GAETANO DONIZETTI LUCREZIA BORGIA Melodramma in un prologo e due atti - Melodramma in one prologue and two acts di-by Felice Romani Prima rappresentazione / First performance Milano, Teatro alla Scala, 26 dicembre 1833 Riduzione per canto e pianoforte Vocal score ‘condotta sull’edizione critica based on the critical edition della partitura of the orchestral score acuradi edited by Roger Parker — Rosie Ward RICORDI FONDAZIONE TEATRO DONIZETTI DI BERGAMO [Pn LEEPreface ‘The Critical Edition of the Operas of Gaetano Donizetti will provide performing and scholarly edi- tions of the composer's major works for the theater. There is not at present a plan to publish a complete edition of Donizetti's music. The edition aims to rep- resenta broad variety of works: it will clearly include some operas that still have an active performing tra- dition; but it will also make available a selection of pieces that, for historical and musical reasons, are of particular importance to our understanding of Donizetti and his age. ‘The editions will be based, so far as is possible, on original sources, and in most cases will treat the composer's autograph score as the principal source. Donizetti’s autograph scores were often written in great haste. What is more, the composer's usual working method was to write his score in layers (first “skeleton score” containing the vocal parts, instru- ‘mental bass, and important instrumental lines; only later the complete orchestration), and to return peri- odically to the score to make additions and altera- tions. All this resulted in numerous incomplete di- rections for performance, and in many minor inconsistencies in notation. To signal all these dis- crepancies and omissions typographically (and/or to note them in a critical commentary) would be pe- dantic, and would also distract attention from areas, in which the editor has made important alterations or additions. The reading of the principal source can, therefore undergo the following kinds of alteration: a) Directions for performance present in one or ‘more instrumental parts and evidently applying to ‘others which are rhythmically and melodically iden- tical are extended to the latter without typographi- cal distinction or Critical Note. A Note is used if the model extended is particularly sparse. Extensions are not generally made from vocal parts to instru- mental parts, or vice versa. Whenever possible, the articulation of solo vocal parts is left as Donizetti wrote it. An exception occurs in ensemble passages, in which articulations applied to solo and/or choral parts may be extended to other, homorhythmic vo- cal lines. +b) There are occasions when it is necessary to add performance indications for which there is no model in the principal source. These additions are differ- entiated typographically from the rest of the score, bby placing them in parentheses if derived from a sec- ondary source, or in square brackets if found in no source. A Critical Note explains the derivation of the ‘mark, or the decision that led to its use. ) When the principal source contains an obvious error for which only a single solution is conceivable, itis corrected without typographical distinction or a Critical Note. If the error could admit various solu- tions, the editor's choice is differentiated typograph- ically, by employing a smaller font (for notes and rests) of by using italic (for words). A Critical Note explains the decision. <4) Footnotes are used to signal additional or alter- native material that could be of immediate interest to the performer. Most footnotes are supplemented by Critical Notes. ‘The poetic text on occasion requires special edi- torial treatment. Many scene indications and stage directions, often incomplete or absent from Donizetti's scores, are taken from the printed libretto for the first performance (or an eatlier, manuscript libretto, when available) and inserted in the score in parentheses. When textual differences exist between the original libretto and the principal source, the lat- ter prevails unless it is incorrect or inconsistent. Important divergences between these two sources are mentioned in a Critical Note. Donizetti's (or the original libretto’s) orthography is modernized, so long as this does not produce phonetic changes. Punctuation, almost always missing from Donizetti’s autograph scores, is added from the original libretto without typographical distinction. A Note on Performance Practice 1. For Donizetti the most common way to indicate that a passage was to be performed “legato” was to add a series of short slurs in each part. Examples of slurs ‘covering more than two bars are rare: typically, slurs connecting a series of whole notes connect one note tothe next. While the critical edition seeks where pos- sible to identify and extend a principal model for ho- ‘morhythmic parts, it makes no attempt to “modernize” the composer's practice of employing a chain of short slurs. This kind of notation was meaningful in music written some decades before Donizetti's time and, al- though much research still has to be done on this as- pect of 19th-century performing practice, it would at this stage be incautious not to take into account an as- pect that is so typical of Donizetti's notation u2. It is extemely difficult (and sometimes impos- sible) to distinguish between the markings used by Donizetti for fp and fe. In doubtful cases the eritical edition Opts for one of the two signs, usually on the basis of the prevailing dynamic context. 3. Occasionally, on characteristic ‘isolated iambic fig- ures (usually marked f and given to every instru- ‘ment in an orchestral “tuti”) Donizetti wrote an ac- cent between the two notes rather than on the arrival Li ‘note; commonly in such cases, models of both types Can accent between the notes, or an accent on the at= rival note) appear in various instruments. Rare ex~ amples are also found of an accent on the anacrusis; though again, almost always in situations of hetero- geneous accent placement in the various parts. The critical edition privileges placement ofthe accent on the arrival note. Gabriele Dotto Roger ParkerHistorical Introduction" Milan 1833 ‘The story of Lucrezia Borgia can begin with an un- usually informative letter sent by the librettist Fel Romatti to duke Carlo Visconti di Modrone, then rectof of the Teatro alla Scala. It is dated merely “Giovedi” but in all likelihood was written on 10 October 1833.1 From this we leam a great deal of important in- formation concerning the background of Donizetti's opera: that Teodoro Gottardi’s original idea (Got- tardi was the former “appaltatore dei Teatri Reali di Milano”) had been to open the 1833-34 La Scala season with an opera by Mercadante; that this pro- ject had been replaced by one called Lucrezia Bor- gia; that Romani had already written the Intro- duzione of this new opera and was about to send it to Mercadante; and that, in a sudden change, the project had now passed from Mercadante’s hands into those of Donizetti, who had met Romani that very day. Further correspondence from the period corrob- orates this version of events but sometimes puts a different slant on the dramatis personae. For exam- ple, a letter of 5 October from Mercadante to Gio- vanni Rossi, impresario at the Teatro La Fenice in Venice, makes clear that one of the main reasons the * We present here an abbrevited version ofthe Historical Introduc- ton and Critical Notes from the full score of Lucrezia Borgia (Ri- cord, Milan, 2019), in The Operas of Gaetano Donizetti |. Milan, Archivio Visconti di Modone (atthe Dipartimento di Sto- ria dellcconomia, della societ edi Scienze del tertorio “Mario Romani", Universi Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, henceforth AVDM), (Cart 2851, published in Alessandro Roccataglit, Felice Romani Ubresista (Lucea, 1996), pp. 356.57; also published in Edoardo (Clemente Verzino, Contibuto ad una biografia di Gaetano Doni- zat: lezre ¢ document inedti Bergamo, 1896), pp. 69-70. For the basi Facts about the genesis ofthe opera, the pace to sat, as always, is William Ashbrook, Donizetti and his Operas (Cambridge, 1982); also of great value, ad in parts updating Ashbrook, is An nalisa Bini and Jeremy Corsmons, Le prime rappresentazioni delle opere di Donizetti nella stampa coeva (Milan, 1997) (hereafter BIC), pp. 366-89. We should also like to meation an unpublished ‘manuscript by Paolo Cecchi, “Volond ‘autre, convenzion e com ‘mitenza nelle variant della Lucrezia Borgia (1833-1842) ist sivenat the Sesimo Colloguio di Musicologia aranged by 1! Sag ‘lator musicale Bologna, 21-23 November 2002). Cecchi’s hand ‘cnt goes much further than any previous attempt in solving the ‘complex history ofthe opera's various versions, and was a consid- {rble help tothe editors of tis Eatin. Por the performance history fLaereca's early years, an imaluable resource is Thomas. Kautinan,“Lacresia Borgia: Vasious Versions and Performance Histay”, The Donizerti Society Journal, 5 (1984), pp. 37-81 composer wanted to withdraw from the Milan con- tract was that Romani had been (as was common with him) dilatory in the extreme in his delivery of the Lucrezia libretto? ‘The collaboration between Donizetti and Romani in Milan had been enabled by one of the composer's periodic visits to the city from his “home base” in Naples. He had arrived in mid-September in order to supervise a revised version of II furioso all’'isola di San Domingo. The revival duly occurred on 1 Oc- tober 1833 and was successful enough to achieve no less than thirty-six performances in the coming months. Perhaps its success was an important ele~ ‘ment in Visconti’s decision to migrate the Lucrezia project from one composer to another. However, it was clear to all that, even with the Introduzione already written by Romani, time was short, even by the standards of the day, for an opera that would open on 26 December, Doubtless for this reason, a contract was drawn up between Donizetti and Visconti, one that stipulated in no uncertain terms the delivery date of the rest of the libretto. ‘As usual, though, Romani was occupied in mul- tiple projects and could not honour his deadline. On 18 November he wrote to Visconti that “T've almost finished the libretto for S.* Donizetti [...]. Tomorrow or the next day I will give you a note about the scenery and costumes for the premiere.”> But then, a week later on 25 November, and clearly after re~ ceiving desperate pleas, he wrote again: “I have al- ready given to the copyist two acts of Lucrezia Bor- gia. Tomorrow morning I will give him the third act: and tomorrow P'll also give the entire Drama to you." Finally true to his word, the next day (26 November) Romani wrote with the consignment: “T hope that there will be nothing more to say. I couldn’t have dealt better with this plot, nor been ‘more cautious concerning the Censor.”* The reference in Romani’s last letter to “the Cen- sor” demonstrates that the sensitivity of Lucrezia’s subject matter had clearly been recognised, with its 2. See his lester to Giovanni Rossi on S October 1833, in Roceata- lit, Felice Romani, p. 356. 3.AVDM, Car, 285L, published in Roceataglit, Felice Romani, . 362, also published in Verzno, Contribuo,p-73. 4. Ibid, p. 363, also published in Verzino, Contributo, p. 73. ‘5. 1bid, p. 364, also published in Verzno, Gontrbuto, pp. 73-74. Litbasis in £eal historical figures, its violent action and its altogether dubious prima donna. Guido Zavadini, in the introduction to his great collection of Doni- zeiti cortespondence, emphasised this aspect of the opera: He then had to overcome another obstacle, a serious one given the historical plot he had taken on, and that was from the censomship. The modifications requested were so many and of sucha nature that, ina rush of cuts and changes, the ‘action was ruined and made lopsided, so much so that Ro- ‘mani wanted to renounce his authorship. After numerous ‘adventures, Donizeti, overcoming all obstacles, finally ob- tained the libreto act by act as late as the end of November, ‘and then sett to music, of rather had ro set it to music in ‘matter of days soit was ready for Santo Stefano, the date ‘on which the season opened ® However, and contrary to Zavadini’s (andocument- ed) account, Romani’s letter of 26 November, quot ‘ed above, seems to suggest that his consignment of the libretto on this date had been —as was usual in this period — prior to any censorial inspection of the text and there is certainly no evidence from Donizetti's autograph score that any extensive changes were made at moments after this, nor is there evidence of Romani trying to have his name removed. Unless further sources come to light, we must regard Zavadini’s statements as no more than conjecture. “The premiere at La Scala took place on 26 De- cember 1833: Lucrezia was sung by Henriette Mé- ric-Lalande, Gennaro by Francesco Pedrazzi, Orsini by Marietta Brambilla and Alfonso by Luciano Ma- riani. As was not uncommon, there seems to have been some differences between the reaction of the public and that of the press.? The public's reaction, at least so far as we can glean it from reviews, is fait- ly simply stated. At the first performance certain sections of the opera were well received, in partic ular the Prologue, after which both Donizetti and ‘Méric-Lalande were called out. The undoubted hit of the evening was Orsini’s “canzonetta” in the final ‘act, the Brindisi “Il segreto per esser felici” sung by Brambilla. In general the large ensembles went well, but, as one critic put it, “the final curtain made cleat that the public was not happy with the opera”. itis very likely, though, that the public, as ever, were reacting primarily (o the state of the performers (rather than making a comment about the work it- 6. Guido Zavadini (ed), Donzet: vita, musche, epstoario (Ber ‘amo, 1048) p. 49 From. now on the leter“Z” followed by mem Borers tothis volume and tothe numberof the letter with it +. Te following summary comes from the invaluable collection of press reviews gathered in BIC, pp. 376-89, Liv self) in particular to Mérie-Lalande, who by general ‘consent was far from her best on opening night. Tt ‘also seems likely that she got a good deal better in subsequent performances: by the end of the season ‘Lucrecia was undoubtedly a public success, having been performed no less than thirty-three times in the space of less than three months (the season closed on 21 March). ‘The critics, though, had a different story to tell. ‘Their reviews, which are remarkable in their una~ nimity, roundly placed the reason for the public’s jnitial disapproval of the opera atthe door of the Ii- brettist and composer. "All the major reviewers saw as a root cause of the ‘opera’s failure the unfortunate influence of the play ‘on which the libretto was founded, Victor Hugo's ‘Lucréce Borgia, first performed at the Porte-Saint- ‘Martin Theatre in Paris on 2 February 1833. Their objections are best seen as twofold: they were cer- tainly aesthetic; but they were also what might loosely be called “moral”. On the aesthetic side, oth Romani and Donizetti were accused of betray- ing the true nature of Italian opera by not allowing, the characters to express themselves at sufficient Tength in canto. As one of the most vehement critics pputit: ‘The supernatural tale, Gennaro’s narration, the argument between two spies, the extremely long poison scene, the duet between Gennaro and Orsini, the endless scene of the banquet up to the end: what i there here that encourages 2 musical thought, what does it offer for singing, above all to poor Gennaro, who never has four lines in which he can show us his beautiful voice? Equally telling, though, were the “moral” objections, principally that there was an unsettling mixture of the comic and the tragic, and that the characters were too uniformly negative, with little to choose between the evil plotting of Luctezia and the Duke, the profli- ¢gacy and rebelliousness of Gennaro and his friends, ‘and the violence of the punishment the former inflict ‘on the latter, Behind both, and all too clear, was the usual fear of foreign contamination ~ a conviction that the loose morals and prosaic literary habits of the French were in some way deeply connected, and ‘could infect a purity, both aesthetic and moral, that ‘was seen as classically Ttalian. ‘Of Donizetti's reaction to this reception we know very little. There seems litle doubt, however, that the reception of Lucrezia on those first nights strengthened his feeling that Milan never granted 8. 11 Censore universale dei teatri (1 January 1834), in BIC pp 379-84, aaahim the successes he had gained elsewhere. In a let- ter ffm Vienna on 5 June 1842 to his Milanese frien¢ Giuseppina Appiani, he outlined a string of, reces!t triumphs but then continued: and Milan? ob, would give anything for ungrateful Milan, ‘who tmed against the first moments of Anna, Elisir, Lu- crezids Gemma, Padilla... and yet if T've worked hard and with god taste it has been for Milan... And yet I desire Milan... and yet Milan doesn't want me!? Florence 1836 ‘The ext revival of Lucrezia Borgia would not be until October 1836, nearly three years after the La ‘Scala premiere. The fact that no new revivals mate- rialised before then is something of a mystery. Clearly the issue of censorship was a continuing, worry, the obstacles in this regard becoming more serious as one travelled south on the Italian penin- sula. Atleast two efforts to get the opera performed under an assumed name in Naples (in 1834 and 1836) came to nothing (these will be discussed be-~ low in the “Naples 1838” section of this Introduc- tion). Its also possible that Donizetti in a franti- cally busy period of his career, felt that he needed to revise the opera before it could be restaged. Nevertheless, it is clear that Lucrezia was, in spite of the censorship issues, an opera whose public sue- cess at La Scala in 1833 was encouraging others to attempt arevival. As Donizetti wrote to Giovanni Ri- cordi nearly two years after the Milan premiere, on 5 September 1835: “The two operas that you await as the Hebrew await the Messiah are Lucrezia and Gemma’. The reasons why precisely that much- wished-for revival occurred first at the Teatro della Pergola in Florence are not clear. But a revival did indeed take place there, on 13 October 1836. The singers were Luigia Boccabadati (Lucrezia), Anto- nio Poggi (Gennaro), Rosina Mazzarelli (Orsini) and Domenico Cosselli (Alfonso). To judge from the li- bretto, FP, the only change to the score from the version performed at the Milan premiere was that the Gennaro-Orsini duet in the final act was omitted (the text in Scene 2.is virgolettato after “Resta, Gennaro” and picks up at “No'l seguite”). But we know from, ‘another source that Donizetti’s intentions were for ‘more sweeping changes to be made. That source is the composer's remarkable letter let36) to Boccabadati (addressed as “Pre; ma Signora Luigia Boccabadati Gazzuoli'! di Mo- Gena Celebre Cantante”) written from Naples on 8 9.Z.au, 10.2. 174 11. Aupusto Gazzuoli was Boceabadati's husband. September 1836, alittle more than a month before the first performance in Florence and clearly in re- sponse to a previous letter from the soprano.!2 ‘There is a wealth of valuable information in this letter, one of few in Donizetti's epistolario that goes into such detail about compositional matters. We ‘can gain important insights into many minor details of the score, particularly about matters of tempo, ar- ticulation, small cuts, aspects of staging, even small changes to notes and rhythms. These matters are ei- ther incorporated directly into the score or (for ex- ample, in the cuts suggested) reported in footnotes and/or Critical Notes. Unfortunately, the musical excerpts that once accompanied let36 are (with one exception, see below) missing: this means that cer- tain changes the composer wished to effect are no Ionger available to us. However, in three major in- stances he suggested larger-scale alterations to the structure of the opera: 1, Donizetti promised to address in another Ietter the cabaletta in the Act 1 duet between Lucrezia and Alfonso, “Oh a te bada” (N. 5, mm, 236-343), ‘This strongly suggests that his rewriting of the ca- baletta was effected for this revival. With certain exceptions, the new “Oh ate bada” became a part of the Lucrezia musical text from this time on- wards. A score survives in Donizetti’s hand (A) and in all likelihood derives from this period; itis included in the present Edition as Appendix 2. 2. He also recommended the omission of N.7, the Gennaro-Orsini duet, a suggestion that FI makes clear was followed in the Florence per- formances, and that was observed in many other revivals during Donizetti's lifetime. We have marked the extent of these cuts in footnotes to the present Edition. 3. He also made clear, albeit leaving Boccabadati to reach her own decision, that he believed the soprano’s closing cabaletta in N. 9 should be re- stricted to one verse, and even then should be shorn of some of its more omamental gestures. We have marked the extent of these cuts in foot- notes to the present Edition, ‘These three alterations will become important features in the opera’s future, albeit by no means the only ones, and by no means always observed. In- 12. Forthe wanscription of let36, forthe explanatory footnotes, and {or an interesting amici abou the lenter'ssignificance, see Francesco Belloto, Fa’ le cose da pazza”: Una ltterainedita di Donizet su Lucrezia Borgia’, in Michele Bordin and Paolo Trovato, Lucrezia Borgia: Stora e mito Flaenee, 2006), pp. 285-317. Our thanks t, Belloto for shaving this article befor its publication, Lvdeed, Donizetti's letter to Boccabadati is merely the firstinstance of the composer’s continuing, lively interest in this opera. Eustorgia da Romano 1838(2) By several accounts, the Florence 1836 performan- ces were a considerable success,'® and perhaps paved the way for further revivals. In 1838, this small stream of revivals began to broaden. Carolina Ungher, who has already featured in the 1837 Livorno revival, sang Lucrezia four ‘more times in 1838 (in Lucca, Venice, and twice in Florence) and continued performing the role in 1839 (in Yenice and Vienna), thus becoming one of the ‘most important early champions of the opera.'* As ‘well as several very high-profile revivals, 1838 also saw the emergence of attempts to evade censorship by performing the music in a changed plot, some- times trivially altered, sometimes with wholesale rewriting. In the former category is an Alfonso Duca di Ferrara performed on 2 October 1838 at Trieste (Grande), which featured three of the cast of the Mi Jan premiere, together with Giorgio Ronconi as Al- fonso. The libretto is identical to MS, only the title being changed.'$ ‘Much more significant, though, in that Donizetti cleatly had a hand in the revival, is an Eustorgia da Romano, for which a libretto survives dated 1838 (EU'S), The cast is given as Fanny Maray (Eu- storgia = Lucrezia), Nicola Ivanoft (Gennaro), Te- resa Cresci (Mario Oldani = Orsini) and Sebastiano Ronconi (Ezzelino Tiranno di Padova = Alfonso); but no place of performance is specified, the libretto simply saying “Impresso / A spese dell’impresa / 1838". Apart from the name changes, most of the libretto remains the same as MI, if with the omission, now quite usual, of the Gennaro-Orsini duet, and ~ a unigue textual change that was pre~ sumably instigated by Maray-— with the substitution of Lucrezia’s final cabaletta, “Era desso”, by a ca- baletta from Bellini’s II pirata, “Ah sole ti veda”. However, there are clear signs of Donizetti’s in- volvement in at least two important further addi- tions: 13.As just one example, see the lengthy seview in II Censore wa versae dei ear (5 November 1836), 14 Inlet4ta Donizett mentioned that Ungher, following his advice, had been persuaded o perform only one verse of the final cabaleta “Bra desso 15, There is also the strange ase of L'amare di madre al cimento, a semicprivate performance atthe Accademia Flarmonicain Rome fon 11 December 1838, which included an 18-year-old Enrico Tam- bet as Gennaro. LVI 1. At the start of Act 2, Gennaro has a Scena and Romanza (“Partir degg’io [...] T’amo qual s’ama un’angelo”), of which an autograph score sur- vives, in Donizetti’s hand, in the Pierpont Mor- gan Library of New York (AP™), As the first page of AP™ makes clear (see the description in the Sources section), Donizetti dedicated the aria to Ivanoff. Whether he (or anyone else) actually performed it must remain in some doubt: certain- ly in at least one future revival in which Ivanoff sang Gennaro, in Lugo in 1841, the tenor per- formed at this juncture an insert aria by Mer- cadante. 2. Just before the end of the opera, Gennaro has an additional arioso which begins “Madre, se ognor ontano”. As we shall see later, several singers claimed to have been the inspiration for this solo, which was clearly written by Donizetti; but this version (which, according to the text in EU, is very close to the opening section of our Ap- pendix 4b) seems to be its first occurrence. ‘The issue of where, or even whether, this Eu- storgia took place cannot at present be resolved. It is perhaps significant that future revivals of the ‘opera under this title took place primarily in the re~ gion of present-day Emilia-Romagna (then the Pa- pal States), and that one of them, at the Comunale in Faenza in 1842, included two of the singers (Maray and Ivanoff) mentioned in EU, but un- fortunately no libretto connected to that revival seems to have survived. It is possible that a rela~ tively minor theatre of this region might have staged Eustorgia in 1838, but at present we must leave the issue unresolved. Donizetti's evident contribution to this mysteri- ‘ous Eustorgia was not, however, his only — or even his primary — involvement with Lucrezia Borgia in 1838 (if indeed the performance in question occurred in that year). That involvement took place in what ‘was then his operatic home-town of Naples; such is, its complexity that it requires a section of its own. Naples 1838 (by Eleonora Di Cintio) ‘The Neapolitan story of Lucrezia Borgia’s reception is as intricate as itis unfortunate. Prince Torella, Pre~ sident of the Societa d’ Industria e Belle Arti, which managed the royal theatres at that time through the impresario Alessandro Lanari,'® tried to get the opera 16, Jeremy Commons, “Leta ei Doniaeti, in 1! Teatro San Cart 1737-1987. Liopera& it ballo, Bruno Cagli a Agostino Zin? (eds) (Naples, 1987), pp. 179-323: 186. ceedsstageat the Teatro San Carlo — probably for a gala eventg!” — for the first time in May 1834, just a few montls after the Milanese premiere.'* In two letters to Giovanni Ricordi, on 23 and 27 May 1834, Doni Zatti explained that Giuseppina Ronzi de Begnis, one Of the principal prima donnas at the San Carlo, had sent a letter of recommendation to the Soprin- tendente generale dei Teatri e Spetacoli, prince Rut- fano, wging approval of the title.!? But Ron2i’s ad- vocacy was in vain. Lucrezia must already have been arousing some notoriety among the Neapolitan au- thorities: the title was formally refused because inap- propriate for a gala evening” ‘Two years later, in 1836, the Societa d'Industria, whose contract with the royal theatres had ended in Easter of that year,2! was tasked with the manage- ‘ment of another theatre, the Teatro Nuovo, and again submitted the opera to the censor, this time under the title La cena della vendetta, But its true identity was soon recognized and it was again rejected 2 We do not know whether Donizetti and the ‘Naples impresario Domenico Barbaja, who in 1836 had once again taken over the management of the Royal Theatres, were informed of these strong cen- sorial objections ~ those of Ruffa in particular — which would prove decisive in all subsequent at- tempts to stage Lucrezia in Naples during this pe- riod. Probably they were not, as a few months after that refusal, in April 1837, both composer and im- presario submitted to the censor another trans- formation of Lucrezia, this time entitled Elisa Fo- sco; and then, when that was rejected,?3 made yet another attempt in July, keeping the same title.* But, as mentioned, this second Elisa was again un- masked and duly rejected. In Augost 1838, with anew censor (Gaetano Roy- x) and anew Soprintendente dei Teatri e Spettacoli (Gl duca di Laurino), Donizetti made a further pro- 17. Paologiovanni Maione and Francesca Seller, “L'vltima sta- sione napoletana di Domenico Barbaja (1836-1840): organiz- Zazione e spettacolo”, Rivista italiana di maisicologia, XXVU, 1. 12 (1992), pp. 287-325, 18. Let from Torella tothe Soprintendente generale dei Teatr ¢ ‘Spetacoli, principe di Ruffano, 31 May 1834, in Archivio Storico i Napoli (henceforh ASN), T.f. 38. 19.2.139 and. 14, 20. ASN, Ministero della Polizia, { Ripatimento, I pat, f. 1842, esp. 501, Vol. 1, £3 21. Commons, “L'et di Donizetti”, 186. 22. ASN, Ministero dela Polizia, IRipartimento, I pare, f. 1842, sp. 521 vol, parte 2, purally quoted in BIC, p. 374 23, Nate from the Ministero de Intero, 7 Say 1837,in ASN, MLL, inv, 360M 24. ASN, TE 39 23 July 1837), posal, one that occurred during a criss itself created by problems with Neapolitan censorship: in that month, the censor had rejected the libretto of Poliuto, a new opera Donizetti had written especially for Naples.25 As well as worsening an already difficult situation between the composer and the Neapolitan theatrical authorities, this refusal caused consider- able financial loss to the San Carlo management.26 Five days after sending a new libretto, now called Elisa Fosco, to the censor (25 August), Barbaja complained to Laurino that concerning “Flisa Fosco the censor does not seem convinced, and the Mini- stro degli Affari Interni does not intend to give his consent to it being staged”.”” This suspicion must have been shared by Donizetti 2* Pia de’ Tolomei, also presented at this time to fill the gap left by the banning of Poliuto, was, however, approved at the start of September (albeit with various adjustments stipulated)” and Barbaja took advantage of the ‘200d news to try to force Laurino’s hand further. 20 But Pia de’ Tolomei was not a completely new opera, thus potentially making contractual difficul- ties for the impresario, On 11 September, very soon after having heard that Pia was approved, Barbaja asked the Soprintendente whether this released the management from its obligations to the Govern ment.2! In reply, Laurino did not give the impresario the assurances he expected, saying that'an opera new for Naples was not the equivalent of a com- pletely new work.}? Laurino thus requested the im- presario to prepare for the San Carlo an opera in ad- dition to Pia But then, in a note dated 15 September, the censor passed on to the Ministero del!’Interno the rejection of Elisa Fosco.® Barbaja replied immediately to Laurino, stating his willingness to stage another title, and mentioning Donizetti, “whose only wish is to adhere to the wise reflections of Your Excellency”; 25. Gactano Donizei,Polito, Wiliam Ashoook and Roger Parker (eds.,in The Operas of Gaetano Donizet (Milan, 2000), Historical Introduction, pp. 13-24: 18-21, 26, Leer rom BarbgjatoLaurino, 20 August 1838, in ASN, £40 21. Letter rom Barbajato Laurino, 25 August 1838, in ASN, T, £40, 28, Z.311. On this let, see also Ashbrook, Donizetti, p. 135. 29. See Gaetano Denizet, Pia de’ Tolomet, Giorgio Pagannone (ed), in The Operas of Gaetano Donieet (Milan, 2007), Historical Introduction, pp. x-exva: 20am 30, Letter from Barbaja to Laurin, 7 September 1838, in ASN, T, £40. 31. Barbaja to Laurino, 11 September 1838, in ASN, £40. 32. Leter from Laurno to Barbaj, 13 September 1838, in ASN, T,£40, 33, Letter from Gaetano Royer tothe Ministo dell interno, 15 Sep, tember 1838, in ASN, M.L Tiny f, 4360/L. « Lvhe said that the composer proposed two operas that had only been performed on foreign soil: a Leonora (inseality a version of Rosmonda d’Inghilterra) and an Adelinda (later called Dalinda, in reality a further version of Lucrezia Borgia). As he bad already done with Elisa Fosco, Barbaja omitted any infor- ‘mation that might link the two titles to previously ex- isting works: any further obstacles to approval would have meant postponing Donizetti's departure for Paris, agreed for the start of October and a journey for which the impresario had already asked Laurino for a passport on 20 September.*> Donizetti was clearly annoyed by this seemingly infinite series of refusals and requests for modifica- tion by the censor and was also worried that the de- lay would compromise his impending departure. As a result, he made extensive changes to the score of Lucrezia (to convert it into Dalinda), consigning his work to Barbaja towards the end of September.** His efforts were, however, in vain: on 15 February 1839, by which time Donizetti had been away from Naples for several months, both operas were once more rejected;?" the rejection was accompanied by ‘yet more stern words from the censor, who declared that Dalinda was nothing more than a “name sub- stituted for that of Lucrezia Borgia, a drama that this, Ministero has severely banned, under whatever ‘name of in whatever form itis dressed up”.8 Lucrezia Borgia would have to wait until 1848 to be performed at the San Carlo, But even if the vi- cissitudes suffered by the opera and its composer produced no performances, they were nevertheless ‘a significant moment in the life of the work, as sev- eral sources testify. The first of these is a manuscript libretto of Elisa Fosco at the Biblioteca del Conser- vatorio di Musica “San Pietro a Majella” of Na- ples.2” Although this libretto is not dated, itis prob- ably the one presented to the censor for the first time in April 1837: apart from changes to the characters’ 54, Letter from Barbaja to Laurino, 15 September 1838, in ASN, 7,640. 35. Letter from Barbsja to Laurino, 20 September 1838, in ASN, Tf. 40. 36, na eter to Barba dated 2 October 1838, Laurino recalled 10 ‘he impresario that “With yesterday’s report you assured mo that ‘Cavalier Donizetti as consigned to you the two scores Leonora an ainda composed by him’ in ASNT. 40, 237. Letter from Laurino to Barbaja, 22 February 1839, in ASN, a0, 38, Letter from Royer tothe Ministro del'Intemo, 6 December 1838, in ASN, M. L,I inv, £43600 39, ,-Ne, Rai 10.11.32; an incomplete copy ofthe same work has the shelf-mark Res 101132110, LVL names and some minor modifications, it is almost identical to MI" and thus with no need of musical revisions. At present, there are no sources, either of the libretto or the music, that allow us (0 review the state of Elisa Fosco when it was re-proposed to the censor in July 1837 and then in August 1838. How- ever, what do survive in the same library is a man- script libretto of Dalinda (IN®), and a fair copy of that libretto — very likely the version presented to the censor in 1838 and then rejected. In Dalinda the protagonist is the wife of Acmet (© Alfonso), an Ishmaelite king during the Third Crusade (late twelfth century). Dalinda has had an illegitimate son (Iidemaro = Gennaro) who is now, with his friend Ugo (= Maffio Orsini), a knight in Richard 1 of England’s army, which has laid siege to Acmet's kingdom. In spite of a plot very similar to that of Lucrezia Borgia, the libretto of Dalinda makes clear that Donizetti and his (unknown) poet ‘made substantial changes to various parts of the opera to suit its new surroundings. The broad layout of Dalinda in IN¢ can also be seen in I-Ne1, a manuscript orchestral score, origi- nally a copy of Lucrezia Borgia made by various hands in or after 1836. As witnessed by copious an- notations by Donizetti (and others), this was the text used by the composer to transform Lucrezia into Dalinda. In this form, the score was consigned by Donizetti to Barbaja in late September 1838. But af- ter the final ban of the opera, it had to remain unused in Naples. “Most of these changes, as mentioned earlier, fol- low INS. In Act 1 Donizetti reused all the music from the Prologue of Lucrezia, maintaining the original ‘order of scenes and for the most part merely chang- ing the vocal lines when the text differed (which was ‘a good deal of the time). However, his changes to Act 2 were much more substantial. For the Coro dei seguaci di Acmet (“Nell’ospital soggiomo”) that opens N. 3 of Dalinda, he used mm, 1-120 of the Pezzo concertato (N. 8) of Lucrezia, although ef- fecting a large cut (mm. 67-110). After the Coro, he ‘wrote a brief recitativo accompagnato (vv. 10-18 of INS, an autograph fragment now held in the Biblio- teca Civica “Angelo Mai” in Bergamo.*° For the fol- lowing recitative, which precedes Acmet’s aria, he reused mm. 1-40 of the Recitativo between Alfonso and Rustighello that opens N. 5 of Lucrezia. As in the preceding Coro, the composer left untouched ‘most of the orchestral material, but rewrote the vocal parts to accommodate the substantially new Dalinda text. After Acmet’s aria (the only autograph portion 40,1-Bmai, MMB 510, 11F¥. howsof I-Net still missing), he wrote another few meas- ures dfrecilative, now also housed in Bergamo,’ and then Joined them with N. 5 of Lucrezia (mm. 42-128, but With cuts), again partially rewriting the vocal parts and adjusting some chords in the recitative. 4413 of Dalinda according to IN¢ opened with a large two-movement aria for Ildemaro, “Dove mi guidi? [...] Deh! Gran Dio!” Together with the fol- lowing Coro “f: bella la stella”, this was the largest addition to the score and the most important one, constituting as it did a completely new beginning to the list act. The pages that bear this music, in Donizetti's hand, are now housed in the Biblio- th8que nationale de France (AP). After the Coro, Donizetti used the Pezzo concer- tato of Lucrezia (N. 8) from m. 393, then moving to the Finale ultimo (N. 9). After m. 122 of N. 9 he added an arioso for Ildemaro “Madre mia.... Pietoso cielo”, whose verses he probably wrote himself (they seem to be in his hand on f. 29r of INS). His autograph of this section are the pages now housed in Bergamo’s Biblioteca Civica “Angelo Mai” (A*™); even if there are some small differences be- tween the verses there and those in INS, the pagina- tion (ff. 38-39) of A*™ exactly matches the missing portions of I-Nel. After this arioso, the finale con- tinues from m, 151, “Madre io moro”, possibly with a cut of mm. 157-161. Although the final cabaletta is present in both verses in I-Nel, after the first ver- se (f. 270) Donizetti wrote “Il Compositore crede una sol volta la cabaletta basti perché dopo [svelto] che & [il] figlio nulla pit resta a dirs”. eae As one can see, this Neapolitan revision of Lucrezia was so extensive as to constitute a different opera: one that cannot easily be integrated into the compo- sitional history of Lucrezia Borgia." For this reason (and with the exception of A™, “Madre mia. Pietoso cielo”, about which see below), we do not include Dalinda materials as Appendix items in this Edition. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the ‘Naples Dalinda is an extremely important record of Donizetti's thinking about Lucrezia during this pe- riod, in particular about the increased importance he ‘wanted to give to the tenor’s role. We will see inter- ¢stin this aspect developing in the next revivals with which the composer was personally involved, in 41, Limai, MMB 510, £30, 42. Eleonora Di Cini is working on the Dando affair the mo- ‘ent nan ticle provisionally entitled “From Lacrecato Dainda Fests into a Untaged Donizets Opera (Naples, 1838), in partion, London and Paris. Reconsidering the role of Gen- naro certainly encouraged Donizetti to revisit the fi- nal moments of the opera. As we have seen, his de- sire, already voiced at the time of the 1836 Florence revival, for the soprano to sing only one verse of “Bra desso” was repeated in I-Nel, but this time the closing scene was further adjusted by a prominent melodic intervention for the tenor. The presence in Dalinda of the arioso “Madre mia... Pietoso cielo”, and this piece’s strong resemblance to the arioso “Madre, se ognor lontano”, which —if we are to trust its date, which is not entirely secure ~ had already appeared in the Eustorgia da Romano libretto dating from 1838 (EU™5), strongly suggests that from now on Donizetti had fundamentally rethought this final scene. London 1839 In 1839 Lucrezia Borgia continued its progress through the operatic world, with premieres in Vien na and Seville in May, and in Budapest, Madrid and Berlin (as well as several Italian revivals) later in the year. But the most prestigious and significant revival took place at London's Her Majesty's Theatre on 6 June 1839, with a cast that included Giulia Grisi (Lucrezia), Giovanni Matteo de Candia, known as “Mario” (Gennaro), Emesta Grisi (Orsini) and An- tonio Tamburini (Alfonso). Sections of the London press were scathing in the extreme about the roman- tic excesses of Hugo's drama, but it is clear that the singers were enjoyed by a good part of the public, particularly Grisi and Mario.” News reached Donizetti surprisingly fast, as he wrote to Tommaso Persico on 14 June: “Lucrezia Borgia in London hada great success with Grisi, Tamburini and Can- dia, the Tenor from the Théatre Italien, who was made to repeat two pieces.™# The libretto of this revival (LO"™), plus other contémporary sources, make clear that the opera had again undergone changes; and given Donizetti's letter of 14 June, quoted above, we can be fairly sure that the composer himself was involved. The major alterations are as follows: 1. The by-now common omission of most of the duet N. 7 (mm, 23-ca, 224) was used to make room for ‘an aria di baule for Mario, “Raggio d’amor pa- rea”, which was an adaptation of a bass aria from Donizetti's I furioso all'isola di San Domingo. 43, See, for example, reviews in the Morning Chronicle (7 June 1839) and the Morning Post (7 June 1838), 44,Z. 3206, in Studi donizertian, 4 (1988) (berefter SD 1988), p.42. “ LIx2. The addition of Gennaro’s arioso “Madre, se cognor lontano” in the final scene, with a text very similar to that found in EU"*, This arioso is, usually thought to have been written for Mario. 3. Inletd1a Donizetti wrote that, following his per- sonal recommendation, Grisi had agreed to sing only one verse of her final cabaletta, “Era desso”. Although we cannot be sure that she made this ‘omission for these London performances (she al- so sang the part elsewhere), itis likely that she did, as the vocal score most closely associated with London, rB, effects this cut, in the process also trimming the aria’s ornamental passages. Milan 1840 1840 is the year that consolidated the gathering rep- ulation of Lucrezia as one of the most successful Donizetti operas. Even counting only important centres, there were around twenty-five revivals of the opera, several of them of high prestige. Two, however, give further evidence that Donizetti con- tinued to be involved in revisions to his score. ‘The first of these was a revival at La Scala on 11 January 1840. The cast was excellent, featuring Er- minia Frezzolini as Luerezia (a part with which she would become strongly identified), Napoleone Mo- riani (Gennaro), Rosina Mazzarelli (Orsini) and Ignazio Marini (Alfonso); in general the reviews were excellent, with little of those reservations about the plot that had been in evidence in 1833.4 Although there is no direct evidence of Donizetti's involvement, itis clear that he had yet again been at work on the score. The libretto (MIF) reveals the following changes: 1. The Gennaro-Orsini duet N. 7 was again omitted, keeping only the surrounding recitative (mm. 36- ca.224 omitted), 2. Gennaro’s arioso “Madre, se ognor lontano” was again in the final scene, in a version very similar to those found in EU! and in the London 1839 revival. Moriani had sung the role at least twice before this Milan revival. 3. The final cabaletta, “Era desso”, was omitted al- together, thus making the finale we report in Ap- pendix 4c. Although the changes to Lucrezia in Halian revivals, would take at least one further tur (see the “Rome 1841” section, below) the second revival of 1840 with which Donizetti was clearly involved took place 45, See, for example, Tati, art leteratura (23 January 1840) and! Pirata (14 Sanaary 1840). Lx in Paris, by then Donizetti's centre of operations and a place in which the tangled history of the score ‘would branch out into yet more surprising directions, Paris 1840 Paris was a particularly important destination for Lucrezia. The French capital was a hotspot of influ- ence and prestige within international operatic net- works; a strong first Parisian outing would also smooth the work’s progress along the same trajec- tory as other Donizetti operas (above all the beloved Lucia), from Paris to numerous provincial French towns and cities, where it would be given in French translation and provide a welcome source of royal- ties. A further focus for Lucrecia’s arrival in Paris ‘was that the city was, of course, home to Victor Hugo and his play Lucréce Borgia, which had con- tinued to thrive on French stages throughout the sev- en years of Lucrezia’s intermittent progression across Italy and beyond. As will be seen, Hugo con- sidered the operatic Lucrezia’s presence in Paris ~ and especially its potential move to provincial French towns in French translation — as a serious threat to the continued popularity of his own work. His reaction sparked a lawsuit that shaped Zu- crezia’s production history in France, giving rise to two further disguises for the work (the French-lan- guage Nizza de Grenade in 1842 and the Italian-lan- guage La Rinegata in 1845. Lucrezia’s first appearance in Paris, at the Theatre Italien, came on 31 October 1840, with three of the same principal singers as in London: Giulia Grisi as ‘Lucrezia, Mario as Gennaro and Antonio Taraburini as Alfonso; Orsini was sung by Luigia Bianchi, and Luigi Lablache appeared as Gazella (an unusually minor role for him: Donizetti had previously imag- ined he would be Alfonso). Some reviewers argued that the performers’ strength compensated for compositional weakness = an attitude shaped by their existing admiration for Hugo's Lucréce and for Romanticism's French (as against Italian) incarnations more broadly. ‘Negative reaction, then, partly had to do with a French sense of ownership of Hugo’s character and plot; what is more, his mouthpiece, La France musi- cale, was the journal owned by the Escudier brothers, who were disgruntled about Lucrezia by this time, having worked on a French translation of the opera that they would now be unable to use. La France mu- sicale developed a negative stance towards Lucrezia and it would continue in the coming months. 46 See the undated eter fom Donizetti to Michsle Costa (probably spring 1839), in SD 1962, pp. 117-18. . 3 »/>scan be seen in the libretto (PA1®), and from ayoeil score by Latte which broadly conforms to it (cL2)" the Paris revival saw yet another round of substantial changes, including important. newly conaPosed passages by Donizetti: 1, The second verse of Lucrezia’s “Com’é bello” (N.2) was omitted and replaced by the cabaletta “Sivoli il primo a cogliere”, included in this Edi- tion as Appendix 1. 2. Although the libretto cannot tell us, itis very like~ ly that the new version of “Oh a te bada” (Ap- pendix 2), written for Florence in 1836, was agiin used. 3, The Act 2 Gennaro-Orsini duet was now omitted entirely, as was the subsequent Coro (although both appear in r12). In their place appears anew Romanza for Mario, included in 11.2 as an ap- pendix and included in this edition as Appendix 3b. 4, Gennaro’s arioso “Madre, se ognor lontano” ap- ‘pears with text identical to that in LO" (also appearing in r1.2) 5. The final cabaletta “Era desso” appears in PA? as it did in LO™; in rL.2 wo verses are printed, butboth are with Donizetti's preferred cuts in the ‘ornamental passages. Gennaro’s Romanza “Anch’io provai"® ‘As mentioned above, it seems highly likely that the. Romanza “Anch’io provai” was written by Donizetti for Mario and first performed at the Théatre Italien on 31 October 1840, then being published in vocal score by Latte (as an Appendix to rL2) and as a pez~ zo staccato by Ricordi (in April 1841) However, the matter becomes more complex when one realises that the aria is plainly inspired by/modelled on an already-existing and well-known aria, sung originally by Almachilde in Giuseppe Lil- o's Rosmunda in Ravenna, an opera created by Napoleone Moriani on 26 December 1837 at La Fenice in Venice. There is no question, particularly as the arias develop, that they are distinct entities; but the composer of the later setting (Donizetti) ‘must surely have had some knowledge of the earlier 47.112 was, however, probably not published until 1842 448. Moch ofthe information in this section comes from material supplisd tous, via email, by Francesco Bello; our thanks once ‘gainto Bellotto fr his generosity in sharing his knowledge ofthe ‘Doni sources. Our thanks aso 1 Fulvio Stefano Lo Prest for Pointing us towards Schira's ara 49, Plate number 12746, The date comes from the Riconi Libroni (oe the “Catalogo numerico Ricard) available online at , ‘one, and perhaps even fashioned his aria in open im- itation of it. We might hypothesise a number of sce~ narios here: an obvious one would be that Mario had heard Moriani or someone else sing the aria, or that one of the cast in London knew of the aria and rec- ‘ommended it to Mario, who then asked Donizetti for something similar for his Paris performance: A frustrating aspect of work on this critical Bai. tion has been that an autograph score of “Anch’io provai” has not come to light, nor even have manu- script copies of the aria been located. However, print- cd parts of the French translation of “Anch’io provai”” (‘Dun pur amour au fond du coeur”) have survived, as an addendum to Latte’s — very rare — first vocal score of the French translation (FL3, with the parts as pL3). Its from these we have been able to recon- struct the orchestral score of the Italian version.5° ee Inthe 1841-42 and 1842-43 seasons, Lucrezia was, revived successfully at the Théatre Italien. Although La France musicale in late 1841 insinuated that some of the enthusiasm was the work of claqueurs, in 1842 theirs was one of a small handful of highly positive reviews of the revival, which was remark- able for the presence of Marietta Brambilla — the original Orsini, but new in the role for Parisian au- diences.®! A further change was the insertion by Mario of an aria by Francesco Schira, presumably in liew of “Anch’io provai” 5? Donizetti basked in Lucrezia’s continued success, writing from Paris to Antonio Vasselli on 7 December 1842 that “Now, I'mb... if Pll send you reports on Borgia, because I’ve burned them all, but you should know that the reception was even better than in previous years”.*3 The lawsuit brought by Victor Hugo in early 1841 did not, then, initially affect Lucrezia perform- ances at the Thé&tre Italien; the legal processes con- cerned the publication and performance of a French translation of the work. Later, legal difficulties ‘would indeed prompt a hiatus in Paris performances 50, Donizetti mentions these French printed parts in eta. Eacly- tweny-first-century recordings ofthe aria, by Juan Diego Flérez and Giuseppe Filianot, are re-orchestrations from the veal score. ‘Florea’s recording appears on his 2004 album Great Tenor Arias (Decea 125888121); Fanos is available on . Sl. “Théitre alien", La France musicale (4 December 1842), pall, 52. The La France musicale article stated that “an unpublished r0- ‘mance by M.Schira, sung deliciously by Mario, made an agrecable ‘contrast withthe rst ofthe work 53.2.459. ae LXIever in Italian, following a series of increasingly hharsh verdictsin 1843 and 1844 in lawsuits that took. the Zacrezia trial as a precedent but were directly concemed with other operas.*# Lucrice Borgia, Metz 1841. By the time Lucrezia was in rehearsal atthe Theatre Italien in the autumn of 1840, preparations were al- so afoot — by Donizetti and others ~ for a French- angbage version to be performed in provincial the- aires. That version would subsequently be published and performed in early 1841: it was translated by Etienne Monnier. ‘Donizetti was closely involved in the preparation of the four-act French version, which appeared in 1841 as a further Latte vocal score (rL3). His ap- proval of the form it took is further confirmed by Jetters quoted in the “Rome 1841” section below, in one of which he suggests, albeit with certain mod- ifications, that the 1841 Rome performances should translate rL.3 back into Italian.°° ‘This French-language Lucréce Borgia offers a version of the opera that is in places startling differ- cent fromall that had gone before, even from the ver- sion of Lucrezia performed in Paris almost simul- taneously (and captured in PA" and r1.2). One fundamental change is that the part of Orsini is sung, by a baritone and that various omamental passages for the character were for this reason omitted. It will be best to outline the main structural differences (as they appear in rL3) in chronological order, ignoring the myriad small details necessitated by the new lan- guage and using the Italian titles for ease of cross- reference: 1, As in Paris, the second verse of Lucrezia’s *Com’é bello” in N. 2 is omitted and replaced by the cabaletta “Si vol il primo cogliere”, in- cluded in this Edition as Appendix 1. 2. Thereis acut from m. 360 tom. 373 in N. 2, with ‘a two-measure addition to make the transition. 3. There is a cut of mm, 75-99 in N. 3, with twelve measures of recitative added. 4, After Alfonso’s cabaletta in N. 3 there isa forty- ssix-measure insertion, half of which is the mu- sic cut from mm. 75-101. Sk The 1841-42 and 1842-43 perforrimoes are incbuded in Kau Tan's atcle, but te misconception that Hugo's lawsuit stopped all Lneezia performances in France appears in Ashbrook and in Chis tion ‘Sprang’s otherwise extremely valuable Grand Opéra vor GGerich (aden Baden, 1993), See Kaufman, "Lucrezia Borgia, 61; Ashbrook, Donizetti, p. 135 and p, 655 (footnote 90); and ‘Sprang, Grand Opéra p. U3. 55.2. 36. Lx 5, Mm. 1-39 are missing from the start of N. 5. 6. The new version of “Oh a te bada” (Appendix 2) is used in N. 5. Mi. 328-333 of N. 5 are omitted. ‘The new Act3 (thatis, Nn. 6-7 of Lucrezia) be- gins with the tenor Romanza “Anch’io provai This is different from its placement in PA'*®, where it appears after N. 6. 9, There is acut at the end of the Gennaro-Orsini duet (N. 7), mm. 209-224, with seven new measures to fill the gap. 10, Inthe Coro at the end of N. 7, a substantial new section (nineteen measures) is added after m. 278, the original music picking up at m. 282; there is then a thirteen-measure ff ending not present in earlier versions. 11. There is a cut in the opening Coro of N. & (om. 188-200). 12. Between m. 402 and m, 405 of N. 8 there is a brief “quotation” from the final cabaletta, “Era desso”; the passage from mm, 418-30 is also rewritten and expanded, 13. “Madre se ognor lontano” is added to N. 9, and then a new ending is fashioned, with no “Era al di titi atenti Ors. ; Larghetto 4 125 Ors. : AML ~ bil guer - ma, fe - ri-to © qua - sie~ fie-rae terri oe SSS SS SSS Ri - mi- ni fe - ri-to © qua - sie~ Ors. ~ bil guerra © me-mo-ra Ane], mi gia-ce-va a ter ~ ni-me io. Ors. Lapartealterativa di Ors. & trata dalla fonteautografa AI; vedi Note 141616Ors, AL E il suo de-strier mi por il suo de-strier mi por = tras se tras -se 14161618 Ors. Amel Ors. “0. Liverotto Lasua virti' co-no-sco, la sua_pie-ta - de io so. Vitellozz0 Lasua virti co-no-sco, Ja sua pie-ta - deo so. Gubetta ‘c0- n0-800, Lasua virt® pie-ta- de io la sua_pie-ta-de io ° % La sua vir-ti Pie-ta - deo ° ° pie-ta - deio 14161619 Ws Ors, A*L == La nel-la not - Ors. | Ss - te | Gab Pet | Guz. ORO re 148 pi-glian - pi-glian-do e spe 1161620 ] Anel se-co giu-rai Ors. se-co giu-rai i e di mo-ri-re in - sie - me. ain sf p, Ors. ani Ein-siem mor-te- te, al - lo vo - Ge gri- dd f, ) Ors. Ein-siem mor-re- te, al- lo Ors. AML eun ve-glioin ve. - Ors. eun ve-glioin ve - 141616-gan - tea noi | -gan - fea noi Liverotto Vitellozzo Gubetta Petrucci Sof - fr Sof - fi 141616 21 Ss, Fug - gi - tei Bor-gia, f, Fug - gi - tei Bor-gia, 022 Ors, AML ci re-pli-cd Ors. ei pro-se-gui Liv. Qual ma-goe-gl'e-ra PP Vit. Z Qual ma-go e-gl’e-ra PP. Gub. 2 ‘Qual ma-goe-gre-ra PP| Pet. = Qual ma-go e-gl'e-ra PP Gaz. : Qual ma-goe-gle-ra PP. On. fal tea goe-gl'e-ra me ° ‘Qual ma-goe-gle-ra 1g Ors. Ane O-dioal-la rea Lu ~ cre-zia.. Ors. O-dioal-la rea Lu ~ 141616On. AM Ors. coRO 17% f ‘mor Liverotto Vitellozzo Petrucci Gazella M1616 2324. 173 apiacere Ors. AML, Spar-ve cid det - to: Ors. Ors. AnL = to quel no - mech'io de - te-sto Ors, = to quel no - mech'i-o de - te-sto An 1416167 — Allegro Ors, APL Ors. Liverotto Vitellozzo Guberta Petrucci la1616Liv. Vit. Gub. Pet. coRO M4166 q27 141616vit. Gub. Pet. Gaz. coRO 28 14161629Vit Gub. coRO 14161633 zm Vivace Liv. Vit Gub. Pet. Gaz, Vivace panda 207 Sen-ti, 14161634 oRO c Ia dan-zain ~ vi-tarci 222 con vivacita pas = siam [a ott in Hy % Ban - do, ban-doa ti stim ° —. S On Ban - do, ban-doa si i-stim - ma ~ gi-ne. pas - siam ta notte in Banda ¢ orchestra quel-I'em-pia fem mi-na quel-Vem-pia fem = min 1ai616