studi musicali - monsignor reggio musicali.pdf · 2019-07-15 · 49 * an extended version of the...

studi musicali .

nuova serie .02 .

2011 .n. 01

studi musicalinuova serie . anno 02 . 2011 . numero 01nuova serie . anno 02 . 2011 . numero 01

Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia . Fondazione

studi musicaliAccademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia . www.santacecilia.it

. . ... .

ISSN 0391-7789

EURO 50 9 788895 341408

ISBN 978-88-95341-40-8

Studi musicali. Nuova serieRivista semestrale di studi musicologici

DirettoreAgostino Ziino

RedazioneTeresa M. Gialdroni

Studi musicaliNuova serie, ii, 2011, n. 1

Questo volume è stato pubblicato in collaborazione con ARCUS SpA

Progetto graficoSilvana Amato

ImpaginazioneRaffaella Barbetti

Composizione tipografica in Cycles di Summer Stone

«Studi musicali» pubblica articoli riguardanti tutti i campi della ricerca musicologica in italia-no, inglese, francese, tedesco e spagnolo. Gli articoli proposti per una eventuale pubblicazionepossono essere inviati in copia cartacea al seguente indirizzo: Agostino Ziino, via GiovanniAntonelli, 21, 00197 Roma, e, in allegato a una e-mail, all’indirizzo [email protected] pubblicazione è subordinata al parere di due studiosi specializzati cui l’articolo sarà sot-toposto in forma anonima. Una volta accettato, l’articolo dovrà essere redatto secondo lenorme editoriali della rivista disponibili in italiano e in inglese al seguente indirizzo:http://studimusicali.santacecilia.it.

Per gli annunci pubblicitari rivolgersi all’indirizzo [email protected]

Nessuna parte di questo periodico può essere riprodotta o trasmessa in qualsiasi forma ocon qualsiasi mezzo elettronico, meccanico o altro senza l’autorizzazione scrittadei proprietari dei diritti e dell’editore

issn 0391-7789

© 2011 Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia – Fondazione, RomaTutti i diritti riservati

www.santacecilia.itstudimusicali.santacecilia.itstudimusicali@santacecilia.it

Soci Fondatori dell’Accademia Nazionale di Santa CeciliaIstituzionali: Stato italiano, Roma capitale, Provincia di Roma, Camera di Commercio diRoma, Regione LazioPrivati: enel, bnl-Paribas, Telecom, Finmeccanica, Autostrade per l’Italia, Astaldi, PosteItaliane, Ferrovie dello StatoSponsor istituzionale: LottomaticaMedia Sponsor: La Repubblica

7 Gioia FilocamoBambino “in quella maledetta Ungaria”:Ippolito I d’Este e la musica strumentale

25 Anthony M. Cummings and Alexander DeanThe «Great Italian Songbook» of the Early Cinquecento:Arrangements of Frottole for Voice and Lute

49 Anthony HartA Re-evaluation of the Manuscripts of the Keyboard Sonatas of DomenicoScarlatti in the Santini Collection in Münster

67 Giusy De BerardinisNuove acquisizioni sulla vita e sulle opere di Ferdinando Turrini

115 Matteo GiuggioliL’idillio minacciato. Figura e intreccio nei Quintetti per archidi Boccherini

171 Sergio DuranteLa favola, la storia, l’amore: aspetti di coerenza creativa nell’ultimo Mozart

185 Alberto FassoneRiflessioni sul fenomeno della ‘alternanza dei toni’nel linguaggio sinfonico di Gustav Mahler

221 Angela CaroneAspetti compositivi di Bewegung di Luciano Berio nella cornice della sua produzione degli anni Settanta

Sommario

49

* An extended version of the paper; The Münster Scarlatti Manuscripts revisited given at the xviConvegno della Società Italiana di Musicologia (Roma, October 2009).1 Joel Sheveloff, The Keyboard Sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti: A re-evaluation of the present stateof knowledge in the light of Sources, PhD Dissertation, Brandeis University, 1970.

Introduction

In his 1970, unpublished, dissertation Professor Joel Sheveloff identified fourmajor collections of the keyboard sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti, two Spanish andtwo Italian in origin.1 Since there are no known autograph copies of Scarlatti’sworks two copies that originated in Spain have been accepted as the definitivesource of these works. These are identified by the name of the place where theycurrently reside, Parma and Venice. Two further sets have also been considered asimportant sources. One is held in the Diözesanbibliothek, Münster and anotherheld in the Bibliothek. der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna. Both of whichwere owned by the Roman Bibliophile Fortunato Santini. Until recently, thenames of scribes of the Münster sources were unknown. Sheveloff identified twomajor scribes of these manuscripts, which he called M1 and M2. Speculations onthe origin of this set have been based on assumptions. Scholars have accepted the

A Re-evaluation of the Manuscripts of the Keyboard Sonatas of Domenico Scarlattiin the Santini Collection in Münster*Anthony Hart

50

anthony hart

2 Walter Gerstebenrg, Die Klavierkompositionen Domenico Scarlattis, Regensburg, GustaveBosse, 1933.3 Ralph Kirkpatrick, Domenico Scarlatti, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1953. 4 Joel Sheveloff, The Keyboard Sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti cit.5 Roberto Pagano, Scarlatti, Alessandro e Domenico: due vita in una, Milano, Mondadori, 1985.Published in English as Scarlatti, Alessandro and Domenico. Two Lives in One. translated by Freder-ick Hammond, Hillsdale NY, Pendragon Press, 2006.6 W. Dean Sutcliffe, The keyboard sonatas of Domenico Scarlatti and eighteenth-century musicalstyle, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003.7 Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, (RISM Siglum I-Vnm), Mss 9770- 9784, 15 Volumes.8 Biblioteca Palatina, Sezione Musicale, Conservatorio Arrigo Boito, Parma, (RISM SiglumI-PAc) A.G. 31406 – 31420, 15 volumes.

latter two collections since the 1930’s as being derived from the Parma and Venicesets in Italy during the latter half of the eighteenth century.

This paper re-evaluates the Münster Manuscripts in the light of new evidenceas to one of the scribes. It proposes the idea that the Münster set originates closerto the original Spanish source. Using Sheveloff’s detailed analysis of the manu-scripts it looks at the possible origins of the manuscripts and their significance inour understanding of Scarlatti’s works.

Brief Overview of the Scarlatti Manuscripts Research

The first scholar to publish his researches on the Scarlatti sonatas was Walter Ger-stenberg in 1933 in his book Die Klavierkompositionen Domenico Scarlattis.2 Thiswas followed by Ralph Kirkpatrick in his study of Scarlatti in 19533 and an unpub-lished dissertation by Joel Sheveloff in 1970.4 Later scholars such as Pagano (1985)5

and Sutcliffe (2003)6 do not go into details of the manuscript collections.All of these scholars identify four major collections of the Scarlatti Sonatas.

These are identified by the name of the library where they reside today. Two sets have been identified as being compiled in Spain at the time of Scar-

latti and are considered as the definitive sets. As no autograph manuscripts ofthe Scarlatti sonatas have become known, the Spanish copies have becomeaccepted as prime sources. These two sets are held in the following libraries:Biblioteca Marciana in Venice7 and is referred to as the Venice set, SezioneMusicale of the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma,8 referred to as the Parma set.

51

A further set, believed to be copied in Italy, is held in the Santini collectionof the Diözesanbibliothek in Münster,9 known as Münster, and a set, thoughtto be copied from the Münster set, which is held in the Gesellschaft der Musik-freunde in Vienna,10 known as Vienna I. The Münster and the Vienna sets aredescribed by Kirkpatrick as of secondary importance, but Sheveloff considersthese to be important.

The Münster collection is in an Italian hand and so it was assumed by laterscholars that these were later copies of the Parma and Venice sets, carried out inthe second half of the 18th Century in Italy after the two Spanish sets arrived inItaly. Gerstenberg goes as far as to say that these originate from the sixth decadeof the century.11 He, however, does not explain the reasons for his decision, butreasons are clear: the dates in the volumes are all from the sixth decade (1754,1756, and 1757).

Both the Parma and Venice sets consist of fifteen volumes, the Münster set,five and the Vienna I set, seven.

This paper focuses on the possible source of the Münster set and uses theextensive research from Sheveloff’s work.

The Assumptions

Two major assumptions have been made about this set. One is that the manuscriptswere copies of the Parma and Venice sets made in the late eighteenth century inItaly. This is based on the fact that they are in an Italian hand. Sheveloff questionsthe idea that the Münster and Vienna manuscripts were actual copies of the Parmaand Venice sets.12Therefore, for this discussion I shall use the word compiled.

The second assumption is that the five volumes were conceived as a coherentset, although various hands are attributed to the volumes. These two assump-tions are still held today.

9 Diözesanbibliothek, Santini Sammlung, Münster (RISM Siglum D-MÜs ), SANT Hs 3964 to3968, 5 Volumes.10 Bibliothek der Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna, (RISM Siglum A-Wgm), vii 28011.11 Gerstenberg, Die Klavierkompositionen cit., p. 9: «Auch die HSS Santini fragen teilweise Jahres-zahlen –Angeben, die sich aber hier, im Gegensatz zu V [Venezia], auf das 6. Jahrzehnt des 18. Jahrhundertsbeschränken».12 Sheveloff, The Keyboard Sonatas cit., pp. 230-232.

keyboard sonatas of domenico scarlatti in the santini collection

52

anthony hart

13 Sheveloff, The Keyboard Sonatas cit., pp. 230- 232.14 Ivi, pp. 64-67.

I shall reconsider both of these assumptions based upon further evidence ofthe identity of one of the scribes of the Münster set.

The Challenge to the Assumptions

Initially two assumptions were made regarding these manuscripts: They werecompiled in Italy in the late eighteenth century and that they formed a coherentset and were compiled as such.

Sheveloff accepts these assumptions and, after a detailed examination of themanuscripts, concludes that the most likely source is the Parma set. He lists hisconclusions as:

1. There are many instances where readings in the Venice and Parma setsdiffer but Münster transmits the Parma readings.

2. The pairing and other grouping of pieces in Münster follow Parma.3. Seventeen pieces in Parma but not in Venice are copied in Münster.

However, he also lists some unexplained differences between Parma andMünster:

1. With the exception of the first volume of Münster, which follows theorder of the second half of the thirteenth Volume of Parma and all of the four-teenth and fifteenth volumes, the volume order does not follow Parma.

2. In addition there are six sonatas in Münster that do not appear in Parma.In fact, there are two pieces in the second volume of the Münster set which areunique and do not appear in any other source.13

Let us examine the assumption that all volumes were compiled at the sametime and in Italy. Consideration needs to be given to the fact that there were Ital-ians at the court of Spain so just because they are in an Italian hand does not nec-essarily mean that they were compiled in Italy.

Sheveloff identifies nine different hands in the compilation of the set. Vol-umes i, ii and iii are in one hand, which he calls as M1. These volumes seem tocomprise a set, as they appear to be complete and indexed. Volume iv is in anoth-er hand, which Sheveloff identifies as M2. Volume v comprises manuscripts innine different hands the major contributors being M1 and M2.14 His conclusions

53


are based upon these being a coherent set owned or commissioned by one collec-tor. However, if we look carefully at these there appears to three different phaseson the compilation of the set (see figure 1).

15 Farinelli was the adopted name of Carlo Broschi (1705-1782). These copies were brought backto Italy by the famous castrato singer Farinelli on his return to Italy after serving at the Spanishcourt. The copies which Farinelli inherited were the personal property of the queen. While at theSpanish court Farinelli became a close friend of Scarlatti’s and a favourite of the queen. Thequeen, Maria Barbara, left the Scarlatti works to Farinelli in her testament.

MÜs I MÜs II MÜs III MÜs IV MÜs V

Scribes: M1 M2 M1+M2+7 other hands

Phases: I II III

I have decided to treat these phases separately. The three phases I have identified are:

- Phase 1 – Volumes i, ii and iii- Phase 2 – Volume iv- Phase 3 – Volume v

Let us first consider Phase 1: The assumption was that these were copied in Italyafter the return of the castrato Farinelli15 in the second half of the eighteenth

Figure 1. Divisions of the Münster Manuscripts

54

anthony hart

century. What if we consider the possibility that these were compiled in Spain atthe same time as the Parma and Venice sets?

Volume i of Münster does not start until the second half of Parma xiii andthen follows, with some juxtaposition of some of the sonatas, through volumesxiv and xv (see table 1). If the compiler had competed sources to hand why startto copy the final volumes first? It is possibly that the decision to compile this thirdset (Parma and Venice being the other two) was not made until the time Parmaxiii was being copied. From the observation of the ordering of the volumes, wecan conclude that these were not just copied. I have used Parma as the ‘source’ set,as this appears to be the most reliable as to order the sonatas were copied. Theremaining volumes seem to be in a quasi-reverse order to the Parma set but notalways in the same sequence. I believe that these volumes were compiled at thesame time as the Parma set but independent of the scribe of the Parma set.

If the manuscripts were not copied from Parma or Venice then what wasthe source?

Münster Parma

1 XIII 13

2 XIII 14

3 XIII 15

4 XIII 16

5 XIII 17

6 XIII 18

7 XIII 19

8 XIII 20

9 XIII 21

10 XIII 22

11 XIII 23

12 XIII 24

13 XIII 25

14 XIII 26

15 XIII 27

16 XIII 28

17 XIII 29

18 XIII 30

19 XIV 1

20 XIV 2

21 XIV 3

22 XIV 4

23 XIV 5

24 XIV 6

25 XIV 7

26 XIV 8

27 XIV 9

28 XIV 10

29 XIV 11

30 XIV 12

31 XIV 13

32 XIV 26

33 XIV 27

34 XIV 16

35 XIV 17

36 XIV 26

37 XIV 15

38 XIV 18

39 XIV 19

40 XIV 20

41 XIV 21

42 XIV 22

43 XIV 23

44 XIV 24

55


16 Source: Kirkpatrick, Domenico Scarlatti cit., pp. 454-456.17 Sheveloff,The Keyboard Sonatas cit., pp 245-252.

45 XIV 25

46 XIV 28

47 XIV 29

48 XV 7

49 XV 8

50 XIV 30

51 XV 9

52 XV 10

53 XV 13

54 XV 14

55 XV 11

56 XV 12

57 XV 1

58 XV 2

59 XV 4

60 XV 3

61 XV 5

62 XV 6

63 XV 15

64 XV 16

65 XV 17

66 XV 18

67 XV 19

68 XV 20

69 XV 21

70 XV 22

71 XV 23

72 XV 24

73 XV 25

74 XV 26

75 XV 27

76 XV 28

77 XV 29

78 XV 30

79 XV 31

80 XV 32

81 XV 33

82 XV 34

83 XV 35

84 XV 36

85 XV 37

86 XV 38

87 XV 39

88 XV 40

89 XV 41

90 XV 42

Table 1. Comparison of Münster i to Prime source (Parma)16

Sheveloff puts forward the case for an intermediate set, maybe direct from thecomposer, from which the Parma set was compiled.17This seems quite likely as theParma manuscripts are fair copies and would have been copied from another source.

If this was the case then I believe the third set (Münster) was also copied fromthis, now lost original.

I propose the following theory: The compiler of Münster iused the same sourcecopies (Sheveloff’s intermediate set) as the compiler of the Parma set concurrentlywith the copying of Parma. After the completion of the Parma set and the completionof Münster iof the Münster the scribe proceeded to backtrack to complete his set.

If we compare the order of Parma with the order of Münster we see that the orderappears to be reversed but not in the same sequence. There are blocks in which the

56

individual sonatas follow Parma, but the blocks follow a different order. Table 2 showsthe ordering of Münster ii as an example. We can see that they are grouped in batch-es; the sequence within each batch is the same as the Parma set. The batches, however,are not in the same sequence. For instance, volume iiuses Parma sonatas from vol-umesviii, ixand x. It then jumps from v, vi, xiiand xiii. Which indicates that thesewere compiled from, possibly, the same source material which was stored in groups.

Münster ii contains another mystery. Sonatas 51 and 52 are unique to the set.They do not appear in any other source. Sheveloff questions these, but comes tothe conclusion that they are authentic.18

In an article written in 198519 Sheveloff reconsiders these two sonatas in relation-ship to the Münster collection. He considers this ‘a deeply troubling fact’ and men-tions that they do not resemble any of the pieces in Parma or Venice with similar Knumbers.20He suggests that they should fall between K280 and K320,21 if authentic.

Sheveloff made this assumption based on stylistic grounds. If we considerwhere they come in relationship to the Parma set, they would have come betweenParma xiii/4 and xiii/5. These two sonatas Kirkpatrick gives the numbers K457and K458. The two Münster unica sonatas were given the numbers K452 and 453,which preceded the numbers allocated to Parma xiii.

He continues to mention the ‘slovenly’ way these were copied and furthercomments that neither seem to be a ‘distinguished’ example and suggests thatScarlatti decided against inclusion in the ‘official’ manuscript only to have M1include them. These observations strengthen the theory that these were notdirect copies of these sources but originated from the same source.

Münster iii shows a similar pattern. For the purpose of this discussion, I havenot included the full analysis here.22

It is possible that after the Parma manuscripts were copied from the intermediaryset the originals were stored, in batches. The compiler of the Münster set extracted

18 Ivi, p. 455.19 Joel Sheveloff, Domenico Scarlatti: Tercentenary frustrations, «The Musical Quarterly»,lxxi 1985, pp. 399-436; lxxii, 1986, pp. 90-118.20 Ivi, p. 417.21 Kirkpatrick’s work also included cataloguing the sonatas to which he gave ‘K’ numbers, theorder of which, in his opinion, represented the order in which they were composed. 22 The contents of the remaining three Münster volumes are set out showing their relationshipto other main sources including Parma in Kirkpatrick, Domenico Scarlatti cit., pp. 442-453.

anthony hart

57

these batches to copy. The newest batch would have been on the top that wouldaccount for the apparent reverse order as compared with the Parma set. These batch-es were replaced and another, not necessary in the same order as Parma, copied.

Due to other circumstances, which will be considered later, only three volumes anda few fascicles, which were probably intended as a fourth volume, were completed.


Münster Parma

1 X 1

2 X 2

3 VIII 27

4 VIII 28

5 XIII 17

6 XIII 18

7 IX 7

8 IX 12

9 IX 25

10 IX 26

11 X 6

12 X 7

13 X 9

14 X 10

15 v 7

16 v 8

17 v 27

18 v 29

19 v 24

20 v 18

21 v 23

22 V 24

23 VI 11

24 VI 12

25 VI 15

26 VI 16

27 XII 8

28 XII 9

29 XII 12

30 XII 13

31 XII 14

32 XII 15

33 XII 16

34 XII 17

35 XII 18

36 XII 19

37 XII 20

38 XII 21

39 XII 22

40 XII 23

41 XII 24

42 XII 25

43 XII 26

44 XII 27

45 XII 28

46 XII 29

47 XIII 1

48 XIII 2

49 XIII 3

50 XIII 4

51 *

52 *

53 XIII 5

54 XIII 6

55 XIII 7

56 XIII 8

57 XIII 9

58 XIII 10

59 XIII 11

60 XIII 12

Table 2. Comparison of Münster II to Prime source (Parma)23

23 Source: Kirkpatrick, Domenico Scarlatti cit., pp. 452-454.

58

Let us now consider Münster iv, the handwriting in which has been iden-tified by Sheveloff as M2. During the cataloguing of the Santini collectionheld by the Diözesanbibliothek in Münster for RISM by Klaus Kindler, thehandwriting in Münster IV and a considerable part of Münster V was identi-fied as being the same as a collection of manuscripts in the collection attrib-uted to A. Reggio. This composer was cited by RISM as Antonino Reggio,Eighteenth Century. No other information about Antonino Reggio was avail-able. (Figure 2).

Further examination of these manuscripts indicates that Reggio’s handappears throughout Münster iv. It is interesting to note, also, that several anno-tations in Münster i, ii and iii are also in Reggio’s hand.

This fact is only recorded in the RISM catalogue and had never been pub-lished elsewhere. Therefore, current Scarlatti scholars were unaware of thefact. This fact was discovered in the 1980’s, some 40 years after Gerstenburg’sinitial investigation, 25 years after Kirkpatrick and just after Sheveloff’s defini-tive work.

Monsignor Antonino Reggio

During the summer of 2000, my own investigation into the life and work ofAntonio Reggio began. By 2008, I had been able to identify him as MonsignorAntonino Reggio, born in Aci Catena, a commune in the region of Catania in Sici-ly, in 1725 and died, possibly in Rome in the first quarter of the 1800’s. He was apriest, later a Monsignore in Rome and a member of a cadet branch of a Siciliannoble family, Principi di Campofiorito.24

Antonino was born in Aci Catena (Sicily) in 1725, one of 12 children. He wasborn into a cadet branch of a noble family. His father was the son of Luigi Reggioe Giuffrè, Principe di Campofiorito, from a second marriage. Luigi’s son, Stefanoby his first marriage was given the title of Principe, whereas Antonino’s father,Gioacchino, acquired the title Nobili dei Principe di Aci.

24 Anthony Hart, Who was Dr Charles Burney’s Mysterious Monsignor Reggio?A paper given atthe xv Convegno della Società Italiana di Musicologia, Bergamo, October 2008. Now in «FontiMusicali Italiane» xv, 2010, pp. 211-227 with the title Monsignor Antonino Reggio, cembalista e com-positore del Settecento.

anthony hart

59

25 Examples published with kind permission of Diözesanbibliothek, Santini Sammlung, Münster.


Title Page of SANT 3967 (Scarlatti Ms, Münster IV)

Title Page of SANT 3389 (Opera Prima of Antonino Reggio)

Clefs from SANT 3967(Scarlatti Ms, Münster IV)

Clefs from SANT 3389 (Opera Prima of Antonino Reggio)

Figure 2: Comparison of handwriting in Münster IV with handwriting in Antonino Reggio’sautograph manuscript of his own work for cembalo, Opera Prima25

60

He was ordained a priest and probably entered the Monastery of Sant’Angelodi Brolo, a small isolated commune between Palermo and Messina.

In 1763, he appears in Rome. Whilst in Rome he was visited several times byDr Charles Burney who described him as «likewise a pretty good composer andperformer on the harpsichord and violoncello». In a summing up of his visit hementions Reggio again: «I am indebted for some curious compositions, and forthe conversations of several persons in Rome, eminent for their skill in the art,and learning in the science of sound; among whom […] Monsignor Reggio».26

Reggio is also mentioned by the eighteenth century Roman poet and writerGiovanni Gherado De Rossi. De Rossi describes Reggio as «a man of great intel-lect, erudite, and very deep in music».27

The all of Reggio’s known original works are held in the Santini Collection inthe Diözesanbibliothek, Münster.28 His works consist of sixteen manuscripts,comprising some 180 individual works, which date between 1745 and 1774. Hisearly works range from sacred works, such as masses, oratorios and sacred songs,to aria settings of texts by Metastasio of which many are dedicated to members ofthe Sicilian nobility. From 1767, many of his manuscripts are dedicated to Romannobility. His later works, from about 1770, contain 72 sonatas for cembalo.

These manuscripts are annotated as ‘originale’ which enabled Kindler toassociate the scribe of Münster iv and a portion of Münster v to Reggio.

These volumes and the fascicles, which were to become part of Münster v, thenappeared in Italy and were acquired by Reggio who continued the sequence, possi-bly from the Parma set that was now in Italy. There are, however, many discrepan-cies between Parma and Münster iv that indicate that it may have been compiledfrom other sources other than Parma. There is some evidence of Reggio’s hand inthe first three volumes that would indicate that he was in possession of them.

Münster v is made up of manuscripts in nine different hands, including M1and M2. Sheveloff observes that M1 and M2 appear to be the principle compilersof this volume. It is possible that Reggio acquired some odd manuscripts, comple-menting his own and M1’s which eliminated the need to copy to complete his task.

26 Charles Burney, The Present State of Music in France and Italy: or, The Journal of a Tourthrough those Countries, undertaken to collect Materials for A General History of Music, London, 1773.27 Giovanni Gherardo De Rossi, Lettera del Cav. Gio. Gherardo De-Rossi ad un Amico sulla mortedella celebre Maria Pizzelli Roma 26 Settembre 1807, «Nuovo Giornale dei Letterati», Roma, 1808.28 Diözesanbibliothek, Santini Sammlung, Münster, SANT Hs 3964 to 3968, 5 Volumes.

anthony hart

61

29 FrancescoMaria Emanuele e Gaetani, Marchese Di Villabianca, Diario palermi-tano, in«Biblioteca storica e Letteraria di Sicilia», xviii (xiii della i serie), Palermo, Luigi PedoneLauriel editore, 1874, p. 141.30 Hanns-Bertold Dietz, Fortunes and Misfortunes of Two Italian Composers in Early Eighteenth-Century Spain: Philipo Falconi and Francesco Corradini, «International Journal of Musicology»,

Reggio could not have compiled Münster iv before 1764. There is a record ofAntonino refusing the post of Abbot of the monastery of Sant’Angelo di Brolo in1763.29 Sant’Angelo di Brolo is a remote commune in Sicily and I do not think thatAntonino could possibly have been able to travel outside until at least 1763, andconsequently could not have copied the Scarlatti works prior to this date.

Reggio’s Acquisition

The question is: How did Reggio come to acquire these volumes and came to beinvolved with the further copying?

We can conclude that the first three volumes preceded Reggio’s, but by howlong? If Reggio acquired the volumes later he would have been aware of the con-tents and then proceeded to complete the set, possibly from the Parma andVenice sets held by Farinelli. Although there are many anomalies that even thisassumption is suspect. If this were the case, how did Reggio come into the pos-session of these in about 1765? To find a possible answer to this question we needto consider another branch of the Reggio family.

Luigi Reggio e Branciforte and Stefano Reggio e Gravina

Antonino’s paternal uncle was Luigi Reggio e Branciforte. It is quite possible thatAntonino was close to this branch of the family as an early work is dedicated toDonna Caterina, wife of Luigi and possibly another written for Don Luigi.

Don Luigi’s diplomatic career spanned many years. In particular, he wasambassador to the Spanish court from 1723-1743. He was very much involvedwith music having a maestro di cappella and several works dedicated to him.There are also references to concerts being held, in the presence of the royal fam-ily, at the ‘casa Reggio’. His maestro di cappella until 1743 was the Venetian operacomposer Francesco Corradini (1690-1769). He was very active in the theatrespecialising in opera buffa.30


62

Luigi was well respected at court; in fact, he was given the post as ambassadorto France in 1743 at the critical time of the war between England and Spain and atthe crucial time of the War of Austrian succession. He was succeeded by his sonStefano Reggio e Gravina. Also at this time Corradini applied for the post ofMaestro di Capella of the Royal chapel, but this was denied.

From the dates recorded on the Parma sets, (it is not certain that these werethe dates of compilation or composition) the first Münster volume was probablystarted in 1756.31

In 1747 Corradini became music teacher to the infanta Maria Antonia. It ispossible he remained as Maestro di Capella to Stefano until 1747. It is conceiv-able that Corradini’s successor (as yet unidentified) who could have compiledthe set or even Corradini – he was still close to the Royal family and had workedclosely with Farinelli. Stefano Reggio returned to Naples in about 1770 possiblybringing back the copies. This would account for the reason only three vol-umes were completed.

By then Antonino was active in Rome, as a composer of keyboard music.Either Stefano contracted Antonino to complete the set on his behalf orAntonino acquired the set from Stefano. Antonino could have been introducedto Farinelli who was living in retirement in Bologna and been given permissionto complete the copies it is possible that the Scarlatti works provided him witha model for his own.

In addition, as attested by Burney, Antonino was a composer and performeron the cembalo32 so this might have affected the way he copied the works. Theywere for him to play.

Santini then acquired these as part of Antonino’s library later. Thisanswers a second question. Why did Santini have Reggio’s works? I believe heknew the provenance of the Scarlatti sonatas and failing to acquire one of theoriginal Spanish sets (Parma and Venice) these were the closest he was goingto get to originals. Therefore, he acquired Antonino’s library to acquire theScarlatti works.

Elliott Antokoletz and Michael von Albrecht, eds., vii, 2000, pp. 87-111. Also Id., sub voceFrancesco Corradini, in Grove Music Online, ed. by L. Macy, accessed 16 December 2011,http://www.grovemusic.com.31 Kirkpatrick, Domenico Scarlatti cit., pp. 452-454.32 Burney, The Present State of Music cit., p. 299.

anthony hart

63

33 Source: Sheveloff, The Keyboard Sonatas cit., p. 252

Conclusions

The Münster manuscripts have always been considered as an Italian copy of theoriginal Spanish sets that were compiled for the Queen, Maria Barbara. It wasassumed that they were copied after being taken to Italy in the second half of theeighteenth century and were considered a coherent set. Careful examination ofthese volumes has shown many inconsistencies that do not fully support theseassumptions. There is a possibility that these originated in Spain, compiled atthe same time as the Spanish sets, and then completed in Rome in the second halfof the eighteenth century.

This theory would address many of Sheveloff’s concerns about the manuscripts.In his discussions about the origins of the Münster set, he summarizes these

with the following stemma (figure 3).


Lost originals

Venice 1742 and 1749

Parma

Venice I to XIII

Münster

Figure 3: Sheveloff’s conclusions as to the source of the Munster manuscripts33

64

From the foregoing discussion, I have modified Sheveloff’s ideas illustratedby my stemma (figure 4). Münster v is even more difficult to analyze, as it com-prises a loose collection of fascicles by different scribes that was indexed andbound together at a later date.

34 I am indebted to Christopher Hail (http://mysite.verizon.net/chrishail/scarlatti/index.html)for his interesting ideas and observations concerning the sources of Münster IV and V.

anthony hart

Lost originals

Venice 1742 and 1749

Parma

Venice I to XIII

Münster I, II and III

?

Münster IV Münster V

Several smaller setscopied by 1,3-9

Figure 4: Conclusions drawn from this paper as to the source of the Münster manuscripts34

The purpose of this paper is to present an alternative theory of the originsof the Münster set and to consider ‘Phase 1’ of the compilation. It, however,does not address all of the questions concerning the Münster set. Some otheraspects have not been considered at this stage. Further research is being car-ried out to establish the identity of M1, to investigate the significance further

65

annotations in Reggio’s hand in Münster iv, which are at present unaccountedfor, and to attempt to establish the source for this volume. The connectionbetween the manuscripts and Luigi and Stefano Reggio, Principi di Campofior-ito, is only speculative and further research is being carried out to in anattempt to verify these ideas.


Figure 5: First page of Sonata per Cembalo in C min (Opera Terza) SANT Hs 3391 No. XI(Courtesy Diözesanbibliotek, Münster)

66

anthony hart

Figure6: First page of Scarlatti Sonata (K380) in Reggio’s hand (Tomo IV, No 47) SANT Hs 3967 (Courtesy Diözesanbibliotek, Münster)

Finito di stampare da Futura Grafica, dicembre 2011

studi musicali - monsignor reggio musicali.pdf · 2019-07-15 · 49 * an extended version of the...

Documents