In 1760 John Christopher Smith the Younger produced his oratorio Paradise Lost, libretto by Benjamin Stillingfleet, as part of the Lenten oratorio season for which he had assumed management, with John Stanley, after Handel's death.Footnote 1 Smith's involvement with the oratorio seasons began in the latter years of Handel's life. His stepson, the Reverend William Coxe, reports that Handel had sent for Smith when the latter was in France, requesting that he return to England and play the organ at performances of the oratorios.Footnote 2 Handel's blindness also led to Smith having significant creative responsibility for late additions to the elder composer's oratorios: research by Anthony Hicks into the working copies from this period has shown Smith's hand in a significant number of scores.Footnote 3 But how did a composer who had effectively lived in Handel's shadow for a decade fare in furthering his own reputation as oratorio composer and entrepreneur in the years following Handel's death?
It seems that the London audiences took positively to Paradise Lost, at least in terms of its music. Stillingfleet wrote after the second performance of 5 March 1760:
I am just now come from the Oratorio,Footnote 4 being the second time of performance; there was a very good house, though not quite so full as the first, but more than was expected. The music was exceedingly well received, without the least disturbance; and I imagine we shall have it a third time. But that, Smith will determine to-morrow, when he has seen the receipts. I had a thousand copies of the words printed, which were sold the first day, and more were wanted. Today a second edition came out; but what number went off, I know not.Footnote 5
However, the receipts appear not to have been good enough, and considerations of the businessman in Smith must have outweighed those of the composer, because the next performance of Paradise Lost did not take place until the 1761 oratorio season. Box-office accounts for that season have survived and show that some 413 people attended the one 1761 performance. This compares fairly positively with the 573 who attended the performance of Handel's Theodora, but not so well with the 1,158 who attended Judas Maccabeus in the preceding week, doubtless stiff competition for a lesser-known composer, given this oratorio's earlier role in effectively rekindling popular enthusiasm for Handel and the genre.Footnote 6
The last performance of Paradise Lost took place in 1774, during what transpired to be Smith's last turn as co-manager of the oratorio season at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. This saw considerable modification of the original score and libretto in comparison with those of 1760. The original French overture was omitted, as was the original first scene (including the first chorus, ‘Works which he pronounced good’), the latter being replaced by a partial Te Deum using the first, third, fourth and fifth verses of the hymn. The reasons for the insertion of a Te Deum at this point may lie in external circumstances, and this will be explored later in this essay. But the 1774 performance of Paradise Lost was subject to more than musical alteration; it was also the focus of considerable competition from a rival oratorio season. In addition, this was a time when the Handelian idiom itself was coming increasingly under pressure from the new wave of popular composers such as Johann Christian Bach and Carl Friedrich Abel.
Competition between theatres in London was nothing new. Edward Langhans in his article on the London theatre scene in 1776 comments:
Competition between theatres was common and therefore must have been profitable. Drury Lane offered twenty-nine pieces in 1775–6 that were also given at Covent Garden. A hundred years before, a theatre had more or less exclusive rights to a list of plays, but by Garrick's day one could frequently see a piece at Drury Lane and then, if the timing was right, walk over to the rival house and catch the same work with a different cast.Footnote 7
Neither was competition a rarity in oratorio seasons. In his study of the early reception of Israel in Egypt Ilias Chrissochoidis gives an account of the efforts by opposing forces to derail Handel's new production, leading up to and during its first season in 1739.Footnote 8 Ruth Smith has demonstrated how competing oratorio seasons sometimes pitted works of very similar dramatic content against one another, with the 1740 performance of John Lockman and Smith's David's Lamentation over Saul and Jonathan being presented at Hickford's Rooms while Handel's Saul was being given at Lincoln's Inn Fields and, likewise, in 1745 Willem De Fesch's Joseph at Covent Garden competing with Handel's Joseph at the King's Theatre.Footnote 9
In 1774, the year of the Paradise Lost revival, the main competition was between the seasons at the royal-patent theatres at Drury Lane and at the Haymarket,Footnote 10 there having been no season at Covent Garden that year. The Drury Lane season was managed by the Smith–Stanley partnership that had prevailed since Handel's death, while the Haymarket was managed by violinist François-Hippolyte Barthélemon, as noted in the general news section of The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser of 17 February 1774: ‘Mr. Barthelemon begs leave to acquaint his friends and the public, that he is the sole Manager of the Oratorios at the Theatre Royal in the Hay-market, where he hopes for the honour of their protection.’Footnote 11
By this time there were two ingredients that were increasingly essential if the oratorio season was to make money, or merely to break even. One was the name and music of Handel, and the other the attendance of the king and royal family. John Stanley himself is quoted as saying that ‘[none] other than Mr Handel's musick would succeed, as people in general are so partial to that, that no other Oratorios are ever well attended’,Footnote 12 and any scrutiny of the oratorio seasons of the 1770s shows the complete dominance of Handel's works.Footnote 13
William Coxe reports that when Smith oversaw work on construction of a barrel organ for the Earl of Bute, as reward he requested not money, but rather that
if, through his Lordship's recommendation, the King would condescend to patronize the Oratorios. Lord Bute accordingly represented Mr. Smith in so favourable a light, that the King honoured the Oratorios with his presence; at first, six nights out of eleven; afterwards, for several years, he went the whole eleven, which was a great support, and brought much company to the house, although the Oratorios had then ceased to be the favourite entertainment of the public.Footnote 14
In 1775 an item from The Westminster Magazine illustrated the impact of royal patronage being transferred to an alternative oratorio series:
On Friday the third instant the Entertainments peculiar to this season commenced. Messrs Bach and Abel were first, and have been at each successive Oratorio since (one night excepted when the King and Queen favoured Mr Stanley, with bringing the only good House he has hitherto had).Footnote 15
Although this might suggest that the king was a bigger pulling factor than Handel, both remained important for the 1774 season, as can be deduced from a perusal of contemporary newspapers. Promotion began in The Public Advertiser on 11 February, giving notice of a performance of Judas Maccabeus at Drury Lane on 18 February and of Messiah at the Haymarket on the same night. These advertisements were repeated by Drury Lane on 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 February, while the Haymarket matched these with the exception of 14 and 15 February. Then on Tuesday 19 February promotion for the next set of performances began, with both Theatres repeating their respective notices in The Public Advertiser on February 21, 22 and 23 (Drury Lane) and February 22 (Haymarket). Those from February 21 for Drury Lane and February 22 for the Haymarket are worth quoting in full, as each adds a further line (here highlighted in bold) that is significant for the remainder of the season.
The Drury Lane advertisement reads as shown in Figure 1. The second advertisement, immediately following that for Drury Lane, is shown in Figure 2. These two advertisements unveil the competitiveness that characterized the season. Over the next week the pattern of advertising ran as can be seen in Table 1.Footnote 16
Advertisement from The Public Advertiser (21 February 1774), 1
Advertisement from The Public Advertiser (22 February 1774), 1
Advertisements (in roman) and performances (in italic)
* denotes advance notice for the second–listed oratorio.
Of particular note was the advertisement placed by Drury Lane in The Public Advertiser on Thursday 24 February promoting Handel's Alexander's Feast and the Coronation Anthems for Friday 25 February, adding a note that ‘PARADISE LOST is unavoidably obliged to be deferr'd 'till Wednesday next’,Footnote 17 advice that was repeated in the Friday edition.
Equally notable was the wording of the advertisement from the Haymarket on that day, appearing on the same page as the cancellation advice for Paradise Lost (Figure 3). Not only were the public being enticed by a work by Mr Handel ‘never performed in public’, but the inclusion of the well-known Handelian oratorio singers Samuel Champness and Isabella Scott endowed the performance with added authenticity. This novelty factor must have been considered enough of a commercial threat by Smith and Stanley to lead them to substitute two works by Handel for the virtually unknown Paradise Lost. Thus on Friday 25 February Handel's Alexander's Feast and the Coronation Anthems went up against the oratorio ‘never performed in public’, Omnipotence, ‘composed by Mr. Handel’.
Advertisement from The Public Advertiser (24 February 1774), 1
The next day, Saturday 26 February, Drury Lane announced in The Public Advertiser that Paradise Lost would indeed be performed on the following Wednesday, 2 March. The Haymarket simultaneously promised another performance of Omnipotence for the same date. The Haymarket also advertised in The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, adding that
The new Oratorio, OMNIPOTENCE, was received last night at the Theatre in the Hay-market, with uncommon marks of universal approbation. It will be repeated on Wednesday.Footnote 18
This pattern of competing advertisements continued until the performance date of 2 March, when Smith was faced with the ‘new work’ by Handel, which was, in fact, a pasticcio oratorio, based on the Chandos Anthems with interpolations by Samuel Arnold. The anthems were largely unknown to the public of this later generation, having been written for the Duke of Chandos when Handel was at Cannons during his time there from around 1717 to 1720. As Arnold wrote in the Preface to the score:
No part of Mr. Handel's works are held in higher estimation, by the best judges, than his compositions for the Duke of Chandos. They are difficult to attain; and the collection from whence this performance is selected, hath been the attentive pursuit of several years, at Sales and Auctions; in the progress of which, I made discoveries of some I had never heard of; and got information of others, which I have not been able to trace. A complete collection cannot well be expected, as some of the original scores have been exposed to public sale. Several other Anthems, composed by him on different occasions, I have met with; and have been informed of others, I have not yet seen.
This performance is divided into three parts, under the different subjects of Creation, Redemption and Salvation: the endeavour, in the arrangement, hath been to retain the sublimity of the sacred texts; and the melodious illustration they have received from the genius of Mr. Handel, in the full force, propriety and grandeur, they stand with in the original compositions.Footnote 19
After 2 March Paradise Lost disappears from view, while Omnipotence remains in play at the Haymarket against an exclusively Handelian repertoire at Drury Lane. As may be seen from Table 2, Smith and Stanley drew, on one hand, from among the most popular of Handel's oratorios, Judas Maccabeus, Messiah and Samson, and, on the other hand, from Handel's secular repertoire – although it is noteworthy that the performance of Acis and Galatea advertised for 9 March is suddenly replaced with Judas Maccabeus, which the advertisement described as being ‘BY PARTICULAR DESIRE’.Footnote 20 While this substitution may have been necessitated by singer availability, it may also have been judged that Judas Maccabeus was a potentially stronger competitor to Omnipotence.
Advertisements (in roman) and performances (in italic) for the two theatres
The advertisement for Omnipotence for Friday 11 March had described the performance as ‘The FIFTH NIGHT and the last time this Season’. But the following day Haymarket announced that Omnipotence would be heard again on Wednesday 16 March ‘By particular Desire of several Persons of Distinction, the SIXTH NIGHT, And positively the Last Time this Season’.Footnote 21 The same advertisement adds ‘On Friday (by Desire) MESSIAH’. It is not hard to see why Messiah has been called into play: Drury Lane had advertised Messiah for Wednesday 16 March, pitting it against the advertised last performance of Omnipotence. Messiah, then, represented a fitting successor for Omnipotence at the Haymarket. Then the last week of the season saw jostling between the first performance of Stanley's oratorio The Fall of Egypt (to a libretto by the late John Hawkesworth) and Omnipotence before both seasons ended with Messiah.
Just how competitive was Omnipotence? On Saturday 26 February, the day on which the rescheduled Paradise Lost was advertised, the following appeared in the news and editorial section of The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, one of the papers that had begun to run commentary about performances:
ORATORIO INTELLIGENCE.
The Oratorio [Omnipotence] performed last night at the Hay-Market, having been declared a production of Handel, new to the public, we expected, as no doubt the managers did, a very crouded [sic] house. We were however mistaken, there was a very genteel company, but not a very numerous one.
A report it is said has been spread with much industry that the advertising a new sacred Oratorio of Handel's was a mere stage trick, and perhaps such a report gaining ground (which wanted not plausible reasons in its favour) might keep away much company.
Those however who were present enjoyed a noble luxury. The performance bore intrinsic marks of its inimitable author, and does honour to the memory of the Composer of Messiah. The choruses are beyond expression great; it is difficult to say whether the pleasure or astonishment of the audience exceeded. Their continued applause and encores prolonged the performance above half an hour after the usual time.
The producing this unexpected and admirable entertainment does as much honour to the diligence of the Managers, as to the perfect manner in which it was performed does to their musical abilities; and will no doubt secure to them, the public favour which they have taken so much pains to obtain.Footnote 22
This is what today we might describe as a ‘puff piece’, designed to drum up business for Omnipotence while suggesting that the opposition (presumably the oratorio management at Drury Lane) were attempting to undermine the work in question. Then on 3 March, the day after the performance of Paradise Lost, came another commentary from ‘Oratorio Intelligence’:
The Oratorio of Omnipotence was performed the Second time last night, at the Haymarket, to a very numerous audience who received it with universal approbation, superior to that conferred on it on Friday last. In fact it was manifestly the better for a second performing; and rose with the audience, as every new production always does, for the experience of the performers.Footnote 23
The item goes on to say that the music was composed by Handel ‘in the fullest vigour of his genius for the use of the great Duke of Chandois [sic], and never performed before but in his Grace's Chapel at Cannons’.
There is, however, no commentary on Paradise Lost, nor does anything relating to its performance appear in any of the other major dailies that carried musical advertisements or reviewed performances. It appears that Smith and Stanley failed significantly in the propaganda battle with the opposition. On 4 March The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser carried a letter addressed ‘To the Printer of the Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser’ that proceeds:
On Wednesday last, to an elegant and numerous audience at the second exhibition, the new Oratorio of Omnipotence was universally suffraged to be the undoubted progeny of Mr. Handel; because if the music has not been written by his magic pen, it must have been composed by some Being more than mortal of the sopra humano [superhuman or celestial] kind.Footnote 24
On 5 March the news section of The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser takes a dig at the management at Drury Lane,Footnote 25 and on 7 March the paper carries an ode to Barthélemon, manager of the Haymarket oratorio season and the violinist featured as soloist in the inter-act concertos of Omnipotence. The last two lines of the ode, ‘To Mr. Barthelemon, on his Representation of Omnipotence’, read as follows:
On 8 March a letter to the editor advocates good behaviour at ‘such sacred Oratorios, as Messiah, Omnipotence etc.’ – a significant coupling of Omnipotence with a work that had become one of the most popular of all Handel's oratorios. The letter begins:
SIR.
I see in your paper of this day, very high encomiums on the Oratorio Omnipotence, performed on Friday, at the Theatre in the Hay-market. I was present, and quite agree with the writer of that letter, that it is excellent both in the vocal and instrumental performance.Footnote 27
Then on 11 March came the following from ‘Oratorio Intelligence’ about Omnipotence:
On the same page is a letter to the ‘Printer of the Morning Chronicle’ that reads:
Sir,
I give all due praise to Mr. Barthelemon for his introducing to the public a production of so much intrinsic merit; and at the same time double [sic] valuable as a curiosity – You know I must mean the new Oratorio [Omnipotence], which has surprised as much as it has pleased the musical world; and which if the immediate successors of the admirable author had either genius or vigilance, we should have heard long ago.Footnote 30
The critical comments at the end appear to refer to Smith and Stanley, implying that the two Handel successors had been dilatory in promoting this music by its ‘admirable author’.Footnote 31 This comment echoes one in the final paragraph of Arnold's Preface to Omnipotence: ‘This attempt to retrieve from obscurity, works which ought long since have been produced, by those who had the power of doing it, is most respectfully submitted to the candour of the Public’.Footnote 32 The broader newspaper commentary and Arnold's comment indicate that the rivalry in this 1774 season was intense. And so the question is, what impact did it have on Smith and Paradise Lost, there being no evidence of a counter-campaign being run by the Drury Lane management?
The decision not to perform Paradise Lost on 25 February might well have been made with an eye to the promotion of Omnipotence for the same night. Smith would have anticipated trouble competing with any music of Handel, particularly some labelled ‘never before performed’, this being possibly the lowest point in the post-Handel-era support for oratorio, coming more than a decade after his death, but yet a decade before the great Handel Commemoration.Footnote 33 So while the big Handel warhorses could summon a crowd, the same could not be guaranteed for works of lesser figures like Smith.
But was this the only reason for the alteration of the performance date, and why did Smith change his score significantly when he finally did bring the work to the stage a week later? As noted above, the commercial success of an oratorio was affected not only by the music of Handel but also by the king's presence. In this connection there is one other interesting note in the general news of The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser of Friday 25 February.
Yesterday evening, about seven o'clock, her Majesty was safely delivered of a Prince.Footnote 34
Had Paradise Lost gone ahead on Friday 25 February, the king would not have been present, as he did not attend during what Coxe describes as the queen's ‘lying-ins’.Footnote 35 Notice of the postponement of Paradise Lost appeared, as we saw earlier, on Thursday 24 February, the day of the royal birth, whereas an advertisement promoting the performance had appeared only the day before. It may well be that Smith was aware of the imminent birth and the likelihood there would be an absence of the royal family from the theatre on 25 February, with a consequent loss of those whose attendances tended to coincide with those of the king. Substitution of works by the main drawcard, Handel, appears a prudent move in this light. Omnipotence, on the other hand, went ahead with a small house, as the newspaper report quoted earlier attests.
Perhaps it is also the royal birth that explains the later insertion of a Te Deum, a hymn of praise, into Smith's oratorio. It is not clear whether Smith wrote the new chorus in the week before the performance, or borrowed it from another composer. He did not leave a corpus of sacred music, and the inventory of his music provided by Coxe makes no mention of any. It is not a reworking of any Handel Te Deum and, stylistically, reflects more an early classical idiom than that of the old master. Given that many of the original choruses from Paradise Lost are strongly Handelian in character, it seems this Te Deum may have been designed to reflect more contemporary musical currents rather than compete musically with the choral movements of Omnipotence, while at the same time paying homage to Smith's royal patrons.
As newspaper advertisements and reports of the time illustrate, the 1774 oratorio season was very competitive, with Smith and his oratorio becoming the butt of at least two less-than-subtle sneers in the newspapers, and being completely outplayed in the marketing and propaganda stakes. William Coxe makes a revealing comment about his stepfather in this regard: ‘Though he loved the art, he found himself unequal to the trade, and had not courage to encounter obstacles, or patience to reconcile contending interests.’Footnote 36 In view of this, it is scarcely surprising that Smith decided to quit both the oratorio industry and London itself after the 1774 oratorio season, and retire to Bath.
For the eighteenth-century British composer, the conflict between artistic demands and the demands of the box office – or ‘the trade’, as Coxe puts it – was part and parcel of a new era described by William Weber as opening up ‘vast new opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurship in the musical world’.Footnote 37 In Smith's case the importance of the king to the success of oratorio during this period appears to have led to both scheduling and artistic changes to his work. The ‘puff pieces’ and gushing reviews for Omnipotence in the newspapers are suggestive of modern-day advertorials so frequently associated with a need to enhance the box office, the viewing audience or patronage of one form or another. In the absence of a ‘star’ factor that will bring in the crowds regardless of repertoire, such relentless competition needs to be answered in kind, something Smith seems to have been unwilling or unable to do. Thus the performance history of Paradise Lost from its premiere in 1760 to its final public performance in 1774 provides one example among many of a fine musical work becoming a casualty to the combined forces of changes in public taste and of the ensuing exigencies of the box office.
