Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T05:08:52.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nero and Octavia in Baroque Opera: Their Fate in Monteverdi's Poppea and Keiser's Octavia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2016

Gesine Manuwald
Gesine Manuwald*
Affiliation:
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
Get access

Extract

The imperial history play Octavia, transmitted among the corpus of Senecan drama, has suffered from uncertainty about its date, author, literary genre and intended audience as regards its appreciation in modern criticism. Although the majority of scholars will agree nowadays that the play was not written by Seneca himself, there is still a certain degree of disagreement about its literary genre and date. Anyway, such scholarly quibbles seem not to have affected poets and composers in the early modern era: they recognised the high dramatic potential of the story of Nero and his love relationships in 62 CE along with the involvement of the historical character and writer Seneca.

Indeed, this phase in imperial history was apparently quite popular in Italian and German opera of the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The earliest of a number of operatic treatments of the emperor Nero (also the first opera presenting a historical topic) and arguably the best known today is an Italian version: L'incoronazione di Poppea (The Coronation of Poppaea) to a libretto by Giovanni Francesco Busenello (1598-1659) and music attributed to Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643), first produced in Giovanni Grimani's ‘Teatro di SS Giovanni e Paolo’ in Venice during the carnival season of 1643. Among the latest operas on this subject is a German version, which is hardly known and rarely performed today: Die Römische Unruhe. Oder: Die Edelmütige Octavia. Musicalisches Schau-Spiel (The Roman Unrest. Or: The Magnanimous Octavia. Musical Play) by the librettist Barthold Feind (1678-1721) and the composer Reinhard Keiser (1674-1739), first performed in the ‘Oper am Gänsemarkt’ in Hamburg on 5 August 1705. In this period German opera was generally influenced by Italian opera, but at the same time there were attempts, particularly in Hamburg, to establish a typically German opera.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , 2005 , pp. 152 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For a recent overview and discussion of suggestions and arguments presented so far cf. Beck, Jan-Wilhelm, ‘Octavia’ Anonymi: Zeitnahe praetexta oder zeitlose tragoedia? Mit einem Anhang zur Struktur des Dramas (Göttingen 2004 Google Scholar).

2. Interestingly, Wiseman, T.P., The Myths of Rome (Exeter 2004), 265 Google Scholar, entitles his discussion of Octavia ‘Grand Opera’, thereby suggesting that Octavia itself shows an operatic quality (cf. also Wiseman, , The Principal Thing [Alresford 2001], 10–23Google Scholar).

3. Cf. e.g. Rosand, Ellen, ‘Seneca and the Interpretation of L’incoronazione di Poppea ’, Journal of the American Musicological Society 38 (1985), 34–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 34; Fenlon, Iain and Miller, Peter N., The Song of the Soul: Understanding Poppea (London 1992), 6 Google Scholar and 20; Mehltretter, Florian, Die unmögliche Tragödie: Karnevalisierung und Gattungsmischung im venezianischen Opernlibretto des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts (Frankfurt a.M./Berlin/Bern/New York/Paris/Wien 1994), 123 Google Scholar; Gier, Albert, Das Libretto: Theorie und Geschichte einer musikoliterarischen Gattung (Darmstadt 1998), 49 Google Scholar; Carter, Tim, Monteverdi’s Musical Theatre (New Haven & London 2002), 270 Google Scholar.

4. The music has not been transmitted unambiguously under Monteverdi’s name; nevertheless it used to be generally attributed to Monteverdi because of its date of composition, its style and later information. More recently, scholars have doubted whether Monteverdi wrote all the music and have suggested instead that it was composed jointly by Monteverdi and younger composers in line with contemporary practice.—Several different versions of libretto and music have been preserved; and not all sections of the text have been set to music. The present study is based on the most recent critical edition of L’incoronazione di Poppea by A. Curtis (Curtis, A. [ed.], Claudio Monteverdi: L’incoronazione di Poppea (The Coronation of Poppaea), an opera in a prologue and three acts. Text by G.F. Busenello, music attributed to Claudio Monteverdi and Francesco Sacrati; English singing version by Arthur Jacobs. Score [London & Sevenoaks 1989]Google Scholar); its text basically follows the 1656 print of the libretto (Venice), a collected edition of Busenello’s five librettos, entitled Delle hore ociose (cf. Curtis, p. xi).

5. Today, the text of the opera is most easily accessible in the reprint of Feind’s, Barthold Deutsche Gedichte (Barth. Feindes/Lt. Deutsche Gedichte/Bestehend in Musicalischen SchauSpielen/Lob- Glückwünschungs- Verliebten und Moralischen Gedichten/Ernst- und schertzhafften Sinn- und Grabschrifften/SatyrenlCantaten und allerhand Gattungen. Sammt einer Vorrede Von dem Temperament und Gemühts-Beschaffenheit eines Poeten/und Gedancken von der Opera. Erster Theil. Mit Kupffern und einem vollständigen Register [Stade 1708]Google Scholar; reprint in Gordon Marigold, W. [ed.], Barthold Feind: Deutsche Gedichte. Faksimiledruck der Ausgabe von 1708 [Bern/Frankfurt a.M./New York/Paris 1989]Google Scholar), which contains five of his libretti. All quotations from Feind’s writings (identified by title and page number) are taken from this edition (on the textual transmission and the availability of prints cf. the information in Marx, Hans Joachim and Schröder, Dorothea, Die Hamburger Gänsemarkt-Oper: Katalog der Textbücher (1648–1748) [Laaber 1995], 331f.Google Scholar).—The score was edited by Chrysander, F. and posthumously published in 1902 (Supplemente, enthaltend Quellen zu Händel’s Werken. 6. Octavia von Reinhard Reiser. Für die deutsche Händelgesellschaft herausgegeben von Friedrich Chrysander [Leipzig 1902]Google Scholar). — Octavia was shown at the Badisches Staatstheater Karlsruhe during the ‘27. Handel-Festspiele’ in 2004 (for a short description cf. http://www.omm.de/veranstaltungen/festspiele2004/KA-2004 octavia.html). I am much obliged to the staff of the Badisches Staatstheater, particularly Katrin Lorbeer and Ulrich Reid, for providing me with a score of the opera and a programme of the performance.—For further details on the composer Reinhard Keiser cf. Koch, Klaus-Peter, Reinhard Reiser (1674–1739): Leben und Werk (Teuchern 1989, 2. vollständig veränderte Fassung, Teuchern 2000Google Scholar).

6. On the position of Feind’s and Reiser’s Octavia cf. Drauschke, Hansjörg, ‘Keisers “Octavia” in Hamburg’, in: Programmheft zu: Die römische Unruhe oder Die edelmütige Octavia. Oper in drei Akten von Reinhard Keiser, Badisches Staatstheater Karlsruhe, 27. Händel-Festspiele 2004 (Karlsruhe 2004), 12–22Google Scholar, at 15: ‘Die “Octavia” ist ein Werk aus der Glanzzeit der Hamburger Barockoper. Mit ihrem Sujet steht sie dabei in einer langen Tradition. In der Karnevalssaison 1642/43 war in Venedig mit Monteverdis großartigem dramatischem Spätwerk “L’incoronazione di Poppea” die erste Nero-Oper auf die Bühne gekommen.’

7. For further information on these librettists and composers cf. the respective entries in L. Macy (ed.), Grove Music Online (http://www.grovemusic.com).

8. For his Agrippina Händel borrowed several arias from Keiser’s Octavia.

9. Such a study seems to be called for since the reception of the pseudo-Senecan play has not met with a great deal of scholarly interest so far: cf. Kragelund, Patrick, ‘Historical Drama in Ancient Rome: Republican Flourishing and Imperial Decline?’, SO 77 (2002), 5–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 51: ‘When discussing the influence of Greek and Roman theatre on the early modem stage, Greek tragedy, Roman comedy and Seneca have rightly received their due. Perhaps it is time to look closer—and without the preconceptions of previous scholarship—on the importance of the Octavia. After all, the early renaissance did not, at first, focus on mythological tragedy; the preferred model, for instance for Mussato’s Ecirinis (1314) and Trissino’s Sofonisba (1516), was the sole surviving praetexta, with its emphasis on politics and history, with its ghost and dreams, with its open structure and more varied dramaturgy—but more on this elsewhere.’ Moreover, most of the operas mentioned (apart from L’incoronazione di Poppea) seem to be hardly known nowadays. For instance, in his useful overview of the reception of the character and writings of the historical Seneca in modern music, Schubert, Werner, ‘Seneca in der Musik der Neuzeit’, in Margarthe Billerbeck and Ernst A. Schmidt (eds.), Sénèque le tragique (Genève 2004), 369–412Google Scholar, states that he is not aware of any other operatic treatment of Seneca besides that by Busenello and Monteverdi (397); and musical dictionaries tend not to include an entry for ‘Seneca’.

10. For further discussion of this play cf. e.g. Manuwald, Gesine, Fabulae praetextae: Spuren einer literarischen Gattung der Römer (München 2001), 259–339Google Scholar; Ferri, Rolando (ed. and comm.), Octavia: A Play attributed to Seneca (Cambridge 2003 Google Scholar); Smith, Joseph Andrew, ‘Flavian Drama: Looking Back with Octavia’, in Anthony J. Boyle and William J. Dominik (eds.), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden & Boston 2003), 391–430Google Scholar; Wilson, Marcus, The Tragedy of Nero’s Wife: Studies on the Octavia Praetexta, Prudentia 35.1 (2003 Google Scholar); Beck (n.1 above); Boyle, Anthony J., An Introduction to Roman Tragedy (London & New York 2006), 223–29Google Scholar; cf. also Kragelund (n.9 above).—The Octavia has been transmitted without indication of its literary genre, but the majority of modern scholars seems to be agreed on its attribution to the genre of fabula praetexta because the play dramatises an incident from Roman history and highlights its political repercussions (while its precise relationship to the republican praetextae must remain uncertain to some extent). Yet some have suggested that the play should rather be regarded as a tragedy (cf. Schmidt, Peter L., ‘Die Poetisierung und Mythisierung der Geschichte in der Tragödie “Octavia”’, ANRW 2.32.2 [1985], 1421–53Google Scholar) or—using rather broad and unspecific definitions of both praetexta and tragedy—that it can be viewed as a praetexta and a tragedy at the same time (cf. Beck [n.1 above], esp. 46–52).

11. On some aspects of this opera’s relation to classical sources and for more bibliography cf. Gesine Manuwald, ‘Der Stoiker Seneca in Monteverdis L’incoronazione di Poppea’, in Baier, Thomas, Manuwald, Gesine & Zimmermann, Bernhard (eds.), Seneca: Philosophus et Magister (Freiburg 2005), 149–85Google Scholar; Gesine Manuwald, ‘Senecas Schicksalslehre und die “Realitat” auf der Bühne: Die Seneca-Figur in der Octavia und in Monteverdis L’incoronazione di Poppea’, in Barbara Neymeyr, Jochen Schmidt & Bernhard Zimmermann (eds.), Stoa und Stoizismus in der europäischen Philosophie, Literatur und Politik von der Antike bis in die Moderne (forthcoming). — Recent useful treatments of the opera include Kapp, Volker, ‘Liebeswahn und Staatsräson in der Oper L’incoronazione di Poppea: Zur Verarbeitung von Seneca und Tacitus durch Monteverdis Text-Dichter Giovanni Francesco Busenello’, in Willi Hirdt & Reinhard Klesczewski (eds.), Italia viva: Studien zur Sprache und Literatur Italiens. Festschrift für Hans Ludwig Scheel (Tübingen 1983), 213–24Google Scholar; Rosand (n.3 above); Fenlon & Miller (n.3 above, with reviews); Carter, Tim, ‘Re-Reading Poppea: Some Thoughts on Music and Meaning in Monteverdi’s Last Opera’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association 122 (1997), 173–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in: Carter, Tim, Monteverdi and his Contemporaries (Aldershot/Burlington [USA]/Singapore/Sydney 2000), 173–204Google Scholar; Carter (n.3 above), 263–96.

12. There are several studies on Italian and German baroque opera (e.g. Wolff, Hellmuth Christian, Die Barockoper in Hamburg (1678–1738) [2 vols., Wolfenbüttel 1957]Google Scholar; Rosand, Ellen, Opera in Seventeenth-Century Venice: The Creation of a Genre [Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford 1991]Google Scholar), which provide essential information on librettists and composers as well as on chronology, circumstances and contents of the respective operas, but they naturally do not actually discuss the works.—The pseudo-Senecan Octavia as a possible model for Poppea was first suggested by Kurt von Fischer in 1969 (von Fischer, Kurt, ‘Eine wenig beachtete Quelle zu Busenellos L’incoronazione di Poppea ’, in Raffaello Monterosso [ed.], Congresso internazionale sul tema ‘Claudio Monteverdi e il suo tempo’: relazioni e comunicazioni. Venezia, Mantova, Cremona, 3–7 maggio 1968 [Verona 1969], 75–80Google Scholar), albeit being criticised immediately; this relationship has frequently been repeated more recently without it being looked at in greater detail (cf. e.g. Kapp [n.11 above], 213; Rosand [n.3 above], 41–45; Mehltretter [n.3 above], 127; Gier [n.3 above], 50 with 260 n.56; Carter [n.3 above], 271).—Some initial (musicological) discussion of Octavia is provided by Wolff’s seminal work (250–58). Besides, there seems to be only one study specifically devoted to this opera, which deals with its relationship to the ‘Schuldrama’ tradition: Watanabe-O’Kelly, Helen, ‘Barthold Feind’s Libretto Octavia (1705) and the “Schuldrama” Tradition’, German Life and Letters 35 (1982), 208–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar).— Schröder, Dorothea, ‘Abbild der Laster, Opfer der Lust: Die Darstellung des Kaisers Nero bei Monteverdi und in drei Hamburger Barockopern’, in Markus Engelhardt (ed.), in Teutschland noch gantz ohnbekandt: Monteverdi-Rezeption und frühes Musiktheater im deutschsprachigen Raum (Frankfurt a.M./Bern/Berlin/New York/Paris/ Wien 1996), 321–34Google Scholar, looks at the plot of three German operas on Nero in comparison with Monteverdi’s version, but does not provide a detailed analysis and disregards classical sources.

13. Cf. e.g. Buseneilo, L’incoronazione di Popped, ‘Argomento’; La Didone, ‘Argoraento’ (in the 1656 edition); Feind (n.5 above), Octavia, ‘Vorbericht’, 119; Sueno, ‘Vorbericht’, 329f.—Similar views can be found in Feustking’s preface to his Nero (see below).

14. Borrowings from Corradi’s Il Nerone have been assumed for Feind’s Octavia (cf. Wolff [n. 12 above], 251 n.53; Drauschke [n.6 above], 17).—An influence of Andreas Gryphius’ Papinianus (1659) and of Daniel Caspar von Lohenstein’s Cleopatra (1661) has also been noted (cf. Watanabe-O’Kelly [n. 12 above]).

15. Since the pseudo-Senecan Octavia is the only ancient dramatic treatment of the events in the 60s CE, it offers a point of comparison in terms of dramatic structure and plot construction; nevertheless, it has often been underestimated as an influential model. Therefore this paper will primarily focus on the relationship of the two operas to this drama while not listing all similarities and differences in relation to ancient historiographical accounts.—Octavia is quoted from Zwierlein’s edition: L. Annaei Senecae Tragoediae, incertorum auctorum Hercules [Oetaeus] Octavia (Oxford 1986; repr. with corr.Google Scholar).

16. On the Accademia degli Incogniti and its relevance for 17th century Venetian librettists cf. e.g. Rosand [n.12 above], 37–40.

17. This scene is illustrated by an engraving in the 1705 print of Feind’s librettos (n.5 above).

18. Cf. Feind (n.5 above), Octavia, ‘Vorbericht’, 119.

19. Cf. Feind (n.5 above), Octavia, ‘Vorbericht’, 118f.: ‘Das Sujet dieses Schau-Spiels ist zuerst in Weissenfels/ehe und bevor Nero allhier aufgefuehret/verfasset/und biß auf die Helffte ausgearbeitet worden. Nachdem man mir aber das Werck gezeiget/und anbey dessen Vollziehung aufgetragen/so habe bey der Durchlesung befunden/daß es die Umstaende schwerlich zuliessen/des Herrn Verfassers Propos auszufuehren/ich audi lieber etwas neues selbst machen wollte/als andre Arbeit zumustern: darum ich ausser den Namen der Octavia, und einige Reflexions auf die Auffuehrung des Piso, nichts behalten.’—Yet some comparable motifs occur in both Feustking’s and Feind’s librettos. These suggest (apart from conventions of the period) that Feind might have been inspired by the earlier play, while he incorporated these elements into his own version (cf. e.g. combination of historical events attested for various years in the 60s CE; presence of Tiridates in Rome to receive the kingdom of Armenia; Tiridates’ involvement in a love affair; confusion of a male protagonist by wrong information about his beloved conveyed by her herself; ridicule of the philosopher Seneca by a comic character; multiple love affairs; scene showing the main characters going fishing; performance of a play within the play as a comment on the main plot).

20. Cf. Feind (n.5 above), Octavia, ‘Vorbericht’, 119.—Besides, Feind identifies Petronius (cf. Sat. 27.5–6) as the model for one of the scenes (Oc. 3.8), since this author well described Nero’s lascivious character (cf. Feind, ibid.).

21. Armenia already features in Busenello’s version, when Nerone’s guards complain about the present political situation and in this context refer to the fact that Armenia is in turmoil, while Nero takes no action (Pop. 1.2). Yet this issue does not influence the action in this opera.—Feustking’s Nero includes king Tiridates and a beloved of his among the main characters (cf. also Schröder [n.12 above], 327).

22. Cf. Feind (n. 5 above), Octavia, ‘Vorbericht’, 120.

23. On the poetic potential of this change cf. also Drauschke (n.6 above), 17.

24. Cf. Feind (n.5 above), Octavia, ‘Vorbericht’, 119f.—On this aspect cf. e.g. Wolff (n.12 above), 251; Drauschke (n.6 above), 17.

25. This scene is again a tribute to the conventions of the period since in his theoretical treatise Feind laments that a comic character is now required for each opera (cf. Feind [n.5 above], Gedancken von der Opera, 103f.). Besides, the ridicule of philosophers is conventional and has models in other operas on this topic (e.g. Feustking, Nero 2.11; cf. Wolff [n.12 above], 144f.; cf. also Watanabe-O’Kelly [n.12 above], 211).

26. Cf. Feind’s own characterisation of Seneca (Feind [n.5 above], Octavia, ‘Vorbericht’, 120). —After Nero has been saved and rescued and his whereabouts are reported to Seneca, he hopes that he is well and thanks the gods for Nero’s good fortune (Oc. 3.14). This perhaps somewhat surprising reaction might indicate that Seneca did not intend to depose Nero, but rather to teach him a lesson.

27. However, the Hamburg opera of this period did stage ’praetextae’ (if one may transfer the term), i.e. plays on recent historical or everyday events, such as Feind’s and Reiser’s Masagniello Furioso, which presents a revolution that had taken place less than 60 years earlier, or Reiser’s Störtebecker, on a famous Hamburg criminal (libretto: Hotter), his Hamburger Jahrmarkt (libretto: Johann Philipp Praetorius) and his Hamburger Schlachtzeit (libretto: Johann Philipp Praetorius).—On this issue cf. e.g. Drauschke (n.6 above), 14f.

28. The Latin Octavia contains foreshadowings to events after the dramatic time of the play, but the dramatic action itself does not include incidents impossible in 62 CE.

29. Cf. Feind (n.5 above), Octavia, ‘Vorbericht’, 120; cf. also Lucretia, ‘Vorbericht’, 186f.

30. Cf. also Wiseman’s (n.2 above, 13) description of the events in 62 CE: ‘Nero married Poppaea in a wedding that was also a coronation—L’Incoronazione di Poppea, the triumph of raw sex over virtue and fortune, just as in Monteverdi’s opera.’