Opera I

The stage was greatly preoccupied with the threat of a Jacobite rebellion in the early eighteenth century, and pieces such as Colley Cibber's The Non-Juror, which sought to show how misguided the Jacobite supporters were, saw brief but intense runs of popularity. Although theatrical attitudes towards Jacobite supporters varied depending on whether a play was written before or after the 1715 rebellion, the Jacobite threat remained a sensitive subject throughout the period. Jacobitism was a layered concern as the Pretender(s) represented two, related enemies to Whig ideas about Britain and Britishness: foreignness and Catholicism. The prospect of having James Francis Edward Stuart on the throne brought back bad memories of his father James II, and the political unease and crypto-Catholicism that characterised his brief reign, as well as the cultural hegemonies (such as libertine excess) of the broader Restoration period.

Thus when Britain turned to Germany to find an heir to Anne's throne, they were not suggesting that George I had a better hereditary claim to the throne than any Jacobite claimant - "he was only as 'English' as James was not" (Elaine McGirr, Heroic Mode and Political Crisis, p. 134). Rather, George would fit in with the reigning Whig, Protestant ideology far better than James Stuart - a Catholic who was supported by the French, Spanish, and later the Italians. In this they were largely correct: although George was subject to some lampoonery for his perceived unintelligence and inability to speak English, these were small offences compared to being Catholic. We can also judge that the royal household nevertheless tried hard to fit into London society, as newspapers of the time make frequent mention of various members attending the theatre. Whether or not they enjoyed the performances is something that is (I think) unexplored; the point is that they understood the importance of making social, public appearances.

With such a political backdrop, one might expect that the fashion was for entertainment that was a part of British (or English) traditionalism, or at least entertainment that celebrated Britishness. Indeed, nothing could be further from the case. It is true that some of the great Whig authors of this time - Cibber, Addison, Steele - wrote extensively in defence of what they considered British ideals, which they defined as Protestant, Whig, and anti-Jacobite. I shall discuss these in a later post. However, these plays were written in spite of the great fad of the 1700s: opera.

Opera had been popular to various degrees since its debut on the London stage in the late seventeenth century, but our interest really lies after 1705, when the Queen's Theatre, Haymarket opened and (after a spotty few seasons) became known for its dedication to opera. Opera was exceedingly fashionable by this point and opera stars accordingly were paid sums far exceeding their counterparts on the non-operatic stage. Beginning with the unheard-of amount of eight hundred guineas per annum probably paid to Nicolini from the 1708-09 season (Judith Milhous and Robert D. Hume, "Opera Salaries in Eighteenth-Century London," p. 29), opera salaries only continued to rise astronomically, reaching their peak in the 1720s. By comparison, the actor Robert Wilks's salary for 1706 was £150 (Milhous and Hume, p. 28).

As such, opera's detractors found much to complain about. Opera was an expensive, elitist art, dominated by foreign, Catholic singers and composers. Its aesthetic and the thought behind it were condemned as frivolous and shallow, lacking the mindful pleasures that British drama could bring. Indeed, much criticism stemmed from the money and attention it took away from the British stage. Opera stars themselves were especially viewed suspiciously, as is anyone who rapidly ascends the ranks of society, acquiring massive fortunes along the way. In an age when performers were still legally defined as vagrants (Cheryl Wanko, Roles of Authority: Thespian Biography and Celebrity in Eighteenth-Century Britain, p. 14), it was galling for many to see such people - and those who represented qualities so antithetical to Whig-defined standards of Britishness - achieve such levels of public devotion and amounts of money. Thus, "The Opera House or the Italian Eunuch's Glory" lists along the side a catalogue "of the rich Presents Signior Farinello Italian Singer Condescended to Accept off of the English Nobility & Gentry for one Nights Performance."

Not all opera stars were Italian, not all operas were sung in Italian, and those which were sung by Italians in Italian did not have an explicitly Jacobite (or even pro-Catholic) message. Nevertheless, Italy could lay claim to the majority of opera stars and operas, and opera was forever coloured by its association with Catholic Italy. From 1717 Rome was the refuge of James Stuart, another mark against it. In a climate that could be very sensitive to any hint of Jacobite ideology, opera could easily be construed as an unattractive and even dangerous prospect. However, critics did not stop at criticising opera for its foreignness; nor were concerns about latent Jacobitism the sole motivators behind condemnation of the art. In my next post I will discuss castrati, gossip, and ideas about manliness in the eighteenth century.