was absolute and his flow of invention unlimited. He accumulated a considerable fortune, and was never married. From 1726 he was a naturalized British subject.
130. His Style and Significance.—Since Handel lived through the whole first half of the century, he was contemporary with all the masters who have been considered. Yet his contact with most of them was casual or altogether lacking. His youth was spent in the atmosphere of German church music and the Hamburg opera. In Italy for a time he was intimate with musicians at Venice, Rome and Naples. Later he made several hurried trips to the Continent in search of singers. Many good performers worked under him in London, and a few composers competed with him. Up to the middle of his career he was probably cognizant of the chief tendencies of the operatic world.
The closest personal influences upon Handel in Germany came from
Zachau, his first teacher, from the Hamburg triumvirate, Keiser, Mattheson
and Telemann, though only the first was old enough to be significant,
and from Steffani, who was a close friend for years. In Italy he certainly
met Lotti, Corelli and the two Scarlattis, competing with Domenico on
the harpsichord and organ. The Neapolitan school was then only just
taking shape. In England he must have encountered the memory of
Purcell's career, which had ended 15 years before his arrival. Just prior
to his coming a few Italian operas had been given in London (M. A.
Bononcini's Camilla in 1706 and Almahide in 1710, Scarlatti's Pirro e
Demetrio in 1708, Mancini's Idaspe in 1710, G. B. Bononcini's Etearco in
1711), besides several nondescript pasticcios. At intervals afterward
various Italian composers were represented at London, usually in rivalry
to Handel, as Dom. Scarlatti (Narcisso, 1719), Porta (Numitore, 1720),
G. B. Bononcini (seven works, 1720-7), Ariosti (seven, 1723-7), Porpora
(four or more, 1733-5, '42), Hasse (a few from 1734), Galuppi (1741-3),
Lampugnani (1743-5), Gluck (1746) and Terradeglias (1746-7). The
predominating school in vogue was certainly the Neapolitan.
Granting whatever may be necessary for the bent given him
at Hamburg and in Italy and for the influence of his later conditions,
his development was mainly an independent one, guided
by his own desires and the possibilities of his public. He was
fortunate in choosing to work in England, where traditions were
unformed. This made it possible to deal freely with all forms
and to devise new ones. Hence he was able to be the founder
of a special English tradition which still continues. But his comparative
isolation kept his works from being widely known elsewhere
and delayed the full recognition of his genius.
