# A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Sacchini, Antonio

From volume 3 of the work.
​SACCHINI, Antonio maria Gaspare, born at Pozzuoli, near Naples, on July 23, 1734. This 'graceful, elegant, and judicious composer' as Burney calls him, who enjoyed great contemporary fame, and was very popular in this country, was the son of poor fisherpeople who had no idea of bringing him up to any life but their own. It chanced however that Durante heard the boy sing some popular airs, and was so much struck with his voice and talent that he got him admitted into the Conservatory of San Onofrio, at Naples. Here he learned the violin from Niccolo Forenza, and acquired a considerable mastery over the instrument, which he subsequently turned to good account in his orchestral writing. He studied singing with Gennaro Manna; harmony and counterpoint with Durante himself, who esteemed him highly, holding him up to his other pupils, among whom were Jommelli, Piccinni and Guglielmi, as their most formidable rival. Durante died in 1755, and in the following year Sacchini left the Conservatorio, but not until he had produced an Intermezzo, in two parts, 'Fra Donate,' very successfully performed by the pupils of the institution. For some years he supported himself by teaching singing, and writing little pieces for minor theatres, till, in 1762, he wrote a serious opera for the Argentina theatre at Rome. This was so well received that he remained for seven years attached to the theatre as composer, writing operas not only for Rome but many other towns. Among these, 'Alessandro nelle Indie,' played at Venice in 1768, was especially successful, and obtained for its composer, in 1769, the directorship of the 'Ospedaletto' school of music there. He seems to have held this office for two years only, but during that time formed some excellent pupils, among whom may be mentioned Gabrieli, Canti, and Pasquali.
In 1771 he left Venice, and proceeded by way of Munich, Stuttgart, and other German towns, to England, arriving in London in April 1772. His continental fame had preceded him to this country, and a beautiful air of his, 'Care luci,' introduced by Guarducci into the pasticcio of 'Tigrane,' as early as 1767, had, by its popularity, paved the way for his music. True, a strong clique existed against the new composer, but he soon got the better of it. 'He not only ​supported the high reputation he had acquired on the Continent, but vanquished the enemies of his talents in England. His operas of the "Cid" and "Tamerlano," were equal, if not superior, to most of the musical dramas performed in any part of Europe; indeed each of these dramas was so entire, so masterly, and yet so new and natural, that there was nothing left for criticism to censure, though innumerable beauties to point out and admire.' (Burney.)
In addition to the operas named above, he produced here 'Lucio Vero' and 'Nitetti e Perseo.' His perfect comprehension of the art of writing for the voice, and the skill with which he adapted his songs to their respective exponents, contributed an important element to the success of his music, even indifferent singers being made to appear to advantage. His popularity, however, was undermined after a time, from a variety of causes. Jealousy led to cabals against him. 'Upon a difference with Rauzzini, this singer, from a friend, became a foe, declaring himself to be the author of the principal songs in all the late operas to which Sacchini had set his name, and threatening to make an affidavit of it before a magistrate. The utmost of this accusation that can be looked upon as true may have been that during Sacchini's severe fits of the gout, when he was called upon for his operas before they were ready, he employed Rauzzini, as he and others had done Anfossi in Italy, to fill up the parts, set some of the recitatives, and perhaps compose a few of the airs for the under singers.' (Burney.) He would probably have lived down this calumny, prompted as it was by personal spite, but his idle and dissolute habits estranged his friends, impaired his health, and got him deeply into debt, the consequence of which was that he left this country and settled in Paris—Burney says in 1784; Fétis in 1782. It seems probable that this last date is correct, as several of his operas were produced in the French capital during 1783–4. He had been there on a visit in 1781, when his 'Isola d'Amore,' translated by Framéry and adapted to the French stage, was played there successfully, under the name of 'La Colonie.' His 'Olimpiade' is said to have been deprived of a hearing through the jealousy of Gluck. Burney says, that in Paris Sacchini was almost adored. His works were often performed and widely popular there after his death, but during his life his luck seems to have been almost invariably bad. He started with an apparent advantage in the patronage of Joseph II. of Austria, who was in Paris at the time, and recommended the composer to the protection of his sister, Marie Antoinette. Thanks to this, he obtained a hearing for his 'Rinaldo' (rearranged and partly re-written for the French stage as 'Renaud'), and for 'Il gran Cid,' which, under the name of 'Chimène,' was performed before the Court at Fontainebleau. Both of these works contained great beauties, but neither had more than a limited success. 'Dardanus,' a French opera, was not more fortunate, in 1784. Œdipe à Colone' was finished early in 1785. This, his masterpiece, brought him his bitterest disappointment. The Queen had promised that 'Œdipe' should be the first opera at the royal theatre during the Court's next residence at Fontainebleau. The time was approaching, but nothing was said about it, and Sacchini remarked with anxiety that the Queen avoided him and seemed uneasy in his presence. Suspense became intolerable, and he sought an audience, when the Queen unwillingly and hesitatingly confessed the truth. 'My dear Sacchini, I am accused of showing too much favour to foreigners. I have been so much pressed to command a performance of M. Lemoine's "Phèdre" instead of your "Œdipe" that I cannot refuse. You see the situation; forgive me.' Poor Sacchini controlled himself at the moment, but on arriving at home gave way to despair. The Queen's favour lost, he believed his only chance gone. He took to his bed then and there, and died three months afterwards, on October 7, 1786. [App. p.778 "add that the opera of 'Oedipe' was performed at Versailles, Jan. 2, 1786."]
It is very difficult to form a just estimate of this composer, whose merits were great, yet whose importance to the history of Art seems now so small. The dramatic music of the end of the last century is summed up to us in the operas of Gluck and Mozart, exclusive of many others, akin to these in style and tendency, deficient only in the vital element which makes one work live while others die out. At the time of their production the line may have seemed more difficult to draw. One drop of essence may be distilled from a large quantity of material, yet without the proportion of material, that drop would not be obtained. Among the second-rate writers of this transition period, Sacchini must rank first. A little more force, perhaps a little less facility, and he might have been a great, instead of a clever, or a 'graceful, elegant and judicious' composer. He, better than most Italians, seems to have understood the dawning idea of the 'poetical basis of music'; unfortunately the musical ideas, of which the super-structure must (after all) consist, while good and appropriate as far as they went, were limited. His dramatic sense was keen and just, but was not backed by sufficient creative power to make a lasting mark. Fear, remorse, love, hatred, revenge,—these things repeat themselves in the world's drama from Time's beginning to its end, but their expressions are infinite in variety. They repeat themselves, too, in Sacchini's operas, but always in very much the same way. In his later works, the influence of Gluck's spirit is unmistakeable. There is a wide gulf between such early Italian operas as 'L'Isola d'Amore,' consisting of the usual detached series of songs, duets, and concerted pieces, and the 'Œdipe a Colone,' where each number leads into the next, and where vigorous accompanied recitative and well-contrasted, dialogued choruses carry on and illustrate the action of the drama, while keeping alive the interest of the hearer. Burney remarks that Sacichini, 'observing how fond the English were of Handel's oratorio choruses, introduced ​solemn and elaborate choruses into some of his operas; but, though excellent in their kind, they never had a good effect; the mixture of English singers with the Italian, as well as the awkward figure they cut as actors, joined to the difficulty of getting their parts by heart, rendered those compositions ridiculous which in still life would have been admirable.' In Paris they managed these things better, for in all the operas of Sacchini's which were composed or arranged for the French stage, choruses are used largely and with admirable effect, while in 'Œdipe' they are the principal feature. A somewhat similar transition to this is apparent in comparing Piccinni's earlier and later works; but his French operas are only Italian ones modified and enlarged. Sacchini had far more dramatic spirit, and took more kindly to the change. He bears the kind of relation to Gluck that Piccinni does to Mozart, but he approached his model more nearly, for he handled Gluck's theory almost as well as Gluck himself: had he possessed the one thing lacking—force of originality, there might have been more in his works for 'criticism to censure,' but they might not now have been forgotten. As it was, they made a hard struggle for life. The 'Œdipe' was continuously on the boards of the Académie for 43 years (from 1787 to 1830), which can be said of no other opera. During this time it had 583 representations. It was revived in July 1843, and was performed six times in that year and once in May, 1844.
Sacchini understood orchestral as well as choral effect. His scores are small, oboes, horns, and sometimes trumpets and bassoons, being the only additions to the string quartet, but the treatment is as effective as it is simple. His partwriting is pure and good, while the care and finish evident in his scores is hard to reconcile with the accounts of his idle and irregular ways. The same technical qualities are shown in his compositions for the church, which in other ways are less distinguished than his operas from contemporary works of a similar kind.
[ F. A. M. ]