Why did Congeve’s Semele Flop? Analysis of Historical Context

by Insoo Oh 

In terms of musical performances of the myth of Semele, George Frideric Handel’s (1685 - 1759) rendition is probably the most well known. This musical drama which fuses elements of opera, oratorio, and classical drama was composed on 4 July 1743, then premiered in the Covent Garden Theatre on 10 February 1744. Handel was inspired by a pre-existing opera libretto written by English playwright and poet William Congreve (1670 - 1729) which was written in 1706. What is fascinating is that it was not as if Congreve’s adaptation of the myth of Semele in Ovid’s Metamorphoses was an unfinished hidden gem, waiting to be discovered and finalized by a reputable composer. Before Handel wrote his rendition of Semele, Congreve worked with composer John Eccles (1668 - 1735) and were on their way to premiering their own version of Semele. How was it that this dynamic duo was not able to get Semele performed? 

Congreve was writing some of the most popular English plays, riding on the wave of the Restoration Period. Having written 4 comedies, a tragedy, and a masque, Congreve entertained his audiences, but also challenged them. Being one of the first playwrights to have actresses play the roles of women instead of actos, he became a distinguished figure at the time. His ability to expose the faults of society through his witty, satirical dialogue and lyrics was generally enjoyed by audiences, having “caught the accent of the time” (2).

John Eccles in 1700 was given the position of “Master of the King's Musick”, serving directly under the monarch of England. Additionally, he was the successor after the death of Henry Purcell, becoming the next  preeminent theatre composer in London. Being the composer in residence at Drury Lane (an incredibly reputable theatre venue since the establishment of its first theatre in 1663 that continues to program theatre works today) from 1693, he had already written music for the plays of Congreve. Additionally he was the favoured composer of Anne Bracegirdle, London’s most popular actress, who would exclusively sing the compositions of Eccles.

John Eccles                                                   William Congreve

The Semele opera written by Congreve and Eccles remained unperformed until the 20th century, but Handel’s Semele was performed four times during the original run, and then another two times in the same year. Even today, Handel’s Semele has stood the tests of time and is still regularly performed and frequently fully staged by many opera houses around the world. What happened to prevent Congreve’s and Eccles’ version of Semele to be premiered?

In the early 18th century, the time Semele (Congreve/Eccles) was written, there was a lot of political tension in Britain because of the uncertainty of the future of the English monarchy. Starting in 1688 the Glorious Revolution took place, which involved the overthrow of the previous king, James II by his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange. Additionally, once the Dutchman William of Orange succeeded the throne, the English monarchy passed the Act of Settlement (1701) to ensure a Protestant successor to the throne and the Act of Union (1707) which extended the policy to Scotland. The consequences of the Glorious Revolution were exposing the legitimacy of a monarch’s divine privilege to rule. William of Orange was not a relative of James II and would not have the crown by ordinary means, and to intensify the political sweep, William had a regime to ostracize Catholicism from Britain as the new monarchy was Protestant. This opposition to the traditional values of succession caused the new monarchy to develop an intense desire to persuade the public into accepting their rule as legitimate.

Prince of Orange Landing at Torbay - William Miller (1852)

There was a great schism between political factions of England. On one side, the Whigs argued that because of the successful overthrow by William III, this was a sign of God’s divine favour as the true defenders of the Protestant religion. In contrast, many Tories and Anglicans still felt unable to renew their oath of allegiance, as their oaths to James II were still absolute. The relationship between politics and religion caused the public to develop fears, anxiety, and question the concept of divine favor as a justification to protect “true religion”.

Two incidents in particular aggravated this anxiety. First, in 1700, the Duke of Gloucester, the sole male heir of Queen Anne, died. Anne's health subsequently declined, and it was clear that after 17 failed pregnancies, the Protestant line of the Stuarts would end with her. In the following year, James II died as a person in exile. English politics was so deeply woven in with Christianity, specifically, the established church, but these shifts in political power and their respective transition in faith made people in all ranges of the socioeconomic strata to feel insecure about their personal relationship with the political situation, but also by association, with God. In a more secular world today it may not seem significant, but the neglect of Christianity was not even a popular thought by contemporaries, as it was one’s “hope and understanding, experience and identity” (3). 

This concern about the safety and status of the established church and the political order was reflected in the active conversion movement, which reduced the number of opposition parties by half between 1690 and 1740. In 1710, the public reacted strongly to Dr. Sacheverell's trial. The Anglican Church of the British Church preached in front of the Corporation of London, in which he argued that the Whig Party’s restrictive and tolerant policy had led to division and heresy, saying that the tolerant Hogg Party "clearly referred to "false brethren." 27 His preaching was published for the public in November 25, 1709, and it immediately sold 100,000 copies. He was persecuted by the government as a criminal as his criticism stung many government members. But his trial in the House of Lords, Westminster Hall was remodeled to accommodate a group of people violently attacking Sacheverell's identified opponent. The trial was a disaster. The government was not only losing control of furious and blashphemous heretics, but  journalism and satirical art became more accessible to the public. 

Daniel Burgess’s Presbyterian meeting-house in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, is wrecked by the mob in the Sacheverell riots of 1710.

Civil unrest made the government desperate to reform the attitudes of the people. The ideology that earning God’s favour just as significant as work ethic, if not more, was still a commonly accepted idea that would persist until the 1740’s. In a chaotic and divided nation, it became imperative that the leaders of Britain instill religious and patriotic integrity in the people. The reformation of the manners of the people became a mission that also expanded to the arts, London theatre specifically.

Semele was written in the midst of this conflict, and it makes sense why the monarchy took measures in cancelling it’s production. It is true that there was no court theatre that acted as an extension of the ruler and London theatres were privately owned businesses. William III was uninterested in theatre and there was a lack of cultural direction through the influence of the king. Of course the political elite still had some leeway with theatre production, but this weaker relationship changed theatre content. 

Theatre in this time period was a reflection of the world. It highlighted the expected political and social expectations, along with the consequences of the people who fail to meet those standards. The freedom to expose the flaws of political groups of society was one of the liberties of English theatre. In 1695, the 1662 Licensing Act was allowed to lapse. Theatre was meant to be material where audiences can analyze and interpret many depths of meaning. 

Congreve was especially famous for implicit morality, and in Semele he illustrates the conflict between age and power versus youth and beauty. The whole plot is a failed royal marriage and toxic side relationship with the divine monarch, Jupiter. In a time, where the royal family is conflicted with legitimacy in the right to rule, Anne is a failure of a mother to produce an heir, and the parliament’s desire to convince the people to accept the Protestant William III with the God given right to rule, it is easy to understand why the higher political powers desired to censor this production. As an opera that is mocking of the gods, sensual, and erotic, it provoked the monarchy at an unacceptable time, regardless of how engaging it would have been to an audience. Perhaps it’s attractive artistic and aesthetic qualities make the piece even more dangerous. 

We can actually find the reaction of a conservative, non-juring, Anglican clergyman, Jeremy Collier, who reacts to Restoration comedies as a whole, specifically those of Congreve, as he was one of the recognizable master playwrights of the genre. In 1698, Collier published A Short View of the Profaneness and Immorality of the English Stage, where he states that “The Business of Plays is to recommend Vertue and discountenance Vice” (4). It seems as though Collier was unhappy with the implicit morals, and his questioning of authority. Criticism of the monarchy or the clergy would undermine the political and religious control that authorities were granted through divination. 

Jeremy Collier and the controversial book: A Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the English Stage 

Although the original plan was for the opera to premiere at the new Queen’s Theatre in 1707, the Lord Chancellor gave a new patron, Christopher Rich control over all London opera productions. Although Congreve and Eccles rearranged a performance at Drury Lane, Rich never finalized the project. Later in 1710, Congreve published the libretto, but as the new Italian opera seria became mainstream, the music of Eccles faded away from the limelight. Thankfully, 34 years after the libretto was published, Handel was able to successfully resurrect Congreve’s work as an oratorio. 

Bibliography

1. Andrews, John K. “The Historical Context of Handel's Semele.” CiteSeerX, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.456.7156.

2. W. Congreve, The Complete Plays of William Congreve ed. H. Davis (Chicago, 1967).

3. D. Beales, ‘Religion and Culture’ in T.C.W. Blanning, The Eighteenth Century, Europe 1688-1815 (Oxford, 2000), pp131-77. Whilst they differ on the extent of it, this view is shared by all mainstream historians of the period. See Clark, English Society, p48; Colley, Britons, p19; Hoppit, A Land of Liberty?

4. J. Collier, A Short View of the Profaneness and Immorality of the English Stage &c With the Several Defences of the Same In Answer to Mr Congreve, Dr. Drake &c (5th ed. London, 1738). This was the same year that the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge (SPCK) was founded. Hoppit, A Land of Liberty?, p236