-62.

Southom, Janet, Power and Display in the Seventeenth Century: The Arts and Their Patrons in Modena and Ferrara, 'Cambridge Studies in the History of Art' (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Sternfield, Frederick, The Birth of Opera (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995).

Strohm, Reinhard, Dramma per Musica: /talian Opera Seria of the Eighteenth Century (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1997).

Strohm, Reinhard, 'Dramatic Dualities: Metastasio and the Tradition of the Opera Pair', in Early MusiC, 26 (1998), 551-61.

Suess, John, 'Vitali: (I) Giovanni Battista Vitali', in Sadie and Tyrrell (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and MUSicians, 26: 797-8.

Suetonius Tranquillus, Gaius, The Twelve Caesars, trans. Robert Graves, rev. Michael Grant (rev. edn., London, Penguin, 1989).

Tacitus, Cornelius, The Annals of Imperial Rome, trans. Michael Grant (rev. edn., London, Penguin, 1989).

Talbot, Michael, 'A Venetian Operatic Contract of 1714', in Michael Talbot (ed.), Liverpool Music Symposium 2: The Business of Music (Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 2002), 10-61.

Tardini, Vincenzo I teatri di Modena, 3: Opere in musica rappresentate dal1594 al1900 (Modena, Forghieri, Pellequi and C., 1902).

Thomas, Downing, Aesthetics of Opera in the Ancien Regime, 1647·/785 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008).

Tilmouth, Michael, 'Grossi, Giovanni Francesco ['Siface']', in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, 2: 552.

Timms, Colin, 'Cecchi, Domenico ['II Cortona']', in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, 1: 793.

Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Di=ionario tipografico storico degli Stati Estensi, 2 vols. (Modena, La Tipografia Camerale, 1724-5).

Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Biblioteca Modenese 0 noti=ie della vita delle opere degli scriltori natli degli stati del Serenissimo Signor Duca di Modena, 6 vols. (Modena, La Societa Tipografiga, 1781).

Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Storia della lelteratura Italiana, 9 vols. (Venice, n.p., 1795·6).

Tiraboschi, Girolamo, Memorie storiche modenesi, 4 vols. (Modena, La Societa Tipografiga, 1973·5).

Tomlinson, Gary, Metaphysical Song: An Essay on Opera, 'Princeton Studies in Opera' (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1999).

Vavoulis, Vassilis, 'Antonio Sartorio (c. 1630-1680): Documents and Sources ofa Career in Seventeenth-Century Venetian Opera', in Royal Musical Association Research Chronicle, 37 (2004), 1-70.

Veblen, Thorstein, The Theory of the Leisure Class (New York, Penguin, 1899, reprinted 1994).

Vecchi, Giuseppe, 'II "Nerone falto Cesare" di Giacomo Antonio Perti a Venezia', in Maria Teresa Muraro (ed.), Vene=ia e II melodrama nel Seicento, 'Studi di musica veneta', 5 (Florence, Olschki, 1976), 299-318.

Vecchi, Giuseppe, and Calore, Marina, Teatro e musica nel '700 Estense, '''Historiae musicae cultures", Biblioteca', 73 (Florence, Olschki,1994).

402


Vedriani, Ludovico (attr.), Cronaca di Modena dal1466-1665, sec. XVII (Modena, undated).

Vedriani, Ludovico, Historia dell'antichissima cilia di Modena, 2 (Modena, 1667).

Venturi Barbolini, Anna Rosa, 'Percorsi della cultura', in Bini (ed.), Gli Estensi, 2: La corte di Modena, 181-262.

Vitali, Carlo, 'Italy-Political, Religious and Musical Contexts', in Donald Burrows (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Handel (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997), 24-44.

Vitali, Carlo, 'De Castris, Francesco', in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary o/Opera, 1: 1101.

Vitali, Carlo, 'De Castris [De' MassimiJ, Francesco [Cecchino, Checchino]', in Macy (ed.), The Grove Book o/Opera Singers, 113-14.

Walker, Thomas, and Glixon, Beth, 'Giannettini [Gianettini, Zanettini, ZannettiniJ, Antonio', in Sadie and Bashford (eds.), The New Grove Dictionary o/Opera, 2: 404.

Williams Brown, Jennifer, "Con nuove arie aggiunte",' Aria Borrowing in the Venetian Opera Repertory, 1672-1685 (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 1992).

Williams Brown, Jennifer, 'On the Road with the "Suitcase Aria": The Transmission of Borrowed Arias in Late SeventeenthCentury Italian Opera Revivals', in Journal 0/ Musicological Research, 15 (1995), 3-23.

Worsthorne, Simon, Venetian Opera in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1954).

403


Archival sources

i./-MOas MODENA, ARCHIVIO DI STATO

I-MOas Arcbivio Segreto Estense:

I-MOos A ('Accademia'), 'Accademia Scientifica e Letteraria dei Dissonanti, Modena 1682-1791', Casso n. 1.1.

I-MOos CS (,Casa e Stato'), 'Minute di lettere a principi esteri', b. 1.

I-MOos CS, 'Lettere di principi esteri', 'Inghilterra' b. 2.

I-MOos CS, 'Lettere di principi esteri', 'Francia' b. 4.

I-MOos CS, 'Ambasciatori: lnghilterra', b. 5.

I-MOos CS, 'Ambasciatori: Parma', b. 17.

I-MOos CS, 'Lettere di principi regnanti', b. 41-3.

I-MOos CS, 'Ambasciatori: Francesi', b. 145.

I-MOos CS, 'Ambasciatori: Francia', b. 147.

I-MOos CS, 'Lettere di Margherita Famese moglie di Francesco II, duchessa di Modena fino al settembre 1694: al marito Francesco II, 14/07/1692 - 08/1111692', b. 266.88.

I-MOos CS, 'Documenti relativi al suo matrimonio con Laura Martinozzi: copia di dichiarazione del card. Mazarino zio di Laura', b.346.

I-MOos CS, 'Francesco 11 di Alfonso lV', 'Documenti relativi al suo Matrimonio', 02/07/1692 [correct date is 14/07/92], 14/06/1692 - 20/07/1692, b. 347. (Note this folder contains the following three sub-folders that follow: b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-1; n; III).

I-MOos CS, 'Documenti relativi al matrimonio di Francesco 11 con Margherita Famese, 1692', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-1.

I-MOos CS, 'Copie del testamento di Francesco 11 e scritture relative aile sue onoranze funebri, 1694-1696', b. 347, sottofasc 1974-II.

I-MOos CS, 'Documenti e scritture varie relativi a Francesco n, 1666-1694', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-I1I.

I-MOos CS, 'Documenti spettanti a principi estensi; ramo ducale - non regnanti', b. 399.

I-MOos CS, 'Documenti spettanti a principi estensi; ramo ducale - non regnanti', 'Dote concessa dal card. Mazarino a Laura Martinozzi per il suo matrimonio con Alfonso IV, 1654-1681', b. 399, sottofasc. 2049-1.

I-MOos CS, 'Documenti spettanti a principi estensi; ramo ducale - non regnanti', 'Documenti relativi a Laura Martinozzi, 1662-1681', b. 399, sottofasc. 2049-11.

I-MOos CS, 'Documenti spettanti a principi estensi; ramo ducale - non regnanti', 'Scritture relative al testamento e all'eredita di Laura Martinozzi,1686-1715', h. 399, sottofasc. 2049-I1I.

I-MOos CS,'Margherita Famese moglie di Francesco II, duchessa di Modena fino al settembre 1694', 'Un sonetto in occasione del suo matrimonio e due scritture attinenti alia restituzione della sua dote dopo la morte del marito, 1692-1696, p. 3', b. 415.193.

I-MOas Arcbivio Segreto Estense, Arcbivi per materie:

I-MOos MM (,Musica e musicisti compositori sec. XV-XVIII'), Casso n. La.

I-MOos MM, Casso n. I.h.

I-MOos SP ('Spettacoli pubblici'), 'Archivio Notarile', F. 4378.

I-MOos SP, 'Componimenti teatrali manoscritti d'autore - Lett. A-I', Casso n. 1.

I-MOos SP, 'Componimenti teatrali manoscritti d'autore - Lett. L-M', Casso n. 2.

I-MOos SP, 'Componenti teatrali manoscritti d'autore - Lett. N-Z', Casso n. 3.

I-MOos SP, 'Componimenti senza nome d'autorc', Casso n. 4.

I-MOos SP, 'Componimenti a stampa per autore da A a V', Casso n. S.

404


I-MOas SP, 'Componimenti a stampa senza autore', Casso n. 6.

I-MOas SP, 'Progetti e spese per teatri e rappresentazioni', Casso n. 7.

I-MOas SP, 'Progetti e spese per teatri e rappresentazioni', 'Liste dei servitori ducali che godevano del diritto di entrare esenti in teatro, 1681-1691', Casso n. 7.

I-MOas SP, 'Progetti e spese per teatri e rappresentazioni', 'Cose teatrali, 1686-1777', Casso n. 7.

I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', Casso n. 8.a.

I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Avvisi teatrali a stampa', Casso n. 8.a.

I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Comunale in Reggio, 1683', 'Profit and Loss Account for II talamo, and supporting loose documents': 'Libro delle spese da farsi nel Teatro dell'lIIustissima Comunita per la rappresentatione del drama intitolato II talamo preservato dalla fedelta d'Eudossa .. .', Casso n. 8.a.

I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Fontanelli in Modena, 1685-1705', Casso n. 8.a.

I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Rangoni in Modena, 1705-', Casso n. 8.a.

I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Recapiti diversi relativi alia costruzione del nuovo Teatro di Corte, 1685-1686', Casso n.8.b.

I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Recapiti diversi relativi a rappresentazioni date nel Teatro di Corte, 1686-1779', Casso n.8.b.

I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro di Corte, 1686', Casso n. 8.b.

I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro di Corte, 1686', '1686, Robbe proviste per il teatrino', Casso n. 8.b.

I-MOas SP, 'Teatri in Modena e nel ducato', 'Teatro Vecchio di Corte, 1683', Casso n. 8.b.

I-MOas SP, 'Miscellanea, disegni e stampe', Casso n. 10.

I-MOas SP, 'Miscellanea, disegni e stampe', 'Spesa da farsi nel Teatro 1685', Casso n. 10.

I-MOas Camera Dueale:

I-MOas R (,Registri di bolletta de' salariati'), 179.

I-MOasR, 181-3.

I-MOas R, 186.

405


Documents Specific to Marriage of Francesco II and Margherita Farnese, and to the Issue of Succession

All documents listed are sourced from three sub-folders under ('sottofasc. 1974-1; II; III), held within: I-MOas CS, 'Francesco II di Alfonso IV', 'Documenti relativi al suo Matrimonio', 02107/1692 [correct date is 14/07/92], 14/06/1692 - 20/07/1692, b. 347.

1692 'Notification of Duke Francesco II being too ill to travel to Parma': I-MOas CS, 'Documenti relativi al Matrimonio di Francesco II con Margherita Famese, 1692', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-1.

1692 'Marriage Contract': I-MOas CS, 'Documenti relativi al Matrimonio di Francesco II con Margherita Famese, 1692', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-1: 'Strumento dotale della Serenissima Signorina Principessa Margherita Famese, promessa in Issosa al Serenissimo Signore Duca Francesco II'.

1692 'Wedding Invitations': I-MOas CS, 'Documenti relativi 81 Matrimonio di Francesco II con Margherita Famese, 1692', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-1: 'Nota de personaggi, a quali iI Serenissimo Signore Duca Francesco Secondo ha dato parte del suo Accasamento colla Serenissima Principessa Margherita Famese'.

1694 'Testament': I-MOm; CS, 'Copie del testamento di Francesco II e scritture relative aile sue onoranze funebri, 1694-1696', b. 347, sottofasc. 1974-11: 'Testamento del Serenissimo Francesco 2.0, Duca di Modena, Reggio Etc.'.

1692 'Illness of Duke Francesco II': I-MOos CS, 'Documenti e scritture varie relativi a Francesco II, 1666-1694', b. 347, sottofasc. I 974-III: 'Relazione sopra il male del Serenissima Duca Francesco'. [Note that this file was missing on my last visit to the Archivio].

1690 'Minute of Duke Francesco's Donation': I-MOos CS, 'Documenti e scritture varie relativi a Francesco II, 1666-1694', b. 347, sottofasc. I 974-III: 'Minuta di donazione fatta dal Duea Francesco II al Signor Principe Cesare suo cugino e figlio del Principe Borso d 'Este essere cad iI 1690: I'.

ii.I-MOe MODENA, BIBLIOTECA ESTENSE UNIVERSIT ARIA

I-Mae 'Conto della spesa, e cavato falto per iI dramma intitolato L'ingresso 0110 giol'entu di Claudio Nerone', I-Mae y,V.4.10.8. The L'ingresso accounts ledger and Profit and Loss Account, together with loose documents held at the back of the file which refer directly to the settlement of Fontanelli's loan over a period from 1694-1698.

See also Appendix C for a 'List of Operas Given in Modena (1653-1705) and Select Listing of Operas and Oratorios Referenced or Cited Within Thesis'.

406

Date post:	03-Dec-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times