Tag: Rodelinda

Posted on

Staging Handel: a Response to Ruth Smith and Brian Robins

Sandra Bowdler

In a recent issue of the Handel News, I was much stimulated and entertained by the articles by Ruth Smith (1) and Brian Robins (2) on staging Handel, the former concentrating on the oratorios, the latter on the original staging of the operas. Smith concludes that Handel’s oratorios are better in non-staged performances; Robbins argues that, with respect to the operas, ‘only by seeing them as a totality unifying sets, costumes, gesture and expressiveness that we can truly understand the nobility of this great corpus of works on its own terms’. While finding myself sympathetic to both arguments, I have reservations about realising these ideals in the context of modern opera, and oratorio, performance. My views have been influenced by a long-term interest in the wider field of opera performance and recent experiences of Handel productions at home (Australia) and abroad.

Why do opera companies or other organisations even want to stage oratorios, when Handel has left us some 40 actual operas for the purpose? This is a puzzle, and can perhaps only be answered on a case-by-case basis by directors and intendants. I can hazard a guess with respect to the Sydney opera company Pinchgut Opera. From its inception – Semele in 2002 – the company has been associated with the (excellent) choir Cantillation, and it seems that it has specifically sought works with a large choral component. I think this also applies to the more recently established ‘Handel in the Theatre’ group in Canberra, which arose out of the Canberra Choral Society with Alexander Balus in 2014; though its current name seems odd as it has only performed oratorios, including the forthcoming Susanna. This argument about work for the chorus might also I daresay be applied to Glyndebourne. But why on earth would Halle Opera choose to stage Jephtha, albeit during the annual Handel festival there? Quite apart from its turning out to be a monumental train wreck, why not stick with actual operas? Perhaps modern directors feel that Handel’s oratorios provide more familiar storylines than the very obscure personages that feature in the operas? Although these days the likes of Jephtha, Susanna, Alexander Balus etc. are hardly household names.

The other issue highlighted by Smith is the way the oratorios are staged, with the literal specificity of stage action reigning in the inherent ambiguity of the oratorios’ text and music and thus restricting the imaginative reception by the audience. There is also the fact that modern directors are trying to do things with the oratorios that not only did Handel not intend, but which also do not work in a modern operatic context. It is interesting to consider what might be called the converse.

Smith mentions Wagner. I have attended quite a few successful concert performances of Wagner operas over the years (Tristan und Isolde, Tannhäuser, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung come to mind). In Tristan in particular, staging is practically otiose: some 90% of the whole work comprises long ecstatic passages of singing during which a park and bark performance is practically obligatory. Those who love Wagner, and (like me) are drawn in by his excessively passionate, verging on decadent, music with its long unresolved passages culminating in orgiastic resolutions, see no need for stage encumbrences. The recent New York Metropolitan Opera production (available online and on DVD) has the sketchiest of sets. Regular opera-goers do not actually need elaborate settings. When it comes to Handel, however, directors and producers seem to feel the need to over-embellish.

Returning to oratorio, the recent Pinchgut production of Athalia, despite being musically outstanding, illustrated much that is wrong in staging oratorios, including some new terrible ideas. Who, outside this production, could possibly imagine that an 18th-century English oratorio needed surtitles translated into English (i.e. modern-day English)? This was almost enough to kill the whole production, with the distraction of having two sets of English words being thrown at you at once. I will not go into what might be described as directorial infelicities – I know my mentioning that there is a pretty explicit sex scene between Athalia and Mathan will be enough to have this readership running screaming from the room – but the director Lindy Hume is known for her desire to seek modern ‘relevance’. But every review I read blamed the work for its lack of dramatic cohesion, development and so on. In one case, the reviewer found that ‘Until the last 20 minutes or so of the performance, there was very little action in the story of the opera; this often made Hume’s job difficult, as she designed the protagonists’ movements on stage’ (3). Bloody Handel, making the director’s job difficult. While this might seem to justify Smith’s view, I can imagine another director taking Athalia and producing something both more like a regular modern opera production on the one hand, while on the other also preserving the underlying 18th-century sensibility. It can be done with Mozart and Wagner: why not with Handel?

In this vein, the way Robins describes modern Handel productions in his first paragraph is essentially correct, but not, to me, a bad thing. Those pared-down austere sets do exactly what Smith suggests in allowing the audience’s imagination to fill in the dark spaces; the ones that do not work so well are those forced into a more particularistic setting (e.g. Rodelinda always now seems to happen in a 20th-century police state) or one of fluffy over-embellishment without any particular regard for ‘authenticity’. I also loved his description of an historical performance, reinforced by a recent visit to the Baroque theatre in Cesky Krumlov (not alas for a performance, although the thought of sitting through four hours of opera on one of the benches is a matter of some trepidation). Someone once said to me however that were I (or any Handel fan) to sit through a full historically performed Baroque opera replete with 18th-century conventions, Gest, costume and so on, I/we would be bored stupid. Actually, I love the productions of Sigrid T’Hooft: her recent Parnasso in Festa at Bad Lauchstädt was utterly blissful, as were her Göttingen performances of Amadigi and Imeneo in recent years, all deploying the full authentic range of Baroque opera performance. But would we want all operas to be performed like that today?

The reality is that there are very few appropriate venues for such productions. Cesky Krumlov and Drottningholm are the only two surviving Baroque theatres in Europe, and presumably the world. Early 19th-century buildings like the Goethestheater at Bad Lauchstädt and the Deutschestheater in Göttingen serve well, but this is not the kind of venue in which Baroque operas can be solely performed if we have some hope of their gaining and maintaining an ongoing place in regular opera-going. Perhaps we do not want that, but if they are not performed in regular theatres they are not going to have much survival potential.

Another recent experience of mine was a performance of Tamerlano at La Scala in Milan, a heartland of the opera experience. The stage there is vast, and an ‘authentic’ performance would be lost in the shadows. What I saw was a huge modern production which relocated the scene to the Russian revolution. The mise en scène comprised an enormous train, occasionally in motion (clever back-projection of trees being rushed past) and more often stationary in the snowy wilderness, with doors opening to reveal interactions inside. Maybe Franco Fagioli as Trotsky was a bridge too far, but it was definitely a popular hit and did not, to my mind, get in the way of the story or the meanings inherent in the text and music. If we want Handel opera to survive and flourish, it needs to be performed in these 19th-century barns alongside the core operatic repertoire, together with the more privileged locations of specialised theatres in the context of festivals and informed audiences.

Notes
(1) Smith, R. (2018). Staging Handel’s oratorios: gain and loss. Handel News, 71, January, 5-10.
(2) Robbins, B. (2018). Staging Handel – now … and then. Handel News, 71, January, 10-13.
(3) Szabo, Z. (2018). Pinchgut brings yet more exciting surprises to opera with Handel’s Athalia. The Conversation, 26 June.

Posted on

Handel, Maestro al Cembalo

Peter Holman

In the last issue of Handel News (No.71) Brian Robins took us in imagination into the King’s Theatre in the Haymarket to experience the staging of one of Handel’s operas. As he rightly pointed out, it was quite different from most modern performances. Indeed, he suggested that that the modern norm – ‘an austere, darkly-lit stage’ unvaried throughout the opera, modern dress, ‘soap-opera’ acting and that indispensable standby, the AK 47 – is ‘aesthetically diametrically opposed to the way Handel’s operas were staged in London in his own day’. Quite.

In this article I will take the reader again into the King’s Theatre, but this time to focus on the pit when Handel was in command. I use ‘pit’ as shorthand: as 18th-century pictures show, such as the well-known painting of an opera performance in the Teatro Regio in Turin c.1750 , opera houses were laid out so that all the musicians could see the stage while seated. Sunken pits were popularised by Wagner at Bayreuth and were designed so that the audience could not see the musicians and only the conductor could see the stage. I would prefer to use the historically appropriate word ‘orchestra’ rather than ‘pit’, but a potential confusion lurks in it: now it means a group of instrumentalists but in Handel’s time it meant the place where they played. The change to a sunken pit had profound implications for the way operas were directed, and it is now an obstacle to achieving truly historically informed performances of Handel’s operas, as we shall see.

We might think that modern performances of Handel’s music are by definition historically informed if they use period instruments, but that is far from the case. Let us start with the way the instruments are laid out. We have no pictures of operas being performed in Vanbrugh’s Haymarket Theatre, built in 1705 and destroyed by fire in 1789, but we have no reason to think that Handel or anyone else using it departed from the norm for Italian opera, as shown in the Turin painting. The continuo team was not a single group but was divided into two at each end of the pit, with the bass players (including double basses and bassoons) grouped around the two harpsichords, some of them reading over the shoulders of the keyboard players. This was partly so that the double basses did not obscure the audience’s view, but mainly to ensure that the singers could hear the accompaniment anywhere on the stage. Pasquale Cafaro, maestro al cembalo at Naples, argued against the removal of the second harpsichord in 1773 by pointing out that (in translation) ‘the second cembalo, violoncello and double bass, in that position [Stage Left], are absolutely necessary to assist the singers, at those moments when they find themselves far from the first [continuo group], to ensure that the singers will not stray from the straight path of perfect intonation’ (1). The second harpsichord was not removed from the Haymarket Theatre until the start of the 1781 season (2).

I will return to the way the continuo groups operated later, but Cafaro tells us that the maestro al cembalo was seated at the first instrument, Stage Right (on the left from the audience’s perspective), thought to be the more ‘noble’ side of the theatre, where the heroes and heroines tended to stand. This position tells us that the maestro – Handel in our case – did not try to exert control over his orchestra in performance. This began to change after Handel’s time, as is shown by Rousseau’s diagram of the pit at Dresden in 1754, published in his Dictionnaire de Musique, where Johann Adolf Hasse’s harpsichord is now in the middle of the pit. But the maestro in eighteenth-century Italian opera never stood and conducted with a baton, as routinely happens in supposedly ‘historically informed’ performances today. Rossini was still directing from the keyboard in the 1820s, as is shown by Stendahl’s well-known description of him taking ‘his seat at the piano’ for the first performance of new operas, and rising ‘from his seat at the piano’ to acknowledge the applause at the end of arias (3). The Frenchman Charles de Brosses, visiting Italy in 1739-40, wrote that the Italians ‘never beat time at the opera, whatever the size of the orchestra, however many parts the aria being played is in’ (4). Time-beating was the norm in French opera, and France was to be the cradle of modern-style baton conducting at the end of the 18th century.

Returning to the painting of the Teatro Regio in Turin, placing the bass instruments at each end of the pit meant that there was room of two rows of violinists and other higher-pitched instruments between them. It was standard practice for the first violins to be in a line facing the stage, with the leader sitting next to the maestro, sometimes on a raised seat. Again, this suggests a situation in which the members of the orchestra had much more individual autonomy than in modern orchestras, even those using period instruments. Since they spent much of the time in operas of the period doubling the voice, it made sense for the first violins to be able to watch the singers. The second violins, oboes and (presumably) violas were placed against the stage facing the first violins so that they would easily maintain good ensemble with them. There was no need for the maestro to wave his arms around.

Brass instruments, which tend to be used only occasionally in the operas of Handel’s time, were placed at the side – as can be seen in the Turin picture, which includes two horns standing behind the maestro and playing with raised bells. In that position they could easily slip away when not needed. Handel’s opera orchestra was large by English standards and was thought to be one of the best in Europe, as J.J. Quantz recognised when he visited London from Dresden in 1727. He wrote after going to Ottone that ‘The orchestra consisted mostly of Germans, with some Italians and a couple of Englishmen. [Pietro] Castrucci, an Italian violinist, was the leader. The full ensemble, under Handel’s direction, created an excellent effect’ – ‘eine überaus gute Wirkung’ (5).

There is a crucial role for the continuo group in Handel’s operas. Not only did it accompany most of the recitatives, but he often scored arias for continuo alone or with a large number of passages where the rest of the orchestra is silent. For this reason, Handel and his contemporaries thought it essential to direct by playing the first harpsichord as part of the continuo group, and so I will devote the rest of this article to discussing the way it functioned.

First, we know from documents relating to the first years of the Haymarket Theatre, just before Handel arrived in London, that it included double basses as well as violoncellos. In 1708 ‘Seggione’ (i.e. Saggione, the Venetian double-bass player and composer Giuseppe Fedeli) was paid more than the rest of the orchestra along with his fellow continuo players, the harpsichordists Charles Dieupart and J.C. Pepusch, and the cellist Nicola Haym; this included ‘5 shillings per Practice’ – that is, for taking part in rehearsals, presumably without the rest of the orchestra (6).

A group of this sort can be seen in action in Marco Ricci’s series of paintings apparently depicting opera rehearsals ; they are traditionally said to depict rehearsals for the pasticcio Pyrrhus and Demetrius, arranged by Haym from Alessandro Scarlatti and put on at the Haymarket Theatre on 14 December 1708. One type (they fall into three basic types) shows a cellist, a double bass player and a lutenist all reading from a small oblong music book on the harpsichord’s music desk. There is only one keyboard and the rehearsal is in a grand room rather than in the theatre, so it apparently depicts a preliminary rehearsal, before the production was transferred to the stage and the second continuo group was added. Indications in Handel’s scores show that he continued to use a lute-family instrument – mostly a theorbo early on, an archlute later – until his last opera, Deidamia (1741); I have argued that his regular player was the Genoese musician John Francis Weber, active in London from at least 1721 to until his death in 1751 (7).

The practice of continuo players reading over the shoulder of harpsichordists was widespread and long-lived, which is not surprising since it had several advantages. Close proximity made for good ensemble. Decisions about continuo scoring could easily be worked out informally in rehearsal or even adjusted in the middle of a performance with a nudge or a nod. Most important, it meant that continuo players could read from the score (they need to see the vocal line in recitatives) without having to worry about page-turning – the harpsichordist could do it for them; all they had to have was good eyesight! A list of the opera orchestra at the Haymarket Theatre dated 22 November 1710 gives ‘Heyam’ (Haym) and ‘Pilotti’ (the Venetian Giovanni Schiavonetti, husband of the soprano Elisabetta Pilotti) as the cellists who are ‘to play every night and to take their places att ye [?first] Harpiscord [sic] by Turns’ (8). This document comes at a crucial moment in the history of the Haymarket opera company. Handel was already in London (he apparently arrived in September or October 1710 rather than November or December as used to be thought), and Rinaldo, his first London opera, was produced on 24 February 1711. Haym was to be Handel’s close colleague as librettist and cellist until his death in 1729.

All the evidence, from descriptions of Handel’s operas in performance, from his performing material, as well as the wider practice of Italian opera companies at the time, suggests that his continuo team consisted of six or seven instrumentalists divided into two groups: two harpsichords, two violoncellos, one or possibly two double basses, and a theorbo or archlute. These were the only continuo instruments regularly used in Italian opera at the time; given their popularity today with period-instrument groups, it is worth emphasising that Baroque guitars, harps, organs and regals had no place in the continuo group for Handel’s operas.

How would Handel have deployed his continuo group? Or, to use Donald Burrows’s formulation, ‘who does what, when?’ (9). The composer’s options would presumably have been: (1) everyone essentially playing throughout; (2) the team divided into a concertino playing throughout and a ripieno joining in at particular moments; (3) particular continuo instruments assigned to particular characters; or (4) some combination of the above.

At first sight Option 1 is the common-sense solution, since with continuo groups at each end of the pit it ensures the accompaniment is audible anywhere on the stage (which Pasquale Cafaro thought ‘absolutely necessary’), and with six or seven instruments it reduces the disparity of sound between the recitatives and the full orchestra in the arias. In the original performing material used by Handel and his continuo players, the so-called Direktsionspartituren (sometimes misleadingly translated as ‘conducting scores) and Cembalopartituren now mostly in Hamburg, the former (used by Handel himself and his bass players) are full scores as we might expect, while the latter (used by the second continuo team) vary in format, sometimes just giving the vocal line and bass or even just the bass line. But the Cembalopartituren do include the recitatives, which would have meant that the second group could take part in them – which of course is not evidence that it necessarily did so. However, the main disadvantage with this option is that an unvaried massed continuo sound would be tedious for players and listeners alike in an opera lasting three hours or more.

Option 2, the concertino-ripieno principle, is an obvious way of getting an opera into production with limited rehearsal, and is suggested by the Ricci paintings, which only show a single continuo group and one harpsichord. There is also evidence for it in the Cembalopartitur for Poro, which has four arias for the 1736-7 revival containing only the music for the orchestral passages, with rests in the solo vocal sections. There are also some early scores omitting the recitatives, such as those for Teseo (1713), Amadigi di Gaula (1715) and the 1720 version of Radamisto (10), as well as most of the harpsichord parts in the sets of performing material, now in Manchester, copied by Handel’s scriptorium for his friend and librettist Charles Jennens. However, Jennens may have had no interest in performing the operas complete, and some of the scores without recitatives are clearly just aria collections copied for domestic use. Nevertheless, the same feature can be seen in some scores of operas by Handel’s contemporaries.

Option 3, assigning continuo instruments consistently to particular characters, deployed ‘one for each speaker in a duologue’ as suggested by Winton Dean and John Merrill Knapp (11), has become popular in modern productions of Handel, perhaps influenced by the indications in the score of Monteverdi’s Orfeo – in which, for instance, Caronte is allocated a regal. But Monteverdi’s continuo practice is much more subtle than that, and I know of no evidence for its use in Handel’s time. Also, using a keyboard or a lute alone ignores an important change to the role of bowed bass instruments around 1700. Before then, the sources of all sorts of concerted music show that it was the norm to accompany solo vocal sections just with continuo instruments, with the bowed basses playing only in tuttis or when the upper strings are playing. However, by Handel’s time the norm was for bowed basses to play throughout, in recitatives as well as arias, and there is a lot of evidence that double basses also played in solo sections, including in recitatives – something that is strongly suggested by the Ricci paintings.

This brings us to Option 4, combining these various approaches: in my opinion this is what Handel is likely to have done, and is the best solution for us today. We can presume that he started with a rough idea of the continuo scoring he wanted, ranging from the whole team playing together at climaxes to perhaps just two instruments in the most intimate moments, and then worked out a detailed scheme as rehearsals proceeded. There are some indications in the sources of Handel’s operas to help us understand his practice, though they are rather neglected by performers because they tend to be hidden away in the critical commentaries of editions. Interesting cases are the senza cembalo indications that occur in passages with continuo figures, as in ‘Spietati, io vi giurai’ from Rodelinda (1725) (HWV 19/16), implying the deployment of a lute or perhaps a continuo cellist playing in chords. Equally significant are some ‘Senza Lute’ indications, as in the arias ‘Scherza infida!’ and ‘Io ti bacio’ from Ariodante (1735) (HWV 33/23, 37). What is striking about these arias is that they are soft, slow and thinly scored, the sort of movements that conductors today tend to give to lutenists, silencing the harpsichords. Incidentally, these indications appear in the Cembalopartituren, which suggests that Handel’s lutenist played in the second continuo group, not the first.

A fascinating case of sophisticated continuo scoring is the duet ‘Tu caro sei il dolce mio tesoro’ from Sosarme (1732) (HWV 30/30). The orchestra is divided in places into two, with Elmira accompanied by pianissimo unison violins and a bass line marked ‘Cembalo 1mo con i suoi Bassi’, Sosarme by four unison violas and a second bass marked ‘Cembalo 2do Colla Teorba e i suoi Bassi’. These indications, which appear in the Cembalopartitur as well as the Direktsionspartitur, are significant because bassi is in the plural in both parts, suggesting a double bass as well as a violoncello in each group, and because it provides more evidence of the lutenist being assigned to the second group. It is unclear whether this divided continuo scoring is a special, unusual effect or just a notated example of a widespread semi-improvised practice, though there are other notated examples, including the duet ‘I’ll proclaim the wondrous way’ in the 1732 version of Esther (HWV 50b/32) and an aria by Pergolesi, used in Adriano in Siria, Act I, Scene 8, and L’Olimpiade, Act III, Scene 5 (see facsimiles of the scores).

Does all this matter? Yes, I think it does, because it suggests a mode of performance startlingly different even from most ‘historically informed’ performances. Handel as maestro al cembalo, seated at the first harpsichord and playing rather than conducting, did not impose his will on his singers and instrumentalists in performance as conductors do today. The way his orchestra would have been laid out, with the continuo team divided into two groups at either end of the pit and most of the other instruments in rows between them, was designed so that everyone could relate to the singers without his direct intervention, effectively working as a large chamber ensemble – which of course depends on not having a sunken pit. And with two harpsichords, two violoncellos, one or two double basses and a theorbo or archlute at his disposal, he would have been able to make the accompaniment of the recitatives almost as varied and expressive as the arias. It all reinforces the truth of L.P. Hartley’s dictum: ‘The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there’.

Notes
(1) Gossett, P. (2006, reprinted 2008). Divas and Scholars: Performing Italian Opera, p.439.
(2) Petty, F.C. (1980). Italian Opera in London 1760-1800, p.183. Quoting Public Advertiser, 23 November 1781.
(3) Stendahl [Beyle, M.-H.], Life of Rossini, translated by R.N. Coe (New York, 1957), pp.112-113.
(4) President de Brosses en Italie: lettres familières écrites d’Italie en 1739 et 1740, 2 vols. (2/1858), Vol.II, p.378: ‘On bat la mesure … jamais à l’Opéra, quelque nombreux que soit l’orchestre, quelque chargé de parties que soit l’air que l’on exécute’.
(5) Burrows, D., Coffey, H., Greenacombe, J. & Hicks, A. (eds.) (2015). George Frideric Handel: Collected Documents, Volume 2, 1725-1734, pp.107-110.
(6) Milhous, J. & Hume, R.D. (eds.) (1982). Vice Chamberlain Coke’s Theatrical Papers 1706-1715, pp.67-71.
(7) Holman, P. (2015). Handel’s lutenist, the mandolino in England, and John Francis Weber. Händel-Jahrbuch, 61, pp.241-257, at pp.241-244.
(8) Milhous & Hume (1982). Op. cit., pp.159-161.
(9) Burrows, D. (2009). Who does what, when? On the instrumentation of the basso continuo and the use of the organ in Handel’s English oratorios. In Handel Studies: A Gedenkschrift for Howard Serwer (ed. R.G. King), pp.107-126.
(10) Dean, W. & Knapp, J.M. (1987). Handel’s Operas 1704-1726, pp.257, 291, 293, 359-360.
(11) Dean & Knapp (1987). Op. cit., p.32.

Posted on

The Bubble Reputation: Virtue, Reason and Sexual Politics in Rodelinda

Thelma Lovell

Handel’s Rodelinda can be read on several levels: as a drama of conflicting passions; an advertisement for political stability; and a study in changing values from the warrior ideal of leadership to the heroism of devotion and self-sacrifice. Like all the best morality tales, it weaves its improving message into the texture of human interaction, in order to steer us towards the convergence of reason, power and virtue. The opera finds one form of closure in a triumphant vocal concerto (Mio caro bene) for the eponymous heroine who ends up with the winning hand in a game of high political stakes. But there is a further type of closure in the final chorus: a communal sigh of relief at the general rightness of things.

Haym’s libretto is based on Corneille’s Pertharite, which flopped spectacularly on its appearance in 1652. Pertharite is the uxorious hero who puts emotional attachment before worldly status; he is prepared to sacrifice his life so that his wife may marry the usurper Grimoald and hence keep the crown for herself. Rodélinde, on the other hand, is driven by the imperatives of birth, breeding, and the absolute necessity of distancing herself from the upstart regime. Initially unimpressed by the husband who returns as a distinctly unregal fugitive, she eventually accepts him – helped by the fact that Grimoald acknowledges the courage of Pertharite and his authentic moral claim to the throne: 

But the man who believes me a tyrant and nobly stands up to me,
However weak he may be does not have a slave’s heart; 
He displays a great soul that rises above calamity 
And makes up in courage what it lacks in fortune.

All suitably high-minded, not least on the part of Grimoald; Rodélinde apologises for misjudging him, and everything is restored to its proper place. Pertharite has the last word, proclaiming that ‘reputation (la gloire) is the sole prize of the noble virtues’ – yet the truism is evidently enlarged to include the integrity of the inner rather than solely the outer person. The mid-17th-century French public was perhaps not ready for this shift in conventional heroic values.

Let us consider the Handelian version, which again is far more interesting than the story of a long-suffering bereft female as the plaything of destiny. Two couples battle to maintain their own version of reality. Both of the men are kings yet (in different ways) not so. The usurper Grimoaldo fails to convince either himself or others of his new identity, while the deposed Bertarido is first imagined dead and then when he reappears simply fails to look or act with the expected dominance. His shabby demeanour attracts the scorn and disbelief of Grimoaldo, in whose scheme of things position must be signalled by outward show. The women are in a similar bind: Rodelinda was – and still feels herself to be – queen, though this is technically untrue; and Eduige is ambitious to step into Rodelinda’s shoes by marrying the actual, though inauthentic, ruler Grimoaldo. And though the female characters could not be overt political agents, they are able to operate the levers of power at one remove. Sexuality is part of the game for all four characters. 

Rodelinda’s opening cavatina strikes a pose of tragedy and rhetorical hauteur. It is a courtly lament for a queen conscious of her status, yet as she sings of her loneliness (e qui sola) the texture becomes closer and warmer; this is a suffering human being. Even so, reputation trumps all: the furious energy of her rejection of the crass Grimoaldo is fuelled by a mix of grief and an objection to becoming déclassée: gloria is not limited to chastity. Despite her iron will, Rodelinda exists in a context of other people and circumstances that she cannot entirely control but must try to read. Chief amongst these is of course Grimoaldo, whose weak point is his need to persuade himself and others of his newly-acquired authority. He begins badly, for what sort of hero is turned down by the woman he loves (or in this case, the trophy wife he thinks he deserves)? He does at least have the satisfaction of discarding his old love Eduige, who longs to share the throne with him. Staccato pomposity (Io già t’amai) proclaims that self-image is his driver. Similarly, he preens himself before Garibaldo in the jaunty Se per te: ‘I am king and with my protection you have nothing to fear, not even from my future wife’. 

It is a different story when he has been wrong-footed by Rodelinda’s terrifying condition of marriage, i.e. that he should murder her son. (In fact, Haym gives us a softer version than Corneille: in the original, Rodélinde offers to join in the murder of the boy.) Grimoaldo’s Prigionera ho l’alma in pena tells us through its repeated melodic phrases – as if rooted to the spot – that he is trapped. He cannot be the Darwinian lion who kills the cubs of his defeated rival, for (as Rodelinda points out) this would cause him to lose his gloria: a king’s standing rests on his moral reputation – his soft power – as much as compulsion. The contrary argument is made by Garibaldo, ostensibly henchman but actually Grimoaldo’s dark alter ego. Unlike the other characters, Grimoaldo never diverges from one version of reality: a crude realpolitik represented musically by great strides and uncompromising bare textures.

The game-changer in the drama is the resurrected presence of Bertarido: he pauses at his supposed funeral monument to rail at its untruthfulness. He is very much alive, and through stately dotted rhythms Handel lets us know that he is genuine royalty. The musical shock is the transition to E major in Dove sei as if, like Bertarido, we are entering a strange new world with its centre of gravity altered from the C major of the overture. From this point onwards, Bertarido and Rodelinda seem to share a private tonal domain, full of pain and confusion – as for instance  in the B minor of Ombre, piante, the E major of Morrai, sì, and perhaps especially the F sharp minor of Io t’abbraccio. Furthermore, the lyrical simplicity of Dove sei tells us that this king is full of sensibility, without the pretension of Grimoaldo. His strength is that of the inner rather than the outer man. 

As the drama progresses, the musical and psychological trajectories of the rival kings intersect. Beginning as the would-be confident reigning monarch, Grimoaldo finds himself more and more out of his depth, ending in the weary defeat of Pastorello d’un povero armento – its E minor a wistful echo of Bertarido’s E major Dove sei. Bertarido himself, on the other hand, follows a tonal path that fluctuates with his personal fortunes but at last, with the restoration of his sword, brings him back to where he truly belongs. The triumphant C major of Se fiera belva is the bright light of power and the world that so far has existed only (as he ruefully declares to his sister Eduige) in his rimembranza.  

The irony is that Bertarido’s privileging of the private over the public was not in itself enough to restore his family or his kingdom. It was rather Eduige’s thwarted passion for Grimoaldo and the desire for vengeance that led her to help Bertarido gain his freedom; it was not virtue pure and simple that caused the virtuous outcome. Eduige’s emotions and actions are crucial to the plot; in her shifts of loyalties she is a foil to the intractable Rodelinda and all too believable. She too has her pride, which caused her to spurn Grimoaldo in his previous merely ducal rank. The weak point for this pair is the craving for a royal status they have never had. In this respect, Rodelinda is always in a stronger position. Her sense of self is rooted in knowing herself to be queen. Yet without Eduige’s help, she would never have emerged triumphant.

A further irony is that Bertarido must in the end use the very force that he has rejected in favour of love. It is the warrior’s joy that he expresses when he is given the means to fight; and it is the warrior’s virtue – the virtue of the sword – that enables the more inward virtues to flourish. His principles oblige him to kill Garibaldo, even though this act potentially places Bertarido’s own life in jeopardy. By this gesture he is taking a comparable risk to Rodelinda’s, when she put her son’s life in the balance. There could be no certainty that Grimoaldo would decide that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ rather than take the opportunity to remove his competitor. 

This is where drama becomes moral fable, and where we turn to the sixth character: Unulfo. He occupies a half-way house between the stereotypical portrayal of Garibaldo and the psychological complexity of the two couples. He is both participant and commentator – the bridge between stage and audience – and the sort of person upon whom all power structures rest: stability, continuity and prudence are his guiding principles. Here he confronts a dilemma, for he serves the current regime (namely Grimoaldo) yet his sympathies are with Bertarido, both personally and because Bertarido represents the legitimate order. For this reason, when Bertarido makes a physical gesture of affection, Unulfo draws back: kingship is a token of something beyond the human and particular. At the same time, the philosopher/counsellor acts as guide and mentor to his emotionally impulsive chief.

All three of Unulfo’s arias are situated musically close to the ambit of C major, i.e. the ‘real’ world from which the opera is launched and to which it eventually returns. In the first of these (Sono i colpi della sorte) Unulfo urges Bertarido to cultivate inner strength even as he is reeling from the thought that Rodelinda is giving way. A king must temper feeling with self-control. (He gives similar advice to Grimoaldo after the shock of Rodelinda’s bargain: deh richiama, Signor, la tua virtude. In this case, significantly, it falls on deaf ears: Non più. Le voci di virtù non cara amante cor, o pur non sente.) It is Unulfo who leads Garibaldo to expound his ruthless code, as if turning to the audience to ask: ‘Surely you can’t approve of this?’ Yet the circumspect Unulfo needs a nudge to translate his true loyalty from thought to deed. Trusted by Grimoaldo to keep Bertarido under lock and key, he requires impetus from the strong female character of Eduige to understand that principles too are subject to practicalities and hierarchies. His subsequent relief and joy (Un zeffiro spirò) is a musical parallel to Grimoaldo’s earlier confidence in Se per te giungo a godere. There is, too, symbolic meaning in Bertarido’s inadvertent wounding of Unulfo: prudent virtue sometimes has to be sacrificed for a higher good. There is a time for caution, and a time for action.

In the end, Rodelinda seems to fulfil the Enlightenment dream that virtue is also rational self-interest: good in itself, it also leads to the best outcome for all concerned. Neither Rodelinda nor Bertarido had any doubts about this (though they suffered along the way), while Grimoaldo and Eduige eventually came to the same conclusion. The only dissenter – Garibaldo – lay dead and unlamented. But there is realism as well as idealism in Handel: human agency can to some extent escape destiny’s shackles, but not without a little help from chance. 

Thelma Lovell is author of A Mirror to the Human Condition: Music, Language and Meaning in the Sacred Cantatas of J.S. Bach. She lives in Cambridge.